CBDT allows adjustment of FBT Advance Tax against Advance Tax liability for AY 2010-11; In case of loss, refund allowed;

CBEC issues exchange rate notification for February;

RBI hikes CRR to 5.75%; No change in repo & reverse repo rates;

A Taxman's prolific pen (See 'Book Review' of 'The Fine Print And Other Yearns' authored by Dinesh Verma, IRS)

Prevention of Money - laundering Amendment Rules, 2009 - Obligation of Banks / Financial Institutions;

UN consults experts to review terror outfits using internet;

CCEA gives nod to National Tobacco Control Programme;

Hyderabad Customs seizes 10 kg heroin from pax heading for Lagos;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 29 jan.pdf

Service Tax - Applicability of limitation under Section 11B when service was not taxable. Single judge Order in KVR Constructions stayed;

budget story.pdf

Let assessee choose Notification beneficial to him when two Notifications are applicable;

BOOK REVIEW

book review.pdf

A Taxman's prolific pen;

RBI CIRCULAR

rbi09cir029.pdf

Exim Bank's Line of Credit of USD 40 million to the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania;

RBI NOTIFICATION

RBI Notification for Money laundering.pdf

Prevention of Money - laundering Amendment Rules, 2009 - Obligation of Banks / Financial Institutions;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1268.pdf

Interpol all praise for Southeast Asia's drive against fake medical products;

mbuzz1267.pdf

UN consults experts to review terror outfits using internet;

CIRCULAR

it10cir02.pdf

CBDT allows adjustment of FBT Advance Tax against Advance Tax liability for AY 2010-11; In case of loss, refund allowed;

letter.pdf

Clarification regarding filing of Objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - reg;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-46-ITAT-MUM.pdf + meera story.pdf

Meera Bhatia Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: October 29, 2009)

Indo-UAE DTAA - Articles 4, 13 - Whether an individual resident of UAE is entitled to treaty benefits: MUMBAI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-47-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Diamond Dye Chem Ltd (Dated: January 27, 2010)

Income tax - Sec 80HHC - Assessee is a manufacturer of brightening agents - claims deduction on write back from customers, sales tax refund, tender fee and write back provision of refund of excise duty - AO disallows - CIT(A) allows the appeal - held, no infirmity in CIT(A) order - when the expenditure was incurred, it has gone to reduce the profits of business and when the entry is reversed, profits of business goes up. None of the receipts can be considered as a receipt by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of similar nature. All these items are connected with the operations of the assessee - Revenue's appeal dismissed:MUMBAI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-88-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Jay Ambe Sugar Candy Works (Dated: January 11, 2010)

Income tax - Assessee makes purchases - AO disallows for the lack of verifiable facts - CIT(A) makes part disallowance - Tribunal allows the assessee's appeal on the ground that the assessee had made genuine purchases for which it made payments through bank accounts - held, since the Tribunal has given a finding of facts, it does not call for interference - Revenue's appeal dismissed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-87-HC-ALL-IT.pdf

M/s Injecto Plast Vs UoI (Dated: December 8, 2009)

Income Tax - Sec 154 - Assessee challenges the rectification order - During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner opts for KVSS scheme. On the basis of the declaration furnished by the petitioner, the authority concerned passes order holding that the amount payable at the rate of 35% of the disputed income. Assessee Challenging the computation part on the question that whether the amount deposited by the petitioner before the date of declaration in pursuance of the assessment order, which is subject matter of appeal, is liable to be adjusted towards the tax due first or towards the accrued interest - Held, the petitioner cannot now take a different stand after adjustment in the record has been made as per instruction of the petitioner. After declaration having been filed under KVSS, the appeal preferred by the petitioner loses its efficacy and it shall be treated to have been decided in terms of KVSS. KVSS is a special scheme. It talks about the disputed tax which means the tax unpaid as on the date of making the declaration u/s 88. It contemplates an accomplished fact and does not contemplate a situation which may take place in future. The tax which remains unpaid on the date of making of declaration u/s 88 is an accomplished fact which has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the said scheme and not any other figure which might or ought to have remained unpaid. There being no dispute that the adjustments in the record were made as per the instructions given by the petitioner through two challans, it is no longer open to contend otherwise for the purposes of the said scheme. No illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. Writ Petition dismissed.: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-86-HC-ALL-IT.pdf

CIT, Varanasi Vs M/s Varanasi Auto Sales P Ltd (Dated: January 6, 2010)

Income tax - Sec 32(1) - Assessee-company claims depreciation on trucks registered in the name of Director - Revenue disallows - Tribunal allows the appeal - held, since the vehicles have been purchased in the name of the Director only for convenience sake and rents have been credited to the company's account and even tax has been paid on the same, depreciation cannot be disallowed now as it is in effective possession of the company - Revenue's appeal dismissed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-89-HC-KAR-ST.pdf

CCE, Bangalore Vs KVR Constructions (Dated: September 08, 2009)

Service Tax - Amount paid due to misunderstanding of law, when no tax was payable – limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act not applicable? – Single Judge Order in 2010-TIOL-68-HC-KAR-ST stayed. : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-164-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + taradevi story.pdf

Mrs Taradevi Bafna Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated : December 10, 2009)

Appellant renting their premises to bank and persisting with them to pay service tax but the same was paid belatedly – upon receipt, tax immediately deposited in treasury – No cause for Penalty in view of s. 80 of Finance Act, 1994 – CESTAT: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-166-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Guntur Vs M/s Integral Construction Company (Dated : September 14, 2009)

Service Tax – Site formation and Clearance Service – Appellant registered separately in Bhopal and Guntur Commissionerates – Authorities at Guntur Commissionerate do not have jurisdiction to issue SCN for recovery of service tax dues in Bhopal Commissionerate when assessee has not opted for centralized registration at Guntur – No infirmity in order of Appellate Commissioner setting aside SCN issued without jurisdiction : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-167-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s IBM India Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore (Dated : April 16, 2009)

Service Tax – ERP Implementation Service – ERP Implementation comes under category of Information Technology Service w.e.f. 16.05.2008 – Prior to this date, service was held by the Tribunal as classifiable under the exclusive part of the definition of Consulting Engineer's service – Once a particular service is excluded from the scope of a taxable service where it is normally classifiable then it cannot be taxed under another category – Service tax demand and imposition of penalty for the period prior to 16.05.2008 under the category of Management Consultancy Service set aside : BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-163-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + mahindra story.pdf

CCE, Nagpur Vs M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (Dated : December 17, 2009)

LUT is valid for export of all excisable goods i.e dutiable as well as exempt – Cenvat credit cannot be denied on exempted export goods – CESTAT: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-168-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Data Tech Systems Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated : November 24, 2009)

Central Excise – SSI exemption – Brand name – the brand name CANSOFT used by the appellant did not belong to them – exemption rightly denied – extended period not invokable as during the disputed period, the manufacture of goods different from those manufactured by the brand name owner would not disentitle the user of brand name from the exemption. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-169-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Bangalore Pharmaceuticals & Research Laboratory (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated : May 7, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation – Inclusion of Technical know how in assessable value of final products – Assessee filed manufacturing agreement and declarations regarding price reduction after transfer of technical know how – Technical know-how relates to 56 brands, but manufacturing agreement relates to only 6 brands – Suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty not sustainable – In the absence of a proper mechanism to attribute the value of technical know-how to the goods manufactured and cleared, duty cannot be demanded by including the same in assessable value – No merits in impugned order, liable to be set aside : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-170-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Amrutanjan Ltd (Dated : March 26, 2009)

Central Excise – Refund – Refund of duty after finalization of provisional assessments – Doctrine of unjust enrichment applicable to provisional assessments only w.e.f. 25.06.1999 i.e. date of amendment of Rule 9B – No merit in Revenue appeal – No infirmity in impugned order : BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt10_009.pdf

CBEC notifies Customs exchange rates for February, 2010;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-85-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + pen story.pdf

M/s Pen Foods Private Ltd Vs CC (Dated: October 27, 2009)

Customs - Re- Export of Goods and Duty Drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act 1962. - Proof of Inward remittance of the proceeds for the re-export is not essential for grant of Duty Drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act 1962. : MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-165-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Maheshwari Rocks (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : October 1, 2009)

Customs – smuggling of red sanders – stuffing the cargo with red sanders during the movement of container from ICD to the port – ICD, Bangalore has not been issued with a show cause notice and the ICD as the custodian was supposed to be in charge of moving the cargo from ICD to gateway port. In the absence of any positive findings, regarding the involvement of the appellants, confiscation of the container and penalty set aside.: CHENNAI CESTAT;