Mumbai Customs does not 'trouble', only harasses own retiring officers!

Govt mops up Cess revenue of Rs 3421 Cr under Central Road Fund and Rs 10280 Cr on petrol and diesel cess;

Mr V K Sreedhar joins as new Member of Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax);

Govt fixes Rs 150 per domestic pax and Rs 1000 per international pax as UDF for Jaipur airport; to notify separate corridor for helicopters at Delhi and Mumbai airports;

13437 companies prosecuted for non-compliance of Companies Act: Minister;

Post Office Saving Bank: Penalty on pre-mature withdrawals rationalised;

Effective steps reduce incidents of piracy of Indian vessels;

UN announces first ever appointment of woman as UN Police Chief; Honour goes to Swedish police officer;

Competition Commission of India initiates probe against banks, FIs for levying penalty on pre-payment of loans: Salman Khurshid;

Call made on Customer care nos of mobile cos and decision to speak to customer executive is chargeable call: Minister informs Lok Sabha;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 09 mar.pdf

Relevant Date for Payment of Interest – Rule inconsistent with Act!

guest.pdf

Section 206AA ‘Mandatory PAN': Who ALL are covered?

insider.pdf

Mumbai Customs does not 'trouble', only harasses own officers!

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1369.pdf

Govt fixes Rs 150 per domestic pax and Rs 1000 per international pax as UDF for Jaipur airport; to notify separate corridor for helicopters at Delhi and Mumbai airports;

mbuzz1368.pdf

13437 companies prosecuted for non-compliance of Companies Act: Minister;

mbuzz1367.pdf

Post Office Saving Bank: Penalty on pre-mature withdrawals rationalised;

mbuzz1366.pdf

Effective steps reduce incidents of piracy of Indian vessels;

2010-TIOL-115-ITAT-MUM.pdf + hindustan story.pdf

DCIT, Mumbai Vs Hindustan Essential Oil Co (Dated: December 2, 2009)

Income Tax- Sections 10B, 80HHC- Whether a new unit set up as a 100% export oriented unit in Tamilnadu was formed by splitting up of an existing business in Mumbai- what amounts to splitting up of an existing business- whether production of 'attar' amounts to manufacture or is it mere processing-whether apportionment of profit on the basis of turnover of the units was justified when there was attempt to increase the expenditure of the Mumbai unit- whether deduction u/s 80HHC was available on exchange gains- whether 90% of profits not considered u/s 10B would be entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC:MUMBAI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-114-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Shri Suresh K Jajoo Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 21, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 263 - CIT invokes jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground  that AO has not conducted any inquiry into the nature of the transaction vis-à-vis multiplicity and frequency of the transaction and had the AO given a correct finding in the current year, the profit arising out of several transactions would have been taxed as business income and then question of adjusting the brought forward loss under the head short term capital gain against this business income would not have been arisen - CIT rejects the contention of the assessee that if the transaction in shares are treated as business activity in this year, then in the past also it should have been treated as business income and set aside the order to the file of the AO with a direction to enquire and verify all issues and reframe the assessment order - Held, on the basis of various submissions by the Assssee before the AO it cannot be said that the AO has not made proper enquiries. In view of  the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 and the order of the AO  passed on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2002-03, the CIT is not justified in assuming the jurisdiction u/s. 263 - Assesee's appeal allowed:MUMBAI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-113-ITAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Tube Investments Of India Ltd Vs JCIT, Chennai (Dated: December 4, 2009)

Income Tax - Sec 94(7) - Assessee invests in Mutual Fund units and receives dividend - claims short term capital loss in transaction of purchase and sale of the units but AO disallows capital loss on the ground that the Assessee has purchased the units on the date, which is also the record date for declaration of dividend. Thus, the AO is of the view that the units are purchased by the Assessee within three months from the record date and as per provisions of section 94(7), the loss arising on such purchase and sale of units shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the income - CIT(A) confirms the order of the AO - Held, as per the general rule of computation of period as well as the General Clauses Act, the day on which cause of action arises is excluded and the limitation reckons from the next day for counting the period of limitation but it does not mean that if an action is taken on the day when cause of action arises, then it would not be said that the said action is not within limitation. The object and purpose of excluding the day on which cause of action arises is to make available clear days of limitation prescribed under the Statute and, therefore, the said day is excluded for the purpose of counting the latest or the outer limit of period of limitation and not for the earliest or nearest point of time to the cause of action. The units purchased on the record date falls very much within the period of three months as prescribed u/s 94(7). The redemption is also a transfer though transferability is limited. It cannot be said that the units are not at all transferable and if that is so, then there would be no loss as claimed by the Assessee. This issue is decided against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue:CHENNAI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-112-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ACIT, Dehradun Vs M/s State Urban Develoment Agency (Dated: January 22, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 10(26B), 139(1) - Assessee, State Urban Development Agency, is a registered society - claims income as exempt u/s 10(26B) - AO denied it by recording a finding that Assessee-society is not specifically established or formed for promoting the members of SC or ST or BC of the society. The AO assesses it as AOP. The AO also finds that Assessee has been granted registration u/s 12A only w.e.f. 24.4.2006, therefore income of the society is not eligible for exemption u/s 12A and bring to tax surplus as per income and expenditure account and the amount of grant not utilized during the year - Held, in view of various objects mentioned in the memorandum of association, the Assessee society was not doing any work in the interest of SC or ST or backward classes, but doing the work for general urban public interest as a whole. Hence, not entitled for claim of exemption u/s 10(26B). Once the CIT(A) has also confirmed the finding with respect to wrong claim of exemption u/s 10(26B) there was no reason with the CIT(A) for holding that Assessee was not liable to file return of income and that it had filed return of income under misconception. Since the Assessee-society had been granted registration u/s 12A only w.e.f. 24.4.2006, no exemption can be granted u/s 12A. CIT(A) order set aside - Revenue's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-111-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Teamasia Marketing Pvt Ltd (Dated: December 8, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 68 - AO makes additions for share application money on the ground that the Assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of concerned party and genuineness of transaction - CIT(A) deletes addition following the decision of the Apex Court in Lovely Exports - Held, the first and foremost aspect of assessment is to complete the enquiry and thereupon to hold whether the share applications are genuine or bogus. Matter remanded to AO to decide the same afresh. Revenue's appeal allowed:DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-372-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + kalsis story.pdf

Kalsis Kitchenette Vs CCE, Pune (Dated: February 5, 2010)

Even after receipt of the show-cause notice, appellant continued the default and it was only after more than one year since the receipt of the SCN that they started paying service tax - Bona fides not proved – Pre-deposit ordered of penalty:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-371-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Singh Tourist Service Vs CCE, Allahabad (Dated: November 19, 2009)

Appellants providing rent-a-cab service to IFFCO - whether the payment received from IFFCO is to be treated as cum tax amount - since this point had not been raised before the Commissioner (Appeals), matter remanded - As appellant had paid the entire amount along with interest prior to issue of SCN the appellant would be eligible for reduced penalty under first proviso to Section 78 – Delhi HC decision in K.P.Pouches(P) Ltd. vs - UOI 2008-TIOL-240-HC-DEL-CX relied upon:DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-370-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Vellore Shoe Fabrik (Dated: December 22, 2009)

Service Tax - No service tax is leviable on import of services prior to introduction of Section 66A – Appeal dismissed following the ratio of Bombay HC decision in case of M/s Indian National Ship Owners Association, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2009-TIOL-129-SC-ST:CHENNAI CESTAT;