After Crises: Assessing Costs and Benefits of Financial Liberalisation (See 'DDT Column')

CBDT amends new transfer policy;

CBEC revises tariff value of poppy seeds + brass scraps ;

Govt grants custom exemption to import of aircraft for calibrations purposes;

CVC recommends major penalty against six CBEC officials;

CBEC clarifies on applicability of cess on beedi ;

Appointment of Additional Judges of Patna High Court;

Appendix 11B for Value addition in terms of paragraph 4.1.6 of FTP;

Amendment in paragraph 4.1.6 related to Value Addition under Advance Authorisation scheme.;

Robust demand for mobile phone services will linger for longer period: UN ;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 16 feb.pdf

Carriage of domestic cargo on international flights - CBEC extents facility to Private Airlines;

guest column.pdf

Karnataka HC ruling in Samsung Electronics case: Significant Spin-offs!

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1317.pdf

Appointment of Additional Judges of Patna High Court;

mbuzz1316.pdf

CVC recommends major penalty against six CBEC officials;

mbuzz1315.pdf

Robust demand for mobile phone services will linger for longer period: UN;

cbdt_tp_amends.pdf

CBDT amends new transfer policy;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-130-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + grasim story.pdf

Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (Dated : February 1, 2010)

Income Tax – Reassessment - when the Assessing Officer took a possible view, the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in seeking recourse to his power under Section 263 - order sought to be revised must be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. it is now a settled principle that where the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In the present case, two views were inherently possible and the assessee therefore, cannot be subjected to the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 263.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-129-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Gopal Purohit (Dated : January 6, 2010)

Income Tax - Sec 10(38) - Capital Gains - On the issue of Tribunal finding that Assessee engaged in two different types of transactions. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for the purposes of business - Held, a finding of fact has been arrived at by the Tribunal as regards the existence of two distinct types of transactions namely, those by way of investment on one hand and those for the purposes of business on the other hand. No substantial question of law.

On the issue of the Tribunal observing that there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical, particularly in the case of the Assessee.- Held, such approach of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The revenue did not furnish any justification for adopting a divergent approach for the Assessment Year in question.

On the issue of entries in the books of account - Held, there cannot be any dispute about the basic proposition that entries in the books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income. The Tribunal has applied the correct principle. Revenue Appeal dismissed.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-128-HC-KAR-IT.pdf

M B Ramesh Vs ITO, Mysore (Dated : January 4, 2010)

Income tax - Sec 54 - Assessee sells residential property and invests in like-property and claims exemption of capital gains u/s 54 - AO disallows on the ground that it was only a mud structure which has been demolished - CIT(A) allows the benefits but Tribunal reverses the same - held, no substantial question of law involved - Assessee's appeal dismissed:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-80-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Ethno Financial Research Pvt Ltd (Dated: October 30, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 73 - Assessee is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares of other companies - claims business loss - AO holds that trading in shares is speculative loss and makes disallowances - CIT(A) relies on explanatory notes of the Finance Act and deletes disallowances and allows assessee's appeal - held, since the assessee's case does not fall under any of the exclusionary clauses prescribed in the provisions to Explanation to Sec 73, it is a case of speculative loss - it is settled law that explanatory notes cannot be relied on for interpreting the provisions of law - CIT(A) order set aside - Revenue's appeal allowed:DELHII ITAT;

2010-TIOL-79-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: December 23, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 195 - Assessee issues GDR for international investors - appoints lead managers and pays them 1% for management and underwriting commission and 2% on selling commission - fails to deduct tax at source - order u/s 201 and 201(1A) passed treating the assessee-in-default - Since Special Bench hearing on the same issue was going on, stay granted - Revenue now initiates recovery proceedings - Assessee pleads since the Special Bench has already held that such incomes are not business profits for the non-residents and cannot be taxed in India for lack of PE - held, since the assessee has already deposited 70% of the demand and pleads hardship for more deposit and the Special Bench decision prima facies applies to it, stay on recovery granted - Assessee's appeal allowed : MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-273-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + st story.pdf

M/s Gujarat State Petronet Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: January 4, 2010)

Service Tax - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - CENVAT Credit on Construction Service, Erection / Commissioning and Installation service used for execution of pipeline project is prima facie admissible:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-272-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + st story.pdf

M/s Gujarat State Petronet Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: January 4, 2010)

Service Tax - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service vis-à-vis Transport of goods through pipeline - the applicants are paying service tax from 16.6.2005 under " Transportation of goods through pipeline" service - the activity of transporting natural gas through pipeline cannot be treated as Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service - when an activity is made liable to service tax from particular date, such activity is not taxable under pre-existing service category when definition of earlier categories not changed - demand of service tax prior to 16.6.2005 is prima facie not sustainable - pre-deposit waived:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-271-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + st story.pdf

M/s Gujarat State Petronet Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: January 4, 2010)

Service Tax - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - CENVAT Credit on pipes used by the EPC contractor in construction of pipeline used by the applicant for rendering the service of " transportation of goods through pipeline" is prima facie admissible - If the EPC contractor availed the benefit of Notification 12/2003 ST and did not include the value of pipes for payment of service tax, it cannot be a ground for denial of credit on pipes to the applicant - Pre-deposit waived:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;