Deduction in respect of contribution to pension scheme under Section 80 CCD - CBDT clarifies (See 'DDT Column')

Ban on export of wheat and wheat products eased for Nepal;

FTP amended - Bahadurgarh Chamber of Commerce & Industry is added as an agency;

TRAI planning paper on 4G mobile wireless broadband services;

Colombo Plan meet: India to continue to be effective partner, says FM;

NTPC, IOCL sign MoU for research in energy sector;

OECD releases draft paper on cross-border tax claims;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 10 feb.pdf

Vague charges against Customs Superintendent issued after 11 years - quashed;

stgst.pdf

Cenvat Credit - 'Negotiable' Instruments!

budget story.pdf

Works Contract Service should be expanded to cover all activities presently taxed under VAT;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1298.pdf

TRAI planning paper on 4G mobile wireless broadband services;

mbuzz1297.pdf

Colombo Plan meet: India to continue to be effective partner, says FM;

mbuzz1296.pdf

NTPC, IOCL sign MoU for research in energy sector;

mbuzz1295.pdf

OECD releases draft paper on cross-border tax claims;

CIRCULAR

cbdt_circular.pdf

Clarification regarding deduction in respect of contribution to pension scheme under Section 80 CCD – matter reg;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-69-ITAT-MAD-SB.pdf + sb story.pdf

M/s Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Chennai (Dated: February 5, 2010)

Income tax - Sec 10A - Assessee sets up two undertakings at Chennai and Delhi - Chennai unit is registered with the STPI for export of computer software - Delhi unit is engaged in trading of video communication equipments - STPI unit makes profits but trading unit suffers losses - claims set-off of business loss of trading unit against the profits of STPI unit which is eligible for Sec 10A benefits - AO disagrees with the method of computation of benefits u/s 10A - CIT(A) allows set off of business loss of trading unit against profits of Sec 10A unit - Issue goes to the Tribunal which has held that:CHENNAI ITAT{SPECIAL BENCH};

2010-TIOL-117-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

M/s Mistry Lalji Narsi Development Corporation Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated : January 19, 2010)

Income tax - Sec 80IB(10), 147, 148 - Assessee is a partnership firm - engaged in the business of development and construction - claims Sec 80IB benefits for certain projects - AO makes inquiry and allows the benefit - Reassessment initiated on the basis of a Municipal Authorities commencement certificate - held, since the assessee had already disclosed the same commencement certificate issued by the municipal authorities during the course of assessment, and no benefit was claimed for earlier projects, there is no basis for re-assessment - Assessee's appeal allowed:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-116-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Ultimate Fashion Maker Ltd (Dated : January 29, 2010)

Income tax - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee claims deduction for DEPB benefits u/s 80IB - AO disallows and initiates penalty proceedings - Tribunal holds penalty not sustainable as the issue was debatable when the return was filed and the assessee had filed all primary materials to the AO - held, no infirmity in Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-115-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Franco Tossi Ingegneria (Dated : January 5, 2010)

Income tax - Sec 44BBB - Assessee is an Italian company - enters into contract with Indian company for civil construction work of a power project - declares income on completed contract basis - meanwhile, Sec 44BBB is introduced vide Finance Act, 1989 w.e.f 1-4-1990 - AO takes the view that the entire payments made to the assessee even before the introduction of the new Section is to be taxed as per the deeming provisions of Sec 44BBB - CIT(A) and Tribunal disagree with the AO - Appeal to High Court - held, since the payments were made prior to the current year and the entire work was done and handed over to the Indian company much before the introduction of the new Section, there is no payment in the current year which can be taxed as per the new provisions - no infirmity in Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-114-HC-HP-IT.pdf

CIT, Shimla Vs M/s Shiv Ram Veg Food Industries (Dated : December 9, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 80IB - Assessee converts limestone into limestone power - claims it to be a manufacturing activity and takes Sec 80IB benefits - Revenue disallows - held, issue is no longer res integra as it is already settled by the Apex Court that such an activity does amount to manufacture and the assessee is entitled to benefits - Revenue's appeal dismissed:HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-118-HC-DEL-ST.pdf

UoI Vs M S Bhatia (Dated : February 5, 2010)

Service – Customs Supdt - vague Charge sheet issued after 11 years – quashing by CAT upheld - High Court :DELHI HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-234-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Nagar Nigam Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated: December 10, 2009)

ST - renting of commercial property - assessee is a municipal body - leases out land and collects rent - receives letter from Revenue authorities regarding tax liability on such a service - assessee convinces the tenants, collects tax and the deposits the same with interest - Revenue imposes penalty - held, since it is a case of bona fide mistake and the fact that the assessee is a local authority and has regularly been filing return and paying taxes after the first instance, it is a fit case for invocation of Sec 80 - assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-233-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Convergys India Service Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: December 11, 2009)

ST - export of service - Assessee claims rebate for input services utilised in export of services - Revenue partly rejects the rebate claim - Commissioner invokes powers u/s 84 and orders recovery of the claim settled in cash and credit of the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment - Revenue alleges violartion of Notification No 12/2005 - held, if there is violation of the relevant Notification, the rebate claims should have been rejected in toto and the Commissioner should not have sanctioned the claim partly - waiver from pre-deposit granted and stay on recovery ordered:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-238-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + medicore story.pdf

CCE & CC, Aurangabad Vs Medicore Labs Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 4, 2009)

It is not in dispute that valid grounds existed for invoking proviso to section 11A(1) of the CEA, 1944 – payment of entire duty before issuance of Show-cause notice cannot exonerate assessee from payment of equal penalty and interest under the CEA, 1944:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-237-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: November 17, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – denial of credit on the ground that total quantity of the inputs were not received in the factory – matter remanded in view of the Larger Bench decision in case of M/s Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-236-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s ITEL Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Calicut (Dated: October 23, 2009)

Central Excise – Excise duty liability on ‘Modular Technical Rossette' manufactured on job work basis with components supplied by assessee and cleared by assessee separately along with electronic push button telephones – MTR only facilitates connection of telephone to an external line, to be regarded as an accessory and not an integral part of telephone

Central Excise – Rule 57(F)(2) provided for movement of inputs or intermediate goods without payment of duty for further manufacture and return, who would clear finished goods on payment of duty – With reversal of CENVAT credit on inputs (components), assessee does not cease to be a manufacturer liable to pay duty on finished goods received from job worker and cleared (also along with phones) – Duty demand for two SCNs sustainable

Central Excise – Raw materials supplied by ITEL to job worker for manufacture of MTRs and returned the same to ITEL – ITEL cannot be held as manufacturers when MTRs are assembled by job workers – If no order was passed under Rule 9B ordering provisional assessment of MTR, Revenue cannot invoke extended period – Aspect of provisional assessment of MTRs to be verified by original authority and re-quantify duty demand and credit of duty reversed on inputs – Duty demand cannot be validly confirmed if there is no finding of suppression of facts by ITEL – No penalty imposable when there is a question of interpretation:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-235-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: September 24, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation – Petroleum products sold to company owned company operated outlets – When there is transfer of part of production to another plant of same assessee and balance sold to independent buyers, during such circumstances Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 not applicable – Value arrived in terms of APM should be accepted:BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

DGFT NOTIFICATION

dgft09not029.pdf

DGFT CIRCULAR

dgft09cir023.pdf

Verification of CA Certificate: ICAI offers online facility to DGFT offices;

DGFT PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft09pn040.pdf

FTP amended - Bahadurgarh Chamber of Commerce & Industry is added as an agency;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-10-SC-CUS.pdf + sc story.pdf

M/s Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: February 5, 2010)

Customs – settlement Commission – application would be maintainable only if it discloses duty liability, which had not been disclosed to the proper officer. Appellant cannot be permitted to dissect the Settlement Commission's order with a view to accept what is favourable to them and reject what is not. Costs awarded to Government: An application under Section 127B of the Act would be maintainable only if it discloses duty liability, which had not been disclosed to the proper officer. Obviously, a disclosure contemplated by the said Section is in the nature of voluntary disclosure of the concealed additional customs duty. Having opted to get their customs duty liability settled by the Settlement Commission, under Chapter XIVA of the Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to dissect the Settlement Commission's order with a view to accept what is favourable to them and reject what is not. As observed by Krishna Iyer, J. the recommendation of Wanchoo Committee was a compromise measure of a statutory settlement machinery, where a big evader could make a disclosure, disgorge what the Commission fixes and thus buy quittance for himself and accelerate recovery of taxes in arrears by the State, although less than what may be fixed after long protracted litigation and recovery proceedings. Applicant cannot be permitted to resile from his pleadings in the application at any stage of proceedings before the Settlement Commission or set up a new case before the higher Fora .: SUPREME COURT;

2010-TIOL-232-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Cargo & Travel Services (P) Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: July 29, 2009)

Customs – Import of dry batteries – Mis-declaration of country of origin as ‘Indonesia' instead of ‘China' – Allegation against CHA for aiding and abetting fraud – Consignments were cleared by authorities on production of documents along with bills of entries – Duty of CHA ends the moment bill of entry is assessed and goods are cleared on discharge of customs duty – No specific finding as to how CHA allowed themselves to be a party to fraud – In the absence of any evidence which would directly implicate CHA, order imposing penalty not sustainable :BANGALORE CESTAT;