- Daily Mail Update


Friday, December 07, 2012

Dear Member,

Sending the following links.

Customercare Executive,
Taxindiaonline com Pvt. Ltd.

For assistance please call us at +91-85869-69755 or email us at

News Flash

AP HC stays ITAT Special Bench decision in case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports relating to expression 'payable' in sec 40(a)(ia) (See 'DDT' Column)

Service Tax - Accounting Code - Total Confusion (See 'DDT')

Amendment of Transplantation of Human Organs Rules under consideration: Minister

CBEC extends anti-dumping duty on PVC for a year

Amendment of Transplantation of Human Organ Rules under active consideration: Minister

FDI in Retail: UPA Govt manages votes in Rajya Sabha also

Bigger States yet to adopt Clinical Establishments Act: Health Minister

Forbes List of Powerful leaders: Mukesh Ambani figures streets ahead of Mittal

FTP - SION for Lead Free Powder Notified

Delegation of 63rd Batch of IRS (Customs & Excise) probationers led by CBEC Chairman Praveen Mahajan to meet President of India today at 5 PM

Govt appoints Dr Shome as Adviser to FM in rank of MoS; his tenure to be co-terminus with FM

Common Basket


DDT (Daily Dose of Taxation)

AP HC stays ITAT Special Bench decision in case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports relating to expression 'payable' in sec 40(a)(ia)


Amendment of Transplantation of Human Organs Rules under consideration: Minister

Bigger States yet to adopt Clinical Establishments Act: Health Minister

Govt takes several initiatives to attract foreign investment

Forbes List of Powerful leaders: Mukesh Ambani figures streets ahead of Mittal



Direct Tax Basket



Corrigendum to Notification No 51/2012, dated 23rd November, 2012



CIT Vs M/s Merilyn Shipping & Transports

Income tax - Whether the expression 'payable' in section 40(a)(ia) refers to entire payment on which the TDS was required to be made or only to amount outstanding as on 31st March of every year. : ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2012-TIOL-969-HC- KERALA-IT + Story

Muthoot Finance Corporation Vs CIT

Income Tax - Section 37 - Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sec 10 - Whether deduction can be claimed for an expense incurred for the purpose which constitutes an offence - Whether deduction can be claimed beyond the express provisions of the Act - Whether the expenditure incurred by way of payment of interest in excess of the limit imposed under the State Money Lenders Act, is allowable as business expenditure.- Assessee's appeal dismissed : KERALA HIGH COURT


Mr Dinesh G Vazirani Vs DCIT

Income tax – Whether when the assessee had explained the source of investment with the details of purchases and received in gifts, the addition is wrongly made as undisclosed investment – Whether when the assessee has properly explained each and every item with its value, the acquisition value adopted by the revenue at a very high price is incorrect and the valuation should be done through a expert committee / valuer. - Assessee’s appeal partly allowed : MUMBAI ITAT


M/s Mahendra Shipping Ltd Vs ITO

Income Tax - Sections 37, 40(a)(ia), 194C - Whether fees paid for revocation of suspension of trading of shares and other payments towards condonation, reinstatement & processing are allowable expenditure u/s 37 if such liabilities arise for the first time and crystalise during the year - Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made for non-deduction of tax on a contract between the two parties for allowing vehicle to be parked inside the premises. - Assessee's appeal partly allowed : DELHI ITAT


M/s Mitsubishi Corpn India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl.CIT

Income Tax - Sections 40(a)(i), 254(2A) - Whether it can be argued that section 254(2A) can curtail the inherent powers of Tribunal to grant stay of demand. - Assessee's stay petition allowed : DELHI ITAT


Seven-Seas Fin-Cap Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Income tax – Sections 37, 22 – Whether when the assessee fails to prove that it was having any branch and the rent was being paid for business purposes, the expenses claimed for rent paid to the Director is not sustainable – Whether when the assessee fails to prove that it was the owner of the parking space in a property, the income from the same is correctly treated as income from other sources and not as house property income and repair expenses were correctly disallowed. - Assessee’s appeal dismissed : DELHI ITAT


M/s Siegwerk India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl.CIT

Income Tax - Sections 2(22)(e), 14A, 37(1) - Whether exchange loss arising on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange is allowable as a business expenditure - Whether provisions of section 2(22)(e) can be invoked without 'audi-alteram-parterm' - Whether before invoking the provisions of section 14A, AO has to point out the defects in the accounts of assessee. - Matter remanded : DELHI ITAT

Indirect Tax Basket


WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Refund - BAS - appellant undertakes processing of data and which are exported electronically by transmitting to a server of telecom authorities in India and thereafter uplinked/transmitted to the foreign service recipient - dedicated telecom lines are essential for this purpose & is to be considered as Input Service as defined in rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - ST paid on leased telecom lines is available as CENVAT credit - View adopted by Revenue authorities that export has not been effected directly is completely irrational - matter remanded for verification as to whether payments received in foreign convertible currency by Head office situated in Bombay relates to exports made by Nashik unit: CESTAT [paras 6, 6.1 & 6.2]:MUMBAI CESTAT


Bajirao Sakharam Patil Vs CCE

ST - Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service - applicant along with 21 other labourers entered into a contract with the sugar factory for cutting and supply of sugar cane - there is no evidence that the applicant provided any service directly or indirectly for recruitment and supply of manpower - Pre-deposit of ST demand of Rs.1.06 lakhs waived and Stay granted: CESTAT [para 5] - Stay petition allowed:MUMBAI CESTAT


B E Billimoria & Co Ltd Vs CST

Notfn. 1/2006-ST – abatement – Centralised CENVAT credit account - Commercial or Industrial Construction service & Construction of Complex Services – appellant submitting that they are maintaining separate account project wise while performing the above services and availing benefit of exemption or otherwise – since this is a factual matter which can be ascertained by the adjudicating authority order confirming ST demand of Rs.5.42 crores set aside and matter remanded: CESTAT [paras 8 & 9]:MUMBAI CESTAT


M/s Amrit Construction Vs CCE

ST - Road repair services is exempted with retrospective effect vide section 143 of the Finance Act, 2012 - Order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4]:MUMBAI CESTAT




CC & CC Vs M/s Advani Oerlikon Ltd

CE - Hot Melt unit is used for packing the finished goods and being in the nature of incidental or/and ancillary to the main manufacturing activity, the assessee was rightly held entitled to claim MODVAT credit - whenever, any issue is decided by the Supreme Court or/and High Court then it has to be first referred to by the Authorities/Tribunals and then decision should be rendered - Reference application filed by Revenue dismissed: High Court [paras 13 & 14]:CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT


Detco Textiles Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

HASITPACD Rules, 1998 - Length of galleries is required to be excluded while fixing the annual capacity of the stenter – Order confirming demand of duty set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4]

Adjudicating authority dropping proceedings but Commissioner(A) setting aside the same on the ground that the appellant had not challenged the order passed by the Commissioner deciding the capacity of their unit – in the case of Om Textile Pvt. Ltd., in CE Appeal no. 1 of 2006, Bombay High Court vide order dated 18.03.2006 has held that in independent and substantive proceedings appellant did raise objection to correctness of the order of Commissioner – in view of SC decision in SPBL Ltd. (2002-TIOL-649-SC-CX) order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4]:MUMBAI CESTAT


CCE Vs M/s Duraware Pvt Ltd

Appellant manufacturing Pressure cookers in the brand name of "NIRLEP" and claiming the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that brand NIRLEP registered in the name of M/s Fulkrum Services Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad is only in respect of kitchen containers, cooking sauce pans and not Pressure cookers - issue is now settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders (2004-TIOL-51-SC-CX) holding that even if goods are different so long as the trade name of some other company is used, benefit of SSI exemption is not available - Order of Commissioner(A) set aside and Revenue appeal allowed: CESTAT [paras 4 & 5]:MUMBAI CESTAT


Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CE - Aluminium dross and skimmings - dutiability thereon - in view of contrary decisions on the issue in KEC International Ltd. & Vishal Pipes (2010-TIOL-1847-CESTAT-DEL) pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT [para 3]:MUMBAI CESTAT


Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd Vs CCE

CENVAT - Applicant cutting and slitting stainless coil and clearing the same on payment of duty by utilizing CENVAT credit and also by payment through PLA - Revenue contending that activity does not amount to manufacture, hence credit wrongly availed - demand confirmed of Rs.65.46 Crores along with interest and penalty - in view of Bombay HC decision in Ajinkya Enterprises (2012-TIOL-578-HC-MUM-CX) where it is held that when duty on final product has been accepted by Revenue, CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground that activity undertaken does not amount to manufacture, prima facie applicant has a strong case for waiver of adjudged dues - Stay application allowed: CESTAT [paras 7 & 8]:MUMBAI CESTAT





CBEC extends anti-dumping duty on PVC for a year


CBEC amends Notification 158/95 relating to reimportation conditions for Bhutan



FTP - SION for Lead Free Powder Notified



Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Customs - Valuation - Applicant is a subsidiary company of a German company and imports goods which are further traded and supplied to Indian Railway - Revenue demanding duty on the sale price of traded goods in India on the ground that importer and supplier are related persons - since duty is being demanded without taking into consideration the profit margin, applicant has made out a prima facie strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudged dues: CESTAT [para 7]:MUMBAI 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.