Cabinet gives nod to setting up of Law Commission + National Policy on Disaster Management + Amendment for reserving 50% seats for women in urban local bodies;

DGFT amends import policy of wild animals + mobile handsets + rough marble slabs;

GST White Paper all set to be unveiled on Nov 10 but will it really demystify it? (See 'Cob(Web)

CCEA approves proposal for development of Leather Park;

Companies not filing annual reports and balance-sheets; MCA Secy asks ROCs to take action;

FIPB approves 26 FDI proposals worth Rs 1360 Crore;

Climate-friendly technologies are global public goods: PM;

Govt sets up Panel on road safety and traffic management ;

Congress all set to form Govt in Maharashtra & Haryana;

Climate Change: Developed world does little; greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, says UN;

Congress leading in assembly poll counting in all three States of Maharashtra, Haryana and Arunachal;

Manna Dey receives Dada Saheb Phalke Award 2007 from President of India;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 22 oct.pdf

Economic Outlook for 2009/10 - Government finances - an overview – our outstanding liability is a horrendous 77% of the GDP;

cobweb.pdf

GST White Paper all set to be unveiled but will it really demystify it?

RBI NOTIFICATION

RBI Notification for Short term crop loans.pdf

Union Budget – 2009-10 – Proposal for continuation of 2 per cent interest subvention scheme and 1 per cent additional incentive subvention for short-term crop loans in 2009-10;

fdi.pdf

26 FDI Proposals Approved;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0956.pdf

Union Cabinet approves amendment for 50% reservation of seats for women in urban local bodies

mbuzz0955.pdf

Cabinet okays National Policy on Disaster Management

mbuzz0954.pdf

Cabinet gives nod to setting up of Law Commission

mbuzz0953.pdf

Companies not filing annual reports and balance-sheets; MCA Secy asks ROCs to take action

mbuzz0952.pdf

Govt sets up Panel on road safety and traffic management;

mbuzz0951.pdf

Climate-friendly technologies are global public goods: PM;

mbuzz0950.pdf

Climate Change: Developed world does little; greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise;

2009-TIOL-651-ITAT-DEL.pdf + itat story.pdf

Triton Holdings Ltd Vs DCIT, Dehradun (Dated: August 13, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 10(10CC) - Appellant is an employer - pays tax on behalf of its expat employees - AO treats it as perquisite provided by way of non-monetary benefits, and holds that the same is taxable as part of salary income of expat employees - on the contrary, employees claim exemption u/s 10(10CC) for the tax payment made by the employer - whether tax borne by the employer companies on the perquisites would be subject to multiple grossing up or whether the same would be exempt under section 10(10CC) of the Act

AO does not accept the appellat's contention and holds that the tax paid for and on behalf of the employee is a perquisite, which is to be added to the income of the assessee on multiple stage grossing up. Appellant goes in appeal and conteds that the issue is already settled in favour of the employees by the Special Bench decision in the case of RBF RIG Corporation, LLC Vs. ACIT ( 2007-TIOL-442-ITAT-DEL-SB ). CIT(A) decides not to follow the Special Bench decision by holding that the intention of the legislature in introducing Sec 10(10CC) was in respect of those perquisites which required valuation prescribed in rule (3) whereas the tax perquisite does not need such valuation. There is no nexus between section 17(2)(iv) and section 10(10CC) of the Act.

Aggrieved employer goes in appeal to the Tribunal which has held that,

++ Tax paid by the employer in respect of salary paid to the employees would constitute non-monetary perquisite, eligible for exemption u/s 10( 10CC ) of the Act.

++ If CIT(A) had followed the order of the Special Bench, unnecessary and unwarranted appeal by the assessee could have been avoided.

++ No costs to be awarded as CIT(A) had not disregarded the Special Bench in order to harass the assessees and to cause any monetary loss.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-650-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: August 25, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 32(1)(ii) - Assessee is into the business of manufacturing and distribution of aerated and non-aerated beverages - claims depreciation on goodwill by treating it as intangible asset - AO makes inquiry - Assessee furnishes details of intangible assets like marketing and trading reputation, trading style and name, marketing and distribution territorial knowhow and information of territory - AO then allows the claim and passes the order - CIT invokes its revisonary powers and disallows the same on the ground that no depreciation is admissible on goodwill - held, goodwill is not specifically excluded from the intangible assets eligible for depreciation. Even if an asset is described as goodwill but it fits in the description of Section 32(1)(ii), depreciation is to be granted on the same. The true basis of depreciation allowance is the character of the asset and not its description. The invocation of powers u/s 263 is devoid of merits and thus not sustainable - Assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-649-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Smt Rajalakshmi Sriram Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: March 24, 2009)

Income Tax Act – VRS – Section 10(10C) and Relief u/s 89(1) - assessee took voluntary retirement from UTI Asset Management Co. P. Ltd. (UTI AMC) on 31.10.2003 under the Voluntary Separation Scheme - "A" (VSS-A) and relieved from the services of the company on 28.11.2003. She received an ex-gratia on her retirement under the above said VRS. Thereafter, she joined UTI Investor Services Ltd. (later named as UTI Technology Services Ltd (UTI TS) on contract from 08.12.2003. She discontinued her new assignment from August 2004 - AO noticed that the assessee has been reemployed by the UTI TS on contractual payment which she offered under the head business or profession accordingly he was of the opinion that the deduction under section 10(10C) is not allowable to the assessee. Further the A.O. also did not consider the claim of relief under section 89(1) on the amounts received by the assessee and the income received from UTI TS on contractual services rendered was also considered as salary income and accordingly brought to tax under the head 'Salary income' – Held,

(a) on facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be considered that assessee was reemployed in another company of the same management;

(b) It is difficult to lay down any one text to distinguish the relationship of master and servant from that of an employer and independent contractor. In many cases the test laid down is that in the case of master and servant, the master can order or require what is to be done and how it is to be done but in the case of an independent contractor an employer can only say what is to be done but not how it shall be done. The reemployment given to assessee even though on contract basis has to be considered in the light of the above. The income received by assessee can only be considered under the head 'Salary'.

(c) the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 89(1) in relation to ex-gratia received by the assessee under the voluntary retirement scheme as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Devidas Kulkarni ( 2007-TIOL-207-HC-MUM-IT ).:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-648-ITAT-PUNE.pdf

Piaggio Vehicle Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Pune (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 32(1)(ii) - Assessee claims depreciation on leasehold rights as intangible assets - AO allows but CIT invokes powers u/s 263 - held, merely because the AO has not discussed the legality of claim it does not mean that the AO has not applied his mind to the detailed submissions filed by the assessee and the fact that the similar depreciation was allowed in the previous AYs - CIT decision to invoke powers u/s 263 is nto sustainable - Assessee's appeal allowed:PUNE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-647-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Mphasis Software & Services (India) P Ltd Vs CIT, Bangalore (Dated: July 10, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 10A - Assessee is into exports of software development services - reduces expenses incurred in foreign currency from exports turnover as well as total turnover - CIT invokes powers u/s 263 on the ground that the Revenue is in appeal before the High Court on this issue - held, issue is no longer res integra as it is settled in favour of the assessee - Assessee's appeal partly allowed:BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1689-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Indian Institute Of Chemical Technology Vs CCE,CC & ST, Hyderabad (Dated: May 19, 2009)

Service tax – In the absence of suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of service tax, service tax demand invoking extended period not sustainable – As demand is set aside on limitation no finding given on items classified under grant-in-aid category by assessee :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1688-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Selvakumar Spinners Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: July 17, 2009)

Service Tax – Goods Transport Agency Service – CENVAT Credit utilisation for payment of Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency Service is admissible.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1687-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Mangalore Vs SGS India (Pvt) Ltd (Dated: May 13, 2009)

Service tax - Services provided for inspection and certification of construction work leviable to tax under Technical Inspection and Certification service and not under Consulting Engineer Service - No infirmity in impugned order:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1686-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s BSBK Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: August 17, 2009)

Service tax – Eligibility of abatement under Notification 1/2006-ST for Commercial Construction Service – Nexus of input service -output service not examined in detail before denying abatement – Matter referred to Commissioner for clarity on order passed specifically on utilization of input service credit for their liability against Consulting Engineer Service:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1692-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad-II (Dated: July 30, 2009)

Central Excise – Reversal of input credit for inputs consumed in expired pharmaceutical products subsequently destroyed – Rule 3 (5C) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 not applicable retrospectively – Refund claim to be allowed in view of Larger Bench decision in Grasim Industries case 2007-TIOL-135-CESTAT-DEL-LB: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1691-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Finolex Cables Ltd Vs CCE, Pune (Dated: August 4, 2009)

Whether Cenvat inputs as such are allowed to be exported from factory under bond/LUT or they must be necessarily exported only after reversal of pro-rata credit under rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 – CBEC Manual, Chapter 5, paragraph 3.4 allows such clearance – Strong prima facie case – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1690-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Ennore Foundries (Dated: July 6, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – Credit is admissible on inputs used for manufacture of parts of capital goods used within the factory – credit cannot be denied on the ground that the parts manufactured are exempted under Notification 67/95 CE.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1685-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + cestat story.pdf

Mukand Ltd Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated: September 17, 2009)

10% amount paid under rule 6(3)(b) and collected from customers has to be added to the price to arrive at the liability under the CCR, 2004 – CESTAT upholds demand.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft09not015.pdf

Policy for issue of import licences of Rough Marble Blocks/Slabs, w.e.f . 1 st October, 2009 .

dgft09not014.pdf

Import policy of “Mobile Handsets”.

dgft09not013.pdf

Import Policy of wild animals (including their parts and products).

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-566-HC-DEL-CUS.pdf + hc story.pdf

Aman Medical Products Ltd Vs CC, Delhi (Dated: September 16, 2009)

Customs – Non filing of appeal against assessed bill of entry does not bar assessee from claiming excess duty paid as refund in terms of Section 27 (1)(ii) of Customs Act – Matter remanded to original authority to examine merits of claim by following principles of natural justice:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1684-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Customs – Return of goods procured against CT3 by 100% EOU when found effective governed by provisions of Para 6.17 (c) and not Para 6.15 of FTP HBP Vol I – Revenue has applied wrong provision for demand of duty – Prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit:BANGALORE CESTAT;