TDS - lower deduction or non-deduction certificate - CBDT Instructions;

Na Nar na nari? Narayan Dutt Tiwari?

Compliance with Cigarettes Packaging & Labelling Rules: CBEC asks Customs to enforce it even for imported packs;

Enough liquidity in market - no chances of hike in interest rate in next six months: SBI;

India, Japan resolve to speed up Economic Partnership Agreement;

CBDT grants NFSG benefits in higher administrative grade to 126 officers;

India, ASEAN to hold talks on services trade in January;

Mr E S L Narasimhan is new Governor of Andhra Pradesh;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 29 dec.pdf

Improving Quality of Assessments - CBDT's New Year Resolution;

guest column.pdf

CBDT Notification on perquisites: Perks are no light Munch;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1164.pdf

India, Japan resolve to speed up Economic Partnership Agreement ;

CBDT Order.pdf

CBDT grants NFSG benefits in higher administrative grade to 126 officers;

INSTRUCTION

instruct0906.pdf

Scheme for improving quality of assessments - regarding;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-134-SC-IT-LB.pdf

CIT, Nagpur Vs Baba Saheb Kedar G & P Coop. Society Ltd (Dated: December 3, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 80P(2)(e) - Assessee is a registered society - engaged in ginning and pressing of cotton for State Cooperative Cotton Market Federation - receives income by way of ginning and pressing charges - under the agreement, assessee also provides godowns for storage of bales by its members - AO treats 50% of income as rental from godown on ad hoc basis

whether the income earned by the assessee is a composite charge - held, Revenue has failed to take a number of factors into account like the provisions of Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories Act, 1925, the expenditure towards labour charges etc and attributed 50% charges towards rental income on ad hoc basis - since remitting the case will not help at this stage, Revenue ordered to adopt the principle of proportionality to allocate the rental income in the composite charges for future Assessment Years - Revenue's appeal allowed:SUPREME COURT (LARGER BENCH);

2009-TIOL-727-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + nri story.pdf

Sitaldas K Motwani Vs DGIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 15, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 119(2)(b), 115C - condonation of delay for refund claim - Assessee is a Hong Kong-based NRI - makes investment in shares of Indian companies through NRE Account and makes short-term capital gains - concerned bank deducts tax at source @ 30% - assessee files return claiming short-term capital gains qualify to be investment income u/s 115C and are taxable @ 20% - claims refund - Prior to filing this delayed return, assessee had never filed any return - condonation of delay application u/s 119(2)(b) - Revenue rejects the same, following the Board's Instruction No 13/2006 - Writ filed - held,

++ the phrase 'genuine hardship' used in Section 119(2)(b) should be construed liberally. The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merit.

++ Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

++ When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

++ There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides . A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-726-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Spic Limited (Dated: December 7, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 32 - Assessee claims depreciation on standby spare parts - Since spare parts were not used during the year, AO disallows it - Tribunal allows the appeal - held, Tribunal has followed the dictum decided under I-T Act, 1922, and there is no infirmity in the Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-725-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs Subbu Shashank (Dated: December 7, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 144, 143(2) - Assessee is a flute artist - claims to be non-resident for the relevant AY as he stayed outside India for 181 days - Revenue assesses income by including the foreign income to the declared income as assessee fails to provide evidence to his foreign stay - CIT(A) and Tribunal allow assessee's appeal as Revenue fails to prove that the notice u/s 143(2) was served on the assessee - held, since the Revenue fails to show that Sec 143(2) notice was served within limitation, Revenue's appeal rejected.:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-724-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

Madras Cricket Club Vs ITO, Chennai (Dated: November 30, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 147 - Assessee is a club, set up to promote social interaction among its members and their families - claims its entire income is not liable to tax as it is mutual in character - AO invokes powers u/s 147 - makes addition for income earned from fixed deposits with banks - Tribunal agrees with the AO - held, since the bank is not a member of the club, the income generated out of FDs with banks does not qualify for exemption - Assessee's appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Universal Travels (Dated: September 9, 2009)

Service Tax – Services provided by one constituent of a HUF to other constituents of HUF not taxable – Service tax authorities having issued a single registration to HUF cannot regard constituents of HUF as separate entities and levy tax – No infirmity in order of Appellate Commissioner – CESTAT decision in Precot Mills Ltd 2006-TIOL-818-CESTAT-BANG followed :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2131-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated: October 12, 2009)

Availment of cenvat credit of service tax paid on scientific & consultancy service received on account of certification of pollution level at factory - credit denied for reason that the supplier was not covered under that service hence confirmation of demand with interest and penalty - Applicant relies on CCE, Mumbai vs. Anand Arc Electrodes Pvt. Ltd . 2009-TIOL-1560-CESTAT-MUM where CESTAT observed that the buyer had no responsibility to check correctness of duty paid by the consignor and as long original assessment remains, no credit can be denied.

Strong prima facie case in favour of applicant – grant of waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and stay recovery till pendency of the appeal. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2130-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE (ST), Pondicherry Vs Aurore Trust (Dated: September 17, 2009)

Service tax – adjustment of Service tax already paid in respect of non taxable service – revenue's objection to such adjustment by referring to Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 is not sustainable as the said rule is applicable only to taxable services.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-2129-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + related story.pdf

M/s Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Surat (Dated: December 1, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation – jobwork by related person – Rule 8 (110% of the cost) read with Rule 11 applicable – assessee paid more duty, agrees to forfeit consequential benefit as they only want to get rid of this duty demand: It is held that in the instant case, the valuation is to be done as per Rule 8 (i.e. 115% of cost of resin + manufacture of duct). Accordingly, the value arrived is much lower than the assessable value on which the duty has already been paid by RIL on duct. At this stage, the learned advocate submitted that although the duty has been paid in excess, but the appellants shall not claim any consequential relief if their appeals are allowed on this ground. The appellants only want to get rid of this duty demand. Impugned order set aside on this ground that the appellants are related persons and the correct formula for arriving at the assessable value is Rule 8 (i.e. 115% of cost of resin and cost of manufacture of duct). As the appellants have already paid the excess duty, they shall not be entitled for any consequential relief as submitted by the learned advocate during the course of arguments in appeal.:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2128-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs MRF Ltd (Dated: September 8, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation – Intermediate products – CAS4 – For valuation of the intermediate goods CAS4 standard can be applied even for the period prior to 13.02.03. Submissions made before the lower appellate authority is required to be verified as the same were not made before the original authority. Matter remanded. (Para 4):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2127-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE & CC, Aurangabad Vs M/s Herbal Remedies (I) Ltd (Dated: October 14, 2009)

Enhancement of penalty to mandatory equal penalty under Section 11AC sought by relying on Dharamendra Textile Processors – 2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB - Lower Appellate Authority's observation that non-payment/reversal of cenvat credit was due to financial problems not involving any suppression of facts is not challenged in appeal hence issue of penalty under Section 11AC does not arise.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-2126-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Goa Vs D-Link (India) Ltd (Dated: September 29, 2009)

Manufacture of dutiable and exempted products by availing cenvat – respondent did not pay 10% amount under 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004 relying on SC decision in Orissa Extrusions [ 2002-TIOL-240-SC-CX ] but later on paid by following SC decision in Amrit Paper [ 2006-TIOL-85-SC-CX ] - no cause for payment of interest as no intention to evade duty by suppression or mis-statement – P&H HC decision in Maruti Udyog Ltd. – 2006-TIOL-308-HC-P&H-CX relied upon – SC decision in SKF India 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX not applicable to facts of case – Revenue Appeal dismissed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

INSTRUCTION

Instruction.pdf

Compliance with Cigarettes Packaging & Labelling Rules: CBEC asks Customs to enforce it even for imported packs;

DGFT PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft09pn026.pdf

List of authorised agencies; DGFT amends Appendix 4D;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-2125-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Nhava Sheva Vs Crest Chemicals (Dated: July 27, 2009)

Refund of CVD paid in excess - Section 149 of the Customs Act has no time limit fixed for amendment of any document - Rejection on the ground of finality of assessment order held improper by appellate authority relying on Tribunal decision in Senka Carbon Pvt. Ltd. [ 2007-TIOL-1155-CESTAT-MAD ] proper in law – Revenue appeal citing SC decision in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. [ 2004-TIOL-78-SC-CUS ] and Flock (India) Pvt Ltd. [ 2002-TIOL-208-SC-CX ] since not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case rejected. :MUMBAI CESTAT;