CBEC finally issues promotion order of 16 Commissioners; posting-cum-transfer order of 24 Chief Commissioners issued;

Commerce Minister releases First Draft Consolidation of all FDI Policy;

Anti-dumping duty on Import of Cathode Ray Colour Television Picture Tubes from Meridian Solar & Display Company of Korea: Govt orders provisional assessment during Review period;

Certificate of lower deduction or non-deduction of tax at source under Section 197 of Income Tax Act - matter reg;

Union Cabinet gives nod for amendment to Copyright Act + introduction of 'Maharatna' category for CPSEs + CCEA approves USD 400 mn FDI proposal of Jet Airways;

Indian corporate bribing foreign public officials: A few OECD tips for Indian taxmen;

Clearances to SEZ Developers from DTA need not suffer 10% payment in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCRs, 2004 - Commissioner;

Consult all stakeholders on participatory notes;

CBI registers case against three Drug Importers;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 24 dec.pdf + sez_order.pdf

Clearances to SEZ Developers from DTA need not suffer 10% payment in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCRs, 2004 – Commissioner;

cobweb.pdf

Indian corporate bribing foreign public officials: A few OECD tips for Indian taxmen;

edit.pdf

Consult all stakeholders on participatory notes;

FDI Regulatory Frameworks.pdf

Commerce Minister releases First Draft Consolidation of all FDI Policy

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1153.pdf

Commerce Minister releases First Draft Consolidation of all FDI Policy;

mbuzz1152.pdf

Union Cabinet gives nod for amendment to Copyright Act;

mbuzz1151.pdf

Cabinet okays introduction of 'Maharatna' category for CPSEs;

mbuzz1150.pdf

CBI registers case against three Drug Importers;

mbuzz1149.pdf

Chief Commissioners' promotion order: 'Best Board' lets down own officers again!

instruct0907.pdf

Certificate of lower deduction or non-deduction of tax at source under Section 197 of Income Tax Act - matter reg;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-33-ARA-IT.pdf + seismic story.pdf

Seabird Exploration FZ LLC (Dated: December 22, 2009)

Income Tax – Section 44BB – Applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of Dubai Technology and Media free Zone, Dubai and is a tax resident of UAE . – provides 2D seismic, gravity and magnetic data acquisition and on-board seismic data processing offshore India, in different survey areas of Western and Eastern Indian Offshore for ONGC - Though assessed to Income Tax, Applicant seeks Advance Ruling for the purpose of achieving uniformity and certainty in regard to the payment of tax.

The applicant contends that the seismic data acquisition and processing services are an integral part of the process of prospecting for, or extraction of mineral oil which includes petroleum and gas. Accordingly, it is contended that section 44BB of the Act has to be applied.

The Revenue contends that Section 44BB has no application for the reason that the income is in the nature of fees for technical services falling under section 9(1 )( vii) of the Act and the technical services rendered by the applicant are not covered by the exclusionary provision in Explanation 2 as they cannot be considered to be part of mining project. It is, therefore, submitted that fees for technical services has to be computed under section 44DA , but not section 44BB .

Held: based on its earlier Ruling in an identical case - in Geofizyka Torun Sp.Zo.o . Poland (AAR/813/2009) (2009-TIOL-31- ARA -IT) , in which Section 44BB , 9( i )(vii) and 44DA have been exhaustively dealt with along with the related case laws. The facts and questions raised in both the cases are identical and, therefore, there is no need to enter into further discussion on the legal issue. This Authority held in this case that section 44BB is attracted and the Revenue's contention has been rejected, the AAR held that the income earned by the applicant in India is covered under the provisions of 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.:ADVANCE RULING;

2009-TIOL-132-SC-IT-LB.pdf + heg story.pdf

CIT, Bhopal Vs M/s HEG Limited (Dated: December 3, 2009)

Income tax - Refund - Sec 244A - Assessee claims interest on interest payable on refund under Sec 244A - Revenue argues there is no such provision in the Income Tax Act which allows interest on interest as Sec 244A only speaks of simple interest - Tribunal and High Court allows the assessee's appeal - On further appeal to the Supreme Court - held,

++ that the total tax paid by the assessee has two components - TDS + tax paid after Original Assessment. Assessee was entitled to refund on the total sum, and the payment towards the same was made after 57 months;

++ that the assessee has claimed simple interest for delayed refund for 57 months in terms of Sec 244A, and this is certainly not a case where the assessee has sought interest on interest;

++ that the interest component will partake of the character of the "amount due" within the meaning of the words "refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee" in Section 244A.. It becomes an integral part of refund which is not paid for 57 months after the said amount became due and payable.That this is the case of short payment by the Department, and it is in this way that the assessee claims interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.

++ that the assessee is entitled to interest for 57 months, and the interest partakes the character of "amount due" under Section 244A.

(Observation of the Supreme Court: In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers.):SUPREME COURT (LARGER BENCH);

2009-TIOL-719-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

Ketan Construction Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: December 1, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 80IA(4) - Revenue issues show cause notice to disallow deduction - Assessee challenges the vire of insertion of Explanation to Sec 80IA(4) vide Finance No 2 Act, 2009 retrospectively from the year 2000 - seeks stay - held, Revenue can proceed with assessment or re-assessment but not to enforce any demand till dispoal of this appeal - stay not granted - case disposed off : GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-718-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

CIT, Faridabad Vs Smt Sita Devi Juneja (Dated: December 2, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 41(1) - AO makes addition on account of outstanding sundry credit balances by holding that liabilities have ceased to exist and have become liable to be treated as deemed income as per Explanation 1 to Sec 41(1) - CIT(A) and Tribunal disagree with the AO - held, the fact that these liabilites have been shown in the balance-sheet, it is an acknowledgment of the debts payable by the assessee. Merely because such liability is outstanding for the last six years, it cannot be presumed that the said liabilities have ceased to exist. It is also conceded position that there is no bilateral act of the assessee and the creditors, which indicates that the said liabilities have ceased to exist. In absence of any bilateral act, the said liabilities could not have been treated to have ceased. Invocation of Explanation 1 to Sec 41(1) is not sustainable in this case - Revenue's appeal dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-797-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Prime Focus Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 30, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 153A - Assessee renders post-production technical services like editing, graphics and special effects to TV and film industry - files return - subsequently a search u/s 132(1) is conducted at its premises and also the premises of its Directors - notice u/s 153A issued - AO makes additions on the basis of unaudited balance-sheets found at the premises - assessee argues that the inflated receipts in unaudited balance-sheet were prepared for the banking purposes - CIT(A) partly accepts the explanation and deletes the addition - held, the assessee had accounted for certain receipts for banking purposes albeit those were not recoverable - since there is no income received, it cannot be treated as undisclosed income - Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT;

Order 271 of 2009.pdf

CBEC finally issues promotion order of 16 Commissioners; posting-cum-transfer order of 24 Chief Commissioners issued;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-2109-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s ECOF Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: October 9, 2009)

Service Tax – Input service distributor – No restriction on distribution of input credit relating to one unit of a manufacturer/service provider to another unit of same manufacturer/service provider so long as conditions provided in Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are fulfilled – Impugned order not sustainable:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2108-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Pondicherry Vs Pondicherry Agro Services & Industrial Corpn Ltd (Dated: September 9, 2009)

Service Tax – Clearing and Forwarding Service - the assessees receive products already cleared by the manufacturer and do not undertake any clearance themselves – not taxable under Clearing and Forwarding Service.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2107-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Bharat Alloys & Energy Ltd, Kurnool Vs CC & CCE, Tirupathi (Dated: September 10, 2009)

Service Tax – Credit of service tax paid on outward freight eligible – LB decision in ABB Ltd & Ors 2009-TIOL-830-CESTAT-BANG-LB followed:BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-720-HC-AHM-CX.pdf + com story.pdf

Ms Inductotherm (India) Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: December 2, 2009)

Central Excise – Commissioner (Appeals) is bound by the order of the CESTAT, especially in the assessee's own case – High Court: GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-2113-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

GB Engineering Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: October 13, 2009)

Central Excise – classification – parts of windmills are covered under CET sub-heading 73.08 – exemption under Notification No 205/88 is not admissible during the period under dispute, i.e., prior to 16.3.95. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2112-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Raasi Refractories Ltd Vs CC, CCE & ST, Hyderabad (Dated: April 2, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation – Inclusion of performance guarantee bonus received from buyers in assessable value of refractory bricks – Bonus or penalty on basis of quality of goods not connected with sale price at time of removal, not includible in assessable value of final products – Impugned order has no merits, liable to be set aside :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2111-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: September 14, 2009)

Central Excise – valuation – Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil sold from the own outlets of the manufacturer – Since goods were also sold at the time and place of removal, value is required to be arrived under Rule 4 of the valuation rules.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_144.pdf

Anti-dumping duty on Import of Cathode Ray Colour Television Picture Tubes from Meridian Solar & Display Company of Korea: Govt orders provisional assessment during Review period;

dgft09not022.pdf

Prohibition on import of milk and milk products from China;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-721-HC-P&H-CUS.pdf + cus dismissal story.pdf

CCE, Gurgaon Vs M/s B E Office Automation Products Pvt Ltd (Dated: December 14, 2009)

Customs – Appeal without authorisation by Committee of Commissioners –cannot be cured after dismissal of appeal: after the dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal the defect could not have been removed. A perusal of the file shows that the Revenue has proceeded on the premises that on 2.2.2009 it has been given time to cure the defect by 9.2.2009 as the next date fixed is 18.2.2009. The aforesaid premise is factually incorrect as the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 2.2.2009. In any case once the fundamental element of formation of opinion of filing the appeal is missing then no appeal is deemed to be instituted in the eyes of law. Ordinarily, we do not non suit the Revenue for a procedural lapse but this case is of such a nature that lapses one after the other have been committed .: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-2110-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s GE India Industrial Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: September 7, 2009)

Customs – clearance of goods through RMS and mis-declaration – the appellant had not mentioned the second invoice inadvertently and requested for reassessment – no case for warranting confiscation and penalty under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. :CHENNAI CESTAT;