Tax evasion - Informer in UBS case - US Judge declines to consider lighter sentence despite repeated plea by IRS;

CBDT mops up Rs 66400 Crore in December;

Keyoor Bakshi elected President of International Federation of Company Secretaries for 2010;

Duty reduced on imports from Singapore; India-ASEAN FTA notified;

Applications invited for post of Adviser to IMF;

Tele-density grows to above 46% in 2009;

FM, Empowered Committee to meet on Friday - formal announcement of GST date postponement expected;

Pawar releases Drought Management Manual;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 5 jan.pdf

Duty reduced on imports from Singapore;

guest column.pdf

Service tax - Are services used in providing Repair entitled to exclude value of goods involved? What happens next?

CASE LAW + ANALYSIS

2010-TIOL-12-HC-DEL-FEMA.pdf + fera story.pdf

Standard Chartered Bank Vs Directorate Of Enforcement (Dated: December 18, 2009)

FERA - prior to 31.07.1995 there was no requirement that the deposits in NRE accounts could not be made by persons other than the NRE accounts holders themselves. For the subsequent period, that is after 31.07.1995, it is not in dispute that such deposits could only be made by the account holder himself, in person.:DELHI HIGH COURT;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1186.pdf

Tele-density grows to above 46% in 2009;

mbuzz1185.pdf

CBDT mops up Rs 66400 Crore in December;

2010-TIOL-11-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Navix Lines (Dated: December 15, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 44B - Assessee is a shipping line - AO makes addition of demurrage charges received - held, issue is no longer res integra as demurrage charges received by the assessee are to be included in the assessee's income as per the Explanation to Sec 44B inserted with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976 - Revenue's appeal allowed:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-10-HC-HP-IT.pdf

CIT, Shimla Vs Shri Janak Raj Bansal (Dated: November 25, 2009)

Income Tax - Deduction u/s 80IA/80IB - On the basis of Apex Court decision in M/s Lucky Minmat case, the Tribunal holds that converting limestone into limestone powder is a manufacturing activity and income derived from such activity is thus eligible for deduction u/s 80IA/80IB - Held, the observation of the Supreme Court cannot be termed to be ‘obiter dicta' since the Supreme Court has held that the process of conversion of limestone into lime and lime dust is a manufacturing process. Revenue's appeal dismissed.:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-09-HC-HP-IT.pdf

CIT, Shimla Vs Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd (Dated: December 9, 2009)

Income tax - TDS - Sec 201, 201(1A) - Assessee runs a hydro-electric power project - State Govt acquires some land for the project - Assessee pays compensation and interest but fails to deduct TDS - AO raises demand after four years - Assessee pleads demand is time-barred - Revenue argues there is no limitation period for recovering tax u/s 201 and 201(1A) in the I-T Act - held, it is well settled law that even if no period of limitation is prescribed in the Act, the statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable period. Such period has been held to be four years in the case of Income Tax. Since the demand is raised beyond four years period, it is not sustainable - Revenue's appeal dismissed:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-08-ITAT-MAD-TM.pdf + tm story.pdf

M/s Mascon Global Ltd Vs ACIT, Chennai (Dated: October 23, 2009)

Income Tax – Deduction of Interest paid on US withholding tax – Additional Grounds admitted and matter remanded: the taxes paid by the assessee are not Indian taxes. The assessee has some activities in USA in the course of which it had to make payments to its employees there. From these payments the assessee was required by the US Tax Laws to deduct taxes. These are called "withholding taxes" in USA, which is the equivalent of "tax deducted at source" in India. The assessee is a custodian on behalf of the Government of USA and the taxes withheld will have to be remitted to that Government by a specified date. If it is not so remitted and there is a delay, interest is payable for the delay.

Held: the AM had rightly admitted additional grounds and rightly remanded the matter to the CIT for fresh consideration and decision.: CHENNAI ITAT (THIRD MEMBER);

2010-TIOL-07-ITAT-AHM.pdf

ACIT, Ahmedabad Vs Precision Drilling (Cyprus) Ltd (Dated: September 17, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 271(1)(c), 44BB - Assessee is a Cyprus-based company - also an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Canada-based Drilling company - revises return - Scrutiny - AO makes disallowances and additions - also imposes penalty by rejecting the explanation furnished - CIT(A) finds that the assessee has furnished detailed explanation for claiming deduction disallowed by the AO - deletes penalty - held, merely because some disallowances are made, penalty cannot be made. When penalty is levied, the onus to prove that no information was concealed, shifts on the assessee and the assessee in this case has successfully rebutted the charge levied - CIT(A) order upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT;

DEPUTATION POST

office_memorandum.pdf

Applications invited for post of Adviser to IMF;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-27-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + ismt story.pdf

M/s ISMT Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Aurangabad (Dated : December 17, 2009)

Garden Maintenance services – Apex Court in Maruti Suzuki [2009-TIOL-94-SC-CX] has only considered the word 'input' and there is no finding with regard to ‘input service' - A good garden creates a better atmosphere and environment which increases the working efficiency – Cenvat Credit available – CESTAT.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-26-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Wazir Singh Swaran Singh Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated : November 11, 2009)

Service Tax - refund - limitation - service tax deposited during investigation and refund claim filed after favourable order - claim not hit by limitation as show cause notice itself treated the amount paid as deposit - The amount deposited if appropriated by the order of the original authority then only on that day, it can be treated as having been paid - refund not hit by limitation - Commissioner's revision order is set aside.: DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-21-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Wasp Pumps Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai (Dated : October 15, 2009)

Delay in payment of duty and late filing of E.R.1 returns leading to demand for duty, interest and penalty - Duty admitted and paid but challenge to payment of interest @ Rs.1000/- per day by relying on judgement in Lucid Colloids Limited vs UOI 2006-TIOL-250-HC-RAJ-CX which struck down interest provision of Rs.1000/- per day - Plea also made for reduction of penalty on financial grounds - Ratio of judgement of Rajasthan High Court (supra) applicable and interest is payable as prescribed under Section 11AB of the Act - Considering facts of the case, penalty of Rs.30,000/- under Rule 25 reduced to Rs.10,000/- - Penalty imposed under Rule 27 set aside as being beyond the scope of show cause notice: MUMBAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-13-HC-HP-CX.pdf + hp cx story.pdf

CCE, Chandigarh Vs M/s Saboo Alloys Pvt Ltd (Dated: December 9, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – If CENVAT Credit is validly taken on inputs at the time of receipt, credit not required to be reversed on inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in final products when assessee avails benefit of exemption Notification 50/2003-CE – Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules not applicable – Language of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules being identical to Rule 57H(5) of Central Excise Rules, interpretation given by Apex Court in Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd ( 2002-TIOL-79-SC-CX ) to be followed :HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-25-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Wires & Fabriks (SA) Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated : September 9, 2009)

Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - admissibility of credit on goods transport, courier service and Custom House Agents service - matter remanded to the original authority to examine the issues raised by the appellant which need to be reconsidered.:DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-24-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Pondicherry Vs M/s Brite Automotive & Plastics Ltd (Dated : October 14, 2009)

Central Excise – Classification – twist control panel top and base are classifiable under CET sub-heading 8450.90 as parts of household or laundry type washing machines, but not under Heading 85.37 as contended by the revenue.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-23-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Jyoti Laboratories Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated : September 9, 2009)

Central Excise – valuation of goods when there is no sale under the Central Excise valuation rules 1975 – Rule 6(b)(ii) cannot be applied straightaway on the basis of cost of production without exhausting the possibility of finding the value under Rule 6(b)(i) – matter remanded for re-computation of duty on the basis of comparable goods under rule 6(b)(i).:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-22-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Vigirom Chem Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated : August 19, 2009)

Central Excise – Allegation of manufacture and clandestine clearance by appellant's trading firm – In the absence of tangible evidence allegation of clandestine clearance and evasion of duty not sustainable – Impugned order set aside:BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2010-TIOL-20-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Pushpit Steels Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : September 11, 2009)

Customs – Import – Mis-declaration – Admission by importer – The importers themselves admitted that the goods were mis-declared. The value adopted by the adjudicating-Commissioner taking recourse to rule 8 of the valuation rules is accepted in writing by the appellants. Order of lower authority enhancing value upheld. ( Para 4) :BANGALORE CESTAT;