Taxing perquisites: CBDT leaves no room for any expenses to escape taxation (See Notification No 94/2009)

Priority Sector Lending: RBI clarifies on loans to housing finance companies

ACC approves three names for Member-post in Company Law Board - Mr U C Nahta, Mr Lizamma Augustine and B S V Prakash Kumar;

UN appoints Ombudsperson to deal with removal of names related to Al-Qaida and Taliban

India circulates concept paper on South Asian train service

Govt provides aid for installation of solar systems;

TIOL COMMENTARY

cbdt story.pdf

Taxing perquisites: CBDT leaves no room for any expenses to escape taxation;

RBI NOTIFICATION

RBI Notification For Priority Sector Lending.pdf

Priority Sector Lending: RBI clarifies on loans to housing finance companies ;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1136.pdf

India circulates concept paper on South Asian train service;

mbuzz1135.pdf

UN appoints Ombudsperson to deal with removal of names related to Al-Qaida and Taliban;

mbuzz1134.pdf

Govt provides aid for installation of solar systems;

NOTIFICATION

it09not094.pdf

Perquisites rules notified;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-786-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Anand & Anand Vs ACIT, New Delhi (India) Ltd ( July 17, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 32(1), 43(6)( c ) - assessee is a firm of advocates having its principal place of profession at a leased building - vacates the said leased premises and hands over the possession of the premises to the landlord together with all the additions or alterations made thereto by assessee by way of capital expenditure incurred thereupon - Assessee after adjusting the amount it receives towards the capitalized value of the leased premises against the opening amount of the WDV of the leased premises, writes off the balance amount in its accounts as 'assets written off' and claims short-term capital loss to that extent - AO disallows assessee's  claim of short-term capital loss and adjusted the shortfall against the aggregate WDV of Block of Assets of Building comprising of ( i ) building owned by the assessee and ( ii ) the capitalized expenditure incurred on leased premises, which have been treated as a building owned by the assessee vide Explanation 1 to section 32(1), and after considering the current year's depreciation on resultant WDV, a net addition made to the returned income shown by the assessee by disallowing the assessee's claim on account of assets written off - CIT(A) confirms AO action - Held, the action of the AO in disallowing the assessee's claim of deduction on account of difference between the individual WDV of the leased office structure and recovery made in respect thereof is justified. The AO is further justified in computing the depreciation on the opening WDV of block of assets comprising both building owned by assessee as well as lease office structure, which is deemed building owned by assessee, as adjusted by the additions and reductions provided in section 43(6)( c ). CIT(A) order confirming the order of the AO  upheld. Assessee's appeal dismissed.: DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-785-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s National Agricultural Cooperative (India) Ltd (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Income Tax-AO disallowed certain expenditure claimed by assessee on the ground that they are prior period expenditure-CIT(A) allowed assessee's appeal considering the consistent accounting policy followed by the assessee-Held, CIT(A) failed to give any reasoning for allowing assessee's appeal and the entire expenditure could not be allowed to the assessee by just considering accounting policy followed by the assessee in the past-Revenue's appeal partly allowed.: DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-2082-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Atul K Shah & Company Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: October 16, 2009)

ST - Assessee is a practising CA - fails to file service tax return and also deposit tax - once Revenue points out the same, tax with interest is paid - penalty imposed - assessee argues he was not aware of change in date of tax payment from 25 th of the month to 5 th of the month - held, delay in payment may be attributed to ignorance about the change in date of payment and waiver from penalty can be granted but there is no justification for not filing return - penalty under Sec 77 is upheld: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2081-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Shri Sudesh Sharma Vs CCE, Ludhiana (Dated: September 24, 2009)

ST - BAS - Assessee is a commission agent - During 1.7.03 to 8.7.04 the service of commission agent was exempt - exemption notification is amended and made liable to tax - Revenue raises demand and levies penalty - assessee argues the outstandings receivable for the services provided prior to amendment not to be included in the sum made liable to tax - held, payment received for taxable services provided prior to the amendment cannot be brought under taxable sum - case remanded for quantifying the taxable amount:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-2084-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

District Food & Supplies Controller Ambala, Haryana Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: August 283, 2009)

Central Excise – Refund claim by the buyer of goods – limitation – the purchases have taken place in 1986 and the claim was filed in 1996 – protest, if any, made to the supplier cannot be treated as protest to the Department – refund claim rightly rejected as time barred.:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2083-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Super Spinning Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: July 3, 2009)

Central Excise – rebate of duty paid on inputs exported as such – refund is allowed - matter remanded.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-2080-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + pure story.pdf

M/s Pure & Cure Technology Vs CC (ACC & Import), Mumbai (Dated: November 23, 2009)

Reverse osmosis membrane by itself would not constitute water purification equipment – only complete equipment can claim benefit of ‘Nil' rate of duty under notfn 6/2007-CE – Pre-deposit ordered by CESTAT. : MUMBAI CESTAT;