CBEC notifies Customs exchange rates for November;

Union Cabinet gives nod for creation of post of Adviser for implementing Judicial Reforms;

Cabinet approves amendment in concept of 'minimum price' to 'fair and remunerative price' of sugarcane;

Cabinet sanctions Incentive bonus of Rs 50 on paddy + ONGC proposal to invest in oil wells in Myanmar;

CBDT gives additional charge of Vigilance to CCIT-IX M Sailo;

Opening of Diamond Dollar Accounts (DDAs) - Modification;

Cabinet gives nod to REC proposal for follow-on public offer;

Commerce Minister for better trade volumes among SAARC members ;

Govt to upscale investor education initiatives;

Kolkata DRI seizes Red Sander wood from export container heading for Dubai;

CBDT DG (Vigilance) A K Handa is appointed as Income Tax Ombudsman, Mumbai;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 29 oct.pdf

Provisional Anti-Dumping Duty imposed on Phosphorus Pentachloride – How about a Reminder Service?

cobweb.pdf

Govt for National Litigation Policy but what India needs is 'National Justice Management System'!

RBI NOTIFICATION

rbi09cir013.pdf

Opening of Diamond Dollar Accounts (DDAs) - Modification;

RBI Notifi for Rupee Export Credit.pdf

Interest Rate Ceiling on Rupee Export Credit;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0978.pdf

Cabinet gives nod to REC proposal for public offer;

mbuzz0977.pdf

Govt to upscale investor education initiatives;

mbuzz0976.pdf

Commerce Minister for better trade volumes among SAARC members;

2009-TIOL-667-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Shri Nagappa Nagaraj Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: April 17, 2009)

Income Tax - exemption u/s 54B - AO considers sale of agriculture land by the assessee as  "Adventure in the nature of trade" and  considers it as business income on the finding that neither the assessee holds land for agriculture purposes nor purchases  land for agriculture purpose and  deny exemption u/s. 54B - Held, stands partly allowed to the extent that the exemption u/s 54B would be available on the land so purchased, utilized for agriculture purpose as per the certificate obtained from RTC, Village Accounts etc not considered by the AO for the crops grown and sold there from. The agriculture income as has been returned by the assessee is to be accepted.

On the assessee returning loss from the convention hall as constructed by the assessee during the impugned A.Y, the AO tries to assess the cost of construction and denies the loss claimed ther from by holding that the expenses claimed for such loss include inauguration expenses, is in the nature of capital expenditure. The District Valuation Officer  submits report, working out the cost of construction - AO accepts cost by bringing to tax as unexplained investment in the construction of convention hall – CIT(A) upholds AO order - Held, AO to adopt the PWD rates on the plinth area rate method as considered by him on the basis of DVO report.

On the issue of expenditure on inauguration of convention hall - Held, the assessee is unjustifiably denied the claim of inauguration expenses which is directed to be deleted. Revenue Appeal dismissed and Assessee Appeal partly allowed.:BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-666-ITAT-BANG.pdf + bovis lend story.pdf

M/s Bovis Lend Lease (India) Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Bangalore (Dated: August 28, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 197 - India-Singapore DTAA - assessee enters into Management Services (MSA) Agreement with Singapore-based Group company - NOC u/s 197 issued - AO treats the payments as fees for technical services under Article 12 of DTAA - whether payments are reimbursment of costs, not taxable in India - whether payments made for rendering services in relation to day to day business operations is liable to TDS u/s 195:BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-665-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Ahmedabad Vadodara Express Co Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: August 31, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of NHAI, engaged in construction and maintenance of public highway which isdivided in three phases - Assessee does not charge depreciation on Expressway as the notification for Toll Fee collection was not received from Government of India despite the fact that it was capitalized and was put to use and later it charged depreciation on the same - AO holds  that commercial operations had not been started by the end of the relevant previous year and therefore no depreciation was allowable to the company - CIT(A) rejects assessee's claim - Held, what is relevant for claiming depreciation, is the date of set up of the assessee's business. In a manufacturing concern, the business could be said to be set up when the process of manufacture is ready to begin, when a substantial amount of raw material is purchased for being converted into a finished product and is possible that a business can be treated as set up even if there is a production of sub-standard and not easily saleable product - Held, in a project of this magnitude it is quite understandable that there could be small defects to which attention was drawn of the contractors and since defects are very minor in nature and do not in any way drag the date of setting up of business to the date of such rectification - Assessee's appeal allowed.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-664-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Technofab Engg Ltd (Dated: July 30, 2009)

Income Tax - AO makes disallowance on the ground that expenses are not supported by proper vouchers and documentary evidence - CIT(A) is of the view that AO  made the disallowance in a casual and cavalier manner without any basis - Held, assessee has produced vouchers and also filed all the details that were required, and the books of account were also regularly audited. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

CBDT Circular no. 14 dated 11-4-1955 - On the issue of direction of the CIT(A) to allow liability of interest although the same being not debited to the books of account and the said claim not made by filing a revised return - Held, it is well known principle that it is incumbent upon the AO to find out whether a particular income is assessable in a particular year and merely because the assessee wrongly includes the income in its income in a particular year, it does not confer any jurisdiction on the AO to tax the income in that year even though such income does not pertain to that year. In view of CBDT circular, CIT(A) order upheld. Revenue's appeal dismissed. :DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1739-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd (Dated: June 5, 2009)

Service Tax – CENVAT Credit – Outdoor catering service, rent-a-cab service, photography service are eligible as input services.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1738-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-II (Dated: July 15, 2009)

Service tax - Cenvat credit - Assessee makes payment to commission agent for procuring orders from foreign buyers - Commission paid reimbursed by the foreign buyer - Revenue raises demand - to buy peace during adjudication, assessee pays tax from Cenvat account - Revenue denies credit to assessee as assessee is not a provider of output service - held, since the assessee is prevented from further using cenvat account, pre-deposit is not called for hearing the case:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1737-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Allahabad Vs M/s Ashok Singh Academy (Dated: August 28, 2009)

ST - Commercial Coaching & Training Service - Taxable service notified from 1/7/2003 - Assessee receives advance payment - claims such sum is not taxable - held, since the advance payment is for the service to be provided after the date the taxable service is notified, the tax is leviable on such a sum - Revenue's appeal allowed:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1743-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + hpcl story.pdf

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-II (Dated: October 6, 2009)

Even though the order states that failure to make the pre-deposit within the stipulated period shall result in dismissal of appeal without further notice to them, it would not mean that without a formal order , appeal is considered to be dismissed if pre-deposit as per the order is not made:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1742-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Shivsagar Paper & Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Central Excise – Discharge of duty liability in CENVAT A/c consignment wise after forfeiture of deferred payment facility valid in terms of Larger Bench judgment in Nicholas Piramel (I) Ltd 2008-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-MUM-LB – Interest liable to be paid for defaults in payment of duty – Penalty equal to duty not leviable in such cases, reduced to Rs. 10,000 :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1741-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Gopal Iron & Steel Co (Gujarat) Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: June 8, 2009)

Central Excise – Fixation of duty liability of re-rolling mills – APC to be fixed based on actual production without entitlement of duty rate of Rs. 300/- per MT as claims filed by assessee pending before Commissioner as on date of judgment of Apex Court in Supreme Steel and General Mills case – Matter remanded to Commissioner to re-determine differential duty and assessee to discharge duty with interest – Penalty not imposable in these circumstances:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1740-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Coimbatore Vs Best Cotton Mills Ltd (Dated: May 21, 2009)

Central Excise – undervaluation of goods cleared to job workers – the assessee had filed declaration in terms of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 173 C regarding their marketing pattern – extended period not invokable as rightly held by the lower authority.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt09_158.pdf

Customs exchange rate for November notified;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1746-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + jcb story.pdf

M/s Manufacturing Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-I (Dated: June 9, 2009)

Order passed in Stay application by the CESTAT on an earlier occasion cannot be considered binding in nature as it does not law down any law – CESTAT orders pre-deposit of entire duty

Tribunal's further observations -

Mere arguments that the definition of capital goods had undergone remarkable changes are of no help unless the appellants are able to point out what are the changes in the meaning of capital goods, in comparison to the use of the said expression in Notification no. 123/81 dated 02.06.1981 and in what way it differs with the meaning assigned to the said terms during the period in dispute.

Prima facie no case having been made out by the appellants for the purpose of grant of total waiver in relation to the duty demand, pre-deposit ordered of duty.

Since there exists arguable point, pre-deposit of penalty waived.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1745-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: June 2, 2009)

Customs – valuation – demand of differential duty based on the allegation that the imported had suppressed the actual value - the appellants had declared in the invoice enclosed with the Bill of Entry that the goods under import did not involve remittance of foreign exchange, the price declared was for customs purpose and that the goods would be re-exported. There is sufficient disclosure of the fact that the import did not involve sale of the impugned goods and that the transaction was not of commercial nature between unrelated buyers – there was no mis-declaration or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - demand by invoking extended period is not sustainable.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1744-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CC, Chennai Vs M/s Punj Lloyd Limited (Dated: July 10, 2009)

Customs – exemption under Notification 21/2002 Cus. dt. 1/3/02 – the sub-contractor who availed the exemption has been specified in the agreement between NHAI and NKEL – exemption was rightly allowed by Commissioner (Appeals).:CHENNAI CESTAT;