India notifies concessional tariff regime with ASEAN & Korea; Also notifies new tariff framework under SAFTA;

New Decade belongs to BRIC countries, says Goldman Sachs;

Pride of India Expo attracts huge crowd;

Mineral production up by 8.25% in October, 2009;

On CBI tip-off Nepal Police arrests former Minister's son with FICN worth Rs 20 lakh;

TIOL RUN UP TO GST

gst story.pdf

Integrated GST - A way forward;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 4 jan.pdf

Customs – only Revenue for Uncle Sam!

ice cubes.pdf

Unlock tax and wealth potential of Indian Railways;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1182.pdf

Pride of India Expo attracts huge crowd;

mbuzz1181.pdf

Mineral production up by 8.25% in October, 2009;

2010-TIOL-07-HC-ALL-IT.pdf + remand story.pdf

Smt Neeru Agarwal Vs UoI (Dated: December 18, 2009)

Income Tax - Settlement Commission cannot remand – After Settlement Commission passes an order no power vests in the assessing authority or any other authority to issue notice for the period and income covered under settlement – after passing of the order dated 31-3-2008 by the Settlement Commission, no power vests in the assessing authority or any other authority to issue impugned notice in respect of the period and income covered under the order of the Settlement Commission. In case of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, remedy is to approach the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission, by prara 7 of its order, has not and could not have empowered the income tax authorities to frame another assessment order, while settling the undisclosed income of the petitioner for the period covered by its order, in respect of investment in bonds etc.: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-06-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs Smt Tasneem Z Madraswala (Dated: December 7, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 263, 50C (2)(b) - Assesseee files return - scrutiny - CIT invokes powers u/s 263 and directs the AO to complete assessment following procedure given in Sec 50C(2)(b) - Tribunal sets aside the order - held, CIT cannot give direction to the AO to complete assessment in a particular manner - no infirmity in Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-05-HC-CHHATTISGARH-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Satyanaryan Agrawal (Dated: November 25, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 133A - A Survey conducted and excess stock found - AO makes addition for undisclosed investment - Tribunal disagrees with the AO - held, since both the lower authorities have accepted the assessee's explanation that the assessee's son was out of station and that is why book entry was not updated but the excess quantity was bought from traders and proper cash memo is available - no infirmity in Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-04-HC-KAR-IT.pdf

Children's Education Society Vs DCIT (Dated: December 1, 2009)

Income tax - TDS - Assessee is a registered society - runs an education institution - pays rent to building owners - fails to deduct tax at source - AO holds the society as assessee-in-default - Assessee argues it is a society and the same is not liable to TDS - also submits that the payees have already paid tax on the payments made and as per the Apex Court's decision in the Hindustan Coca Cola case if the payee has paid the tax, the payer cannot be subject to tax on the same income - held, AO to examine the case afresh in view the Apex Court decision:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-03-HC-KAR-IT.pdf

CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Wipro Systems (Dated: December 4, 2009)

Income tax - TDS - Assessee-employer pays attire allowance, club membership fee and travel accessories allowance to employees but fails to treat it as perquisites - Revenue for TDS - held, it is already decided by this court that the travel accessories are not perquisites as it is incidental to the work of the company. Club membership if taken in the name of the employee and the same is availed by the employee for personal use it is perquisite. But if it is taken in the name of the employee but is utilised for entertaining guests of the company for business promotion: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-16-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Ludhiana Vs M/s Akash Cable (Dated : November 13, 2009)

Service Tax – Cable operator service – Service tax paid before issue of SCN, interest amount paid and penalty of 25% also paid within one month of date of order of original authority – Waiver of penalty under s. 76 and penalty in excess of 25% under s. 78 justified – No reason to interfere with order of lower appellate authority:DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-15-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Lilason Breveries Ltd Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated : September 10, 2009)

Service Tax – GTA service – No liability on appellants when service tax is already paid by GTA himself

Service Tax – Adjustment of tax – Rule 6(3) of STR does not provide for adjustment of excess tax paid in the subsequent period towards short payment during earlier period – Penalty not leviable as issues involved interpretation of law:DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-14-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Shree Dharmabhakti Travels Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated : November 14, 2009)

Service Tax - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Rent-a-Cab operator service - supply of cabs to BSNL - whether taxable under Rent-a-Cab operator service - pre-deposit of 25% of the service tax demanded ordered as the matter is arguable: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-19-CESTAT-MAD-LB.pdf + bhuwalka story.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd (Dated : November 12, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – whether credit is admissible on the short received inputs - each case has to be decided according to merit and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for dealing with different kinds of shortages – the admissibility of credit has to be determined based on various factors like nature of the cargo, industry norms and minor variations due to weighment by different weigh bridges etc, but excluding unreasonable and exorbitant claims.: CHENNAI CESTAT (LARGER BENCH);

2010-TIOL-18-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

ACC, Visakhapatnam Vs M/s Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited (Dated : April 28, 2009)

Central Excise – Differential duty paid after finalization of cost data and price paid for clearance of goods cleared to sister concern – Payment of interest for such differential duty by raising supplementary invoice – Once assessee deposits voluntarily before issue of SCN confirmation of interest and penalty not warranted – No requirement to issue SCN in terms of Section 11A (2B) – Interference of impugned order not warranted : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-17-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Rajesh Textiles Industries Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated : June 22, 2009)

Central Excise – Clearance of 100% polyester fabric under guise of blended cotton fabrics – Duty demand and penalties confirmed in view of sufficient evidence on record to suggest fabrication of documents – Matter remanded to determine penalty aspect: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_153.pdf

India notifies concessional tariff regime with ASEAN;

ctariff09_152.pdf

Korean FTA - concessional tariff regime notified;

ctariff09_151.pdf

FTA with Korea: New duty exemption regime notified;

ctariff09_150.pdf

Import duty on 532 items imported from Singapore further reduced;

ctariff09_149.pdf

Concessional duty for textile items under SAFTA;

ctariff09_148.pdf

Govt further grants duty concessions under SAFTA;

DGFT PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft09pn027.pdf

Amendment in Para 4.7 of HBP v.1 2009-14;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-08-HC-DEL-CUS.pdf + cus story.pdf

Hardev Singh Dhillon Vs DRI (Dated: December 17, 2009)

Customs –smuggling of Gold – Opening the seals for publicity before media and resealing causes no prejudice to the accused - Conviction upheld: The drawing up of panchnma dated 10.10.1991 which was the display of the case property through the T.V. Media to the public at large was not a necessary fact which had to be put up before the sanctioning authority. It did not in any manner relate to the gist of the offence for which the petitioner was being charged; the gist of the offence being the recovery of 360 gold biscuits from the car of the petitioner; its subsequent recovery and seizure as described and detailed in the panchnama dated 9.10.1991 was what was relevant and was duly put up before the sanctioning authority. The sanction suffers from no infirmity.:DELHI HIGH COURT;