Govt directs commodity exchanges to declare foreign investment upto Sept, 2009;

Gift in kind above Rs 50,000 becomes taxable from tomorrow;

Mr Krishan Gopal Bansal of 1974 batch & Mr N L Kalra of 1976 batch are no longer IRS officers; They become confirmed AMs of ITAT;

Gram Nyayalayas Act to come into effect from Friday;

Guidelines for Foreign investment in Commodity Exchanges;

India, Denmark sign MoU on labour mobility;

Govt releases guidelines for sustaining Himalayas Ecosystem;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 30 sept.pdf

Vigilance Awareness Week – November 03 to 07;

stgst.pdf

Special Economic Zones and Service Tax;

spl down.pdf

Unjust enrichment and tax retention;

PRESS NOTES

pn7_2009.pdf

Guidelines for Foreign investment in Commodity Exchanges;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0897.pdf

Govt directs commodity exchanges to declare foreign investment upto Sept, 2009;

mbuzz0896.pdf

Gram Nyayalayas Act to come into effect from Friday;

mbuzz0895.pdf

India, Denmark sign MoU on labour mobility;

mbuzz0894.pdf

Govt releases guidelines for sustaining Himalayas Ecosystem;

cbdt_press_release.pdf

Gift in kind above Rs 50,000 becomes taxable from tomorrow;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-519-HC-RAJ-IT.pdf + settlement story.pdf

CIT, Jaipur Vs Anil Hastkala Pvt Ltd & Anr (Dated: August 13, 2009)

Income Tax – Settlement Commission passed orders without hearing and examination of records to meet the deadline of 31/3/2008 – cases to go back to Settlement Commission and not Assessing Officers – amounts already deposited not to be refunded: S.245 -D)4) casts an obligations upon settlement commission to examine the records, report of Commissioner (IT) if any, and afford opportunity of hearing to the assessee & Commissioner (IT) either in person or through representative duly authorised in this behalf, and after examining such further evidence as having been placed before it or obtained by Commission, may in accordance with the IT Act, pass such order as it thinks fit. In instant bunch, from a bare perusal, it clearly manifest that observations made therein speak volumes about procedure having been adopted by settlement commission in deciding applications under orders impugned as the Commission specifically observed that it is impracticable to examine the records & investigate the cases for proper settlement and even opportunity of hearing as contemplated U/s 245-D (4) is also not practicable; but since this Court directed Commission to pass order before 31/03/08, at its own assessed the undisclosed income of applicants for being taxed, as is almost self same verbatim in all the orders impugned. The orders passed by settlement commission in the bunch of petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. However, matters are remitted back to the respective settlement commission benches to decide applications of assessees filed U/s 245-C after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and after due compliance of S.245 -D(4) of the Act may pass fresh orders in accordance with law. :RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-594-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Shri Rajan Nanda Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: May 15, 2009)

Income Tax - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee is chairman of two corporate bodies - companies pay certain sums to the assessee for payment of premium towards keyman insurance policy of the LIC - assessee takes policies of the sum less than the payments made - assessee also does not declare the same in his income - AO considers  that the policies on which huge amounts are  paid as premia, are  assigned in favour of assessee on payment of nominal amount in the immediately succeeding year. It is further held that this is a colourable device to pass on benefit to the assessee, which is not shown by assessee for the purpose of taxation. Therefore, the amount paid by the company before assignment as reduced by the amount paid by the assessee to the company for assignment is taken as income and further held that  the amount  received by the assessee on maturity of the  policy taken from LIC as a keyman insurance policy and initiated the Penalty proceedings for non-inclusion of the aforesaid income in the total income of  the assessee - CIT(A) upholds penalty - Held, the issue whether any thing was left for taxation at the time of receipt is a matter of considerable debate and discussion. In view of the decisions of Delhi High Court, the explanation tendered by the assessee was bona fide notwithstanding the fact that sketchy disclosure was made in the return of income. The whole question has to be seen under Explanation-I with a view to examine whether the explanation was bona fide and adequate disclosure was made to arrive at the correct total income. As the whole issue is beset with controversy about the taxation of the amount assesseee, Assessee's Appeal allowed.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-593-ITAT-MUM.pdf

DDIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors BV (Dated: August 21, 2009)

Income tax - Sections 147/148 - Assessee is a non-resident company, engaged in dredging operations in India - claims depreciation on exported / re-exported plant and machinery - AO disallows - CIT(A) deletes the additions - held, issue is no longer res integra as it is settled in favour of the assessee - Revenue's appeal dismissed :MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-592-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Arya Offshore Services Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: May 20, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 32(1) - Assessee takes office premises on lease - claims deduction for various expenses incurred on renovation and furnishing of the office - AO disallows on the ground that none of the expenses were incurred for preservarion and maintenance of the existing assets and new assets like furniture were created - depreciation allowed - CIT(A) agrees with the AO - held, it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Star India that the Explanation 1 to section 32(1) would apply only if the expenditure per se is capital in nature and is incurred on construction for improvement, renovation or extension of the building taken on lease. And an expenditure can be termed as capital expenditure if it is brings into the existence a new asset of enduring nature. Expenditure incurred on repair of existing assets cannot be called expenditure as in such cases no new assets can be said to have come into existence - issue remanded for fresh examination :MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1548-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + st story.pdf

M/s V S Distributors Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: July 20, 2009)

Service Tax - Activity of receipt, storage and sale of goods on commission is not covered by the definition of C&F Agent's service: the activity of mere sale of goods on behalf of the Principal, would not be covered by the definition of C&F Agent's service. The C&F Agents are involved in movement/distribution of the goods as per their Principal's directions and sale of goods or procuring orders for sale of goods on behalf of their principals is not their main activity, while a Commission Agent, covered by the definition of " Business Auxiliary Service " is involved in causing sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person for a consideration.:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1547-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Pan Asia Corpn Vs CCE, Mumbai-II (Dated: July 7, 2009)

Commission service (BAS) is an input service covered under rule 2(1) of CCR, 2004 - Cenvat credit is admissible - Appeal allowed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1546-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Kamani Oil Industries Vs CCE, Mumbai (Dated: July 10, 2009)

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on mobile telephone service denied on basis of Board Circular 59/8/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 – In the absence of any express prohibition under the new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 , following Tribunal decision in Indian Rayon Industries Ltd. [ 2006-TIOL-1152-CESTAT-MUM ] credit allowed - use of mobile phone for business purpose - appeal allowed with consequential relief.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1545-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: July 10, 2009)

Central Excise – exemption – denial of exemption under Notification 67/95 on the ground that clinker, used in the manufacture of Cement is cleared to SEZ – prima facie case for waiver of pre deposit. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1544-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Nagpur Vs M/s KEC International Ltd (Dated: July 22, 2009)

Prototype towers accounted in RG1 register and cleared without payment of duty under job work challan was known to the department - bonafides of the assessee established – No mens rea involved hence section 11AC not applicable - Revenue appeal rejected.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1543-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Nagpur Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd (Dated: July 30, 2009)

Claim of refund due to lower sale value of goods at depots than the assessable value at factory – Originally claim rejected holding that the assessments were not provisional – CESTAT vide order dated 29.05.07 held assessments provisional – in later proceedings Commissioner(A) remanding matter without jurisdiction – Original authority to take fresh decision – Matter remanded.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft09not012.pdf

DGFT further amends Import Licensing Note for marble import;

CIRCULAR

dgft09cir008.pdf

Guidelines for import of Rough Marble Blocks/Slabs for the year 2009-10;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-520-HC-DEL-COFEPOSA.pdf + cofeposa story.pdf

Smt Malini Mukesh Vora Vs UoI (Dated: July 3, 2009)

COFEPOSA - preventive detention is not punishment for a past wrong; only a means to detain a person from continuing with his prejudicial activities in future; It could be said that the passage of time between the date of the detention order and its execution was the result of the proposed detenu avoiding arrest and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. But, we must remember that preventive detention is not by way of punishment for a past wrong and is only a means to detain a person from continuing with his prejudicial activities in the future for a specified length of time. What the proposed detenu has done in the past cannot be washed away and if the allegations against him are established in the judicial / quasi-judicial proceedings, he shall have to suffer the consequences thereof.

Detention order passed in 2001, not yet executed, lost its relevance; The fact that he has been declared a proclaimed offender also does not get washed away. He has tried to avoid the due process of law and that is something for which he will have to suffer the consequences. But, this does not mean that he has to be detained so as to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities when there is no evidence of his having indulged in any such activity for over seven years.

High Court can entertain writ at pre-detention stage; this writ petition is maintainable even at the pre-execution stage coupled with the fact that in the passage of over eight years since the passing of the detention order, there is no evidence on record of any prejudicial activity on the part of the proposed detenu Mr Mukesh Vora , in itself is sufficient for us to conclude that the detention order has lost its relevance today.

Government cannot be penalised for the folly of their counsel: First of all, we do not understand as to how such a remark could be made. There is no question of having placed or not placed any reliance on the documents because the judgment was then yet to be delivered. All the material which was placed by the counsel for the parties before the Court has been seen and examined, where is the question of relying or not relying upon documents? It is unfortunate that such submissions are made in writing. In any event, we cannot penalize the respondents for the folly of their counsel :DELHI HIGH COURT;