Q4 inching closer; It's time to plan your tax savings products ;

States agree to lower entertainment tax and also same being subsumed by GST;

Rs 299 Cr Conservation Plan of Dal Lake to be over by March 2010;

ICAR studies indicate rise in temperature to affect crops, fisheries, water resources;

PM to attend Climate Change Meet at Copenhagen on Dec 17-18; leaving for Russia today - three key defence agreements to be signed;

ACC approves CBEC Chief Commissioners' Panel of 17;

India needs to further ease grips over FDI to attract long-term investments: OECD Report;

Welfare schemes launched for employees of private security agencies;

CERC tightens norms for grant of power trading licence;

TIOL COMMENTARY

indranil article.pdf

Q4 inching closer; It's time to plan your tax savings products;

icecube.pdf

Indian tariff protection riddled with contradictions;

oecd story for india.pdf

India needs to further ease grips over FDI to attract long-term investments: OECD Report;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1092.pdf

CBDT approves Rs 96 for computerisation;

mbuzz1091.pdf

ICAR Studies indicate rise in temperature to affect crops, fisheries;

mbuzz1090.pdf

Rs 299 Cr Conservation Plan of Dal Lake to be over by March 2010;

mbuzz1089.pdf

States agree to lower entertainment tax and also same being subsumed by GST;

mbuzz1088.pdf

Welfare schemes launched for employees of private security agencies;

mbuzz1087.pdf

CERC tightens norms for grant of power trading licence;

2009-TIOL-756-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Shri Ashok M Mehta Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: April 29, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee, a prop of a firm, derives income from salary, warehousing charges, income from other sources and capital gain - files return –AO makes, on various counts, additions – CIT(A) partly allows assessee's Appeal but confirms disallowance of an adhoc amount out of salaries, conveyance & staff welfare expenses - Held, merely because in earlier years, no such payment had been made, cannot be a basis for making disallowance unless it is found that the payment claimed by the assessee is bogus. Non-stamping of vouchers cannot be a basis for making the disallowance if the payment is genuine. Ground allowed.

Section 36(1)(iii) and 14A r.w. Rule 8D - On the issue of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance being the interest on borrowings for the business purpose including investments with business motive claimed u/s. 36(1)(iii) - Held, issue remanded to the file of the AO to make the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D as per the decision of the of ITAT Mumbai (SB) in the case of Daga Capital Management,

On the issue of the proviso to Section 14A - Held, it is evident that for the assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2001, 147 proceedings cannot be taken for enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing liability of the assessee u/s. 147. Assessee ground allowed.:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-755-ITAT-BANG.pdf

ACIT, Bangalore Vs Smt Aarathi A Lad (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee, engaged in the execution of transaport contract, was unable to produce bills to support the authenticity of credits in the capital accounts and in respect of interest not shown on FD with some banks - AO made additions u/s 68 for unexplained credits and imposed penalty - CIT(A) deleted the penalty—Held, it is not necessary for the revenue to establish mens rea before imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held, explanation offered during the course of assessment proceedings or during the course of penalty proceedings has not been substantiated with any evidence, an adverse inference can be drawn and penalty is imposable - Revenue's appeal partly allowed. :BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1994-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Raval Trading Company Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: October 1, 2009)

ST - Commission Agent - Assessee was paying tax on BAS - also acted as Commission Agent for selling offset printing machines - Revenue fastens service tax liability and levies penalty - Assessee pays tax with interest but contests penalties - held, since the assessee was already paying tax under the BAS category, it can be presumed that he was not ignorant of the law - not a fit case for invocation of Sec 80 - Pre-deposit ordered :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1991-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Vinoram Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST, LTU Bangalore (Dated : May 28, 2009)

Service Tax – Services received from foreign company prior to 18/04/2006 not liable to service tax – Mumbai High Court decision in Indian National Shipowners Association 2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST followed – Impugned order set aside : BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1995-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Doaba Alco Chemicals Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated: May 19, 2009)

Central Excise – Refund of amount re-credited to CENVAT A/c to be paid in cash due to closure of factory – Matter remanded to original authority to grant refund in cash as and when RC is surrendered: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1993-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Story Navin Clearing.pdf

Navin Clearing & Forwarding Agency Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated : October 9, 2009)

Suspension of CHA's licence by Commissioner of Customs(General), NCH is illegal – CESTAT grants out-of-turn hearing. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1992-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Marathwada Spun Pipes Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated : July 27, 2009)

Penalty under rule 173Q imposable for period prior to 28.09.1996 and u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 for the period thereafter – Commissioner(A) not imposing any penalty u/s 11AC is improper hence matter remanded for the limited purpose of determining the quantum of penalty – No mistake in final order of Tribunal - ROM application dismissed. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-655-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + fine story.pdf

CC (Import), Mumbai Vs Finesse Creation Inc (Dated: August 25, 2009)

Customs – No redemption fine if goods are not available for confiscation: the concept of redemption fine arises in the event the goods are available and are to be redeemed. If the goods are not available, there is no question of redemption of the goods. Under Section 125 a power is conferred on the Customs Authorities in case import of goods becoming prohibited on account of breach of the provisions of the Act, rules or notification, to order confiscation of the goods with a discretion in the authorities on passing the order of confiscation, to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. Such an order can only be passed if the goods are available, for redemption. The question of confiscating the goods would not arise if there are no goods available for confiscation nor consequently redemption. Once goods cannot be redeemed no fine can be imposed. The fine is in the nature of computation to the state for the wrong done by the importer/exporter. : BOMBAY HIGH COURT;