- Daily Mail Update
Monday, July 05, 2010

Dear Member,

Sending the following files:

Customercare Executive, Pvt. Ltd.

News Flash

Whether tax paid on services received by sales offices of manufacturers eligible as input credit?

Systemic Change - You Can Also Influence!;

Service Tax - Works Contract Service - An insight into AP High Court decision;

Revalidation of Import Authorisation for Restricted Items (except SCOMET items);

Govt says All India Bandh is unjustified; claims no rollback of petro prices;

Bharat Bandh paralyses life in many States; National Capital also affected; Train, Airlines schedules turned topsy-turvy;

Legislature, Audit interface: CAG organises work;

Feedback on National Broadband Plan: Last date extended;


Common Basket


ddt 5 july.pdf

Whether tax paid on services received by sales offices of manufacturers eligible as input credit?

tiol top.pdf

Systemic Change - You Can Also Influence!

guest column.pdf

Service Tax - Works Contract Service - An insight into AP High Court decision;



Legislature, Audit interface: CAG organises work;


Feedback on National Broadband Plan: Last date extended;


Direct Tax Basket

2010-TIOL-460-HC-MUM-IT + pfizer story.pdf

CIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Pfizer Ltd (Dated: June 18, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 80HHC Explanation (baa) - Whether insurance claim received by the assessee on destruction of stock in trade, is 'business profit' within the meaning of Explanation (baa) for Sec 80HHC benefits - Revenue's appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;


CIT Vs Backbone Enterprises (Dated: May 4, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 271(1)(c) - Whether Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable where the assessee has claimed wrong deduction under bona fide belief and has rectified his mistake subsequently by filing revised return - NO: GUJARAT HIGH COURT;


CIT Vs Aditya Medisales Ltd (Dated: May 4, 2010)

Income Tax - Section40A(2)(a) - Disallowance of interest paid being excessive - Whether before invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) it is necessary on the part of the AO to establish that the person to whom the interest is paid falls under the category of 40A(2)(b): GUJARAT HIGH COURT;


M/s Reliance Energy Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated : May 14, 2010)

Income Tax Act - sections 80IA, 80-IA(4), 80IA(8), 80IA(10), 143(3), 147, 147(2), 148 - whether AO was justified in reopening assessment on the ground that there was a need for re-computation of profits, which had already been the subject matter of appeal before the ITAT and adjudicated - NO: MUMBAI ITAT;


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Bhoruka Logistics Pvt Ltd (Dated : May 21, 2010)

Income tax - Sections 40(a)(ia) , 271(1)(c) - Assessee is engaged in the business of transporter and public carrier. AO made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) by observing that the Assessee had deducted tax at source but there was some delay in payment of TDS in the Govt. Treasury. The Assessee admitted delay and requested the AO to disallow the amount u/s 40(a)(ia). He requested that the amount in question should be allowed as an  expenditure in the A.Y 2006-07, as the payment of TDS was made in that year. The AO considering the facts disallowed this amount u/s 40(a)(ia) in this year and also levied a penalty u/ 271(1)(c) by observing that the Assessee had made a mention about the delay in TDS payment in the audit report, while at the same time, he did not disallow the amount in the computation of income filed by it. CIT(A) held  that the Assessee had made full disclosure and deletes the penalty Issue goes to the Tribunal .Having heard the Revenue Counsel the Tribunal has held that, The first appellate authority has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of CIT vs. Ajain Singh & Co., wherein it is held that mere disallowance of expenditure will not per se amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. CIT(A) finding upheld: MUMBAI ITAT;

Indirect Tax Basket


2010-TIOL-873-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + bhel story.pdf

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Nagpur (Dated: May 28, 2010)

Service Tax - Notifications are not assessee specific - Each and every service of commercial or industrial construction provided by the assessee has to be examined for the purpose of extending the facility in terms of Notification No.15/2004-ST, 01/2006-ST – Stay granted : MUMBAI CESTAT;


M/s Balaji Mines & Minerals Ltd Vs CCE, Belgaum (Dated: March 8, 2010)

Service Tax – Activities of surveying, drilling, blasting excavation and raising iron ore, transporting them for sorting into iron ore lumps and iron ore fines, crushing, grading etc are prima facie ‘mining of mineral, oil or gas service' – Liable for service tax only from 01.06.2007 – Site formation work only incidental to mining activity, contract cannot be vivisected to levy tax under ‘site formation and clearance service' – Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit – Stay granted: BANGALORE CESTAT;



2010-TIOL-461-HC-DEL-CX + date story.pdf

Qualimax Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: June 2, 2010)

Central Excise – Settlement Commission - the date of receipt of the order-in-original is not of any significance for the purposes of Section 32E. The real issue is whether on the date the settlement applications were made the 'case' had already been adjudicated or not. It is also a jurisdictional issue for the Settlement Commission. Because, the Settlement Commission can only proceed to settle a case, which is pending, adjudication on the date the settlement application is received by it. The date of receipt of the order by the applicants is inconsequential. What is of prime importance is the date on which the order-in-original was dispatched from the office of the adjudicating authority: DELHI HIGH COURT;


M/s Aries Dyechem Industries Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: January 7, 2010)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit on the inputs sent to job worker under rule 4(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – the job worker paid full duty on the processed goods returned and the appellants availed CENVAT Credit of the same – Revenue alleges dual benefit – There is no double benefit of CENVAT Credit as alleged by the revenue – rules do not bar the job worker from paying duty and the job worker cannot be compelled to avail exemption – Also the department is not able to show that the inputs have been diverted or not received back: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;


India Metal & Alloys Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: February 22, 2010)

Central Excise – Exemption under Notification 198/87 CE dated 28.8.87 – Exemption is admissible to the Amber Charkhas manufactured as per the specifications of KVIC and supplied to KVIC – Denial of benefit is not legally sustainable: BANGALORE CESTAT;





Revalidation of Import Authorisation for Restricted Items (except SCOMET items).



M/s Badri Narayan Sharma Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated: February 5, 2010)

Spurious appeal before CESTAT – Appellant's contention that he had never authorised or engaged the Counsel who appeared on his behalf in an earlier appeal, which was already disposed of – Registry had not issued notice for removal of defect in Vakalatnama – Advocate summoned who appeared earlier on behalf of the alleged fake appellant – Present appellant directed to prove his identity, genuineness as well as claim   : DELHI CESTAT;
 Pvt. Ltd.
Unit No. 1, 2nd Floor, Vasant Arcade,
Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70
Tel. +91-11-2613-9742
TeleFax. +91-11-2613-9743
Web: http: //
The Document accompanying this electronic transmission contains information from Pvt. Ltd.,which is confidential, proprietary or copyrighted and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes, without limitation, displaying this transmission or any portion thereof, on any public bulletin board. If you are not the intended recipient of this document, please return this document to Pvt. Ltd. immediately.