TIOL-DDT 1168 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<p align="justify"><font size="2"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">TIOL-DDT 1168 </font></strong><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><br>
04.08.2009 <br>
Tuesday </strong></font></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Transfer of In-principle or Formal approval issued to a SEZ Developer to its subsidiary or SPV </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Board of Approval, in its meeting held on 15-01-2009, approved guidelines regarding Transfer of In-principle or Formal approval issued to a SEZ Developer to its subsidiary or SPV in the following categories: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>(i) Category I – </strong>Where there is mere change in name and no change in share holding pattern of the original developer. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>(ii) Category II – </strong> Where approval is transferred to a 100% SPV or a wholly owned subsidiary (WOS) of the developer company, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>(iii) Category III- </strong> De-merger in terms of a Court decision in respect of M/s. Bajaj Holdings Pvt. Ltd. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>(iv) Category IV- </strong> Where partly the equity is held by State Government or one of its organisations by virtue of the State Government's requirement, BOA further indicated that these guidelines will be valid henceforth with respect to change of name/transfer of approval cases. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As regards the rest of the cases, it was decided that the Department of Commerce would separately examine the matter in consultation with the Department of Revenue and come up with separate policy guidelines. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=260&filename=sez/sez_instructions/2006/sez09ins021.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>COMMERCE MINISTRY INSTRUCTION NO. 21 (No.C.8/3/2009-SEZ) Dated: July 16, 2009 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Grant of Extension of Validity of In-Principle Approvals for SEZs </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board of Approval has communicated the guidelines regarding grant of extension of validity of in-principle approvals as per the decisions taken in the 12th and 31st meetings of the Board of Approvals held on 31.05.2007 and 15.01.2009 respectively. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The following guidelines may be followed by Chief Secretaries of State Governments / Development Commissioners while recommending / forwarding the cases for grant of Extension of Validity of in-principle approvals. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I. Guidelines approved by BoA in the 12th meeting held on 31st May 2007 for grant of first extension of validity of in-principle approvals: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All such cases where: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) the request for extension had been filed before the expiry of the LoA and </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) where steps for implementation of the proposal like acquisition/purchase of land etc. have been taken; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Letter of Approval (LoA) may be extended for 1 more year beyond the original validity. While extending the in-principle LoAs, any approvals given for area of more than 5000 hectares may be capped at 5000 hectares to align all such approvals as per the Government decision in this regard. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why did it take nearly two years to come out with the guidelines approved in 12 th meeting? Were they waiting for guidelines for second extension to be decided in 31 st meeting so that both can be issued together? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">II. Guidelines/norms approved by BoA in the 31st meeting held on 15th January 2009 for grant of second extension of in-principle approval: </font></p>
<table width="450" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td width="242"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Type of SEZ </font></strong></p></td>
<td width="97"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions for grant of 1st extension <br>
(1) </font></strong></p></td>
<td width="132"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions for grant of 2ndextension <br>
(2) </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="242"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">IT/ITES/G&J/Biotech/Non-conventional Energy SEZ etc. with min. Area requirement <br>
of 10 Ha and Stand alone <br>
FTWZ </font></p></td>
<td width="97"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions laid by BoA in its 12th meeting </font></p></td>
<td width="132"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No second extension to be granted in such cases. </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="242"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sector specific SEZs other than mentioned above </font></p></td>
<td width="97"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions laid by BoA in its 12th meeting </font></p></td>
<td width="132"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions for grant of first extension will be applicable. Apart from this, the developer must have 60% land acquisition/possession </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="242"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Multi-product SEZs </font></p></td>
<td width="97"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions laid by BoA in its 12th meeting </font></p></td>
<td width="132"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions for grant of first extension <br>
will be applicable. Apart from this, the developer must have 50% land acquisition /possession </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The cases which do not fulfil the above criteria will be placed before BoA for consideration. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further, the Board noted that as per SEZ Rules 2006, the in-principle approval is valid for one year and extension of validity of in-principle approval may be granted for another two years. In the light of EGoM decision prohibiting compulsory acquisition, it may be difficult to acquire 1000 hectares of contiguous land within a period of 3 years. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To allow extension of validity of in-principle approval beyond 3 years in case of multi product SEZs, the Board directed to take steps to amend the relevant Rule to add such provision and such amendment to the relevant Rule is under process. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=260&filename=sez/sez_instructions/2006/sez09ins022.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>COMMERCE MINISTRY INSTRUCTION NO. 22 (No.C.8/3/2009-SEZ) Dated: July 16, 2009 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Guidelines for Proposal for FDIs in SEZs </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In terms of the present guidelines, 100% FDI is permitted under automatic route in SEZs. However, as decided in the 31st meeting of the Board of Approvals held on 15.01.2009, the promoter shall ensure that his equity does not fall below 51%. Further, in case the promoter decides to decrease his shareholding below 51% then prior approval of BoA must be taken. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=260&filename=sez/sez_instructions/2006/sez09ins023.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>COMMERCE MINISTRY INSTRUCTION NO. 23 (No.C.8/3/2009-SEZ) Dated: July 16, 2009 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Guidelines for dealing with Requests for Change in Area of SEZs </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commerce Ministry decided that here after all the requests for change in area of SEZs should be routed through the <strong><font color="#FF6633">concerned</font> </strong> Development Commissioner. All the Developers of notified SEZs who wish to change the area of their SEZs may make an application to the Department of Commerce with a copy to the <strong><font color="#FF6633">concerned</font> </strong> Development Commissioner. For increase in area, the developer may apply in Form Q and for de-notification of a portion of area the developer may apply in Form R along with the requisite documents. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">While recommending the proposals to the BoA, the following guidelines will be followed by the Development Commissioner: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">i) The minimum area requirements as provided under Rule 5 of the SEZ Rules 2006 should be met. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ii) The approval to various requests for changing the area of the SEZs may be approved on file provided the proposal is for modification of the non-notified SEZs. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">iii) Once the proposal is notified, proposals for expansion/reduction in the area may be placed before the BoA. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">iv) No further reduction of land is allowed for SEZs notified under Rule 5(3) of the SEZ Rules, which prescribes the requirement of minimum area of land. In case such requests are received, the same will have to be placed before EGoM for a decision. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">v) On the requests received for addition of area, the <strong> <font color="#FF6633">concerned</font> </strong> Development Commissioner should submit his report on possession/ownership, non-encumbrance, contiguity and vacancy </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">vi) On the requests received for de-notification of a portion of area, the <strong><font color="#FF6633">concerned</font> </strong> Development Commissioner should submit his report on contiguity and vacancy. The <strong><font color="#FF6633">concerned </font></strong> Development Commissioner will also submit details of duty free benefits/exemptions availed by the developer under SEZ Act and Rules in respect of the area to be de-notified. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">vii) The <strong><font color="#FF6633">concerned</font> </strong> Development Commissioner will also furnish details of units functioning in the area to be de-notified. If there are any units functioning in the area to be de-notified, the NOC from such units be furnished. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously, the Development Commissioner will be definitely ‘ <strong><font color="#FF6633">concerned</font>' </strong> when he receives such requests. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=260&filename=sez/sez_instructions/2006/sez09ins024.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>COMMERCE MINISTRY INSTRUCTION NO. 24 (No.C.8/3/2009-SEZ) Dated: July 16, 2009 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Guidelines regarding for Putting up of a Boundary Wall for SEZs </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board of Approval has decided to prescribe the following norms for boundary walls: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">i. In respect of IT/ITES SEZs, the <strong><font color="#FF6633">height of the wall will be decided by the DC </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ii. In respect of other SEZs, the <strong><font color="#FF6633">wall could either be 2.4 meters in height or 1.8 meters in height plus 0.6 meters</font> </strong> of barbed wire fencing. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">iii. For any deviations, the proposals can be referred to BoA for a decision. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why the height of the boundary wall should differ for IT and other SEZs? Should the IT SEZ wall be of more height than the normal SEZ as computers can be easily thrown over the compound walls? What if one DC (SEZ) decides the height for IT SEZ different from the other DC (SEZ)? Another BOA meeting? </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=260&filename=sez/sez_instructions/2006/sez09ins025.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>COMMERCE MINISTRY INSTRUCTION NO. 25 (No.C.8/3/2009-SEZ) Dated: July 16, 2009 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Raw sugar exemption extended to other importers who get sugar manufactured from Sugar Factories / Sugar refineries </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Entry No 38 B of the Notification 21/2002 Cus so far exempted raw sugar from basic customs duty if imported by a Sugar Factory / Sugar Refinery (condition given at 5A). This condition has now been relaxed and 5A has been amended to include any importer who has a valid contract or agreement with a sugar factory or refinery. This relaxation is subject to the obvious conditions like the importer should execute a Bond with the AC/DC Customs to be discharged only after getting certification from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This exemption was to expire on 1st August 2009 which has now been extended upto 31st March 2010. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A new entry 38BB has been inserted in the Notification to exempt Refined or white sugar, up to an aggregate quantity of ten lakh metric tonnes of total imports during the period up to and inclusive of 30th November 2009 subject to condition that the contract for import of such sugar is duly registered with Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Notification says for computing 10 lakhs MT, the quantity of Refined or white sugar already imported at nil rate of basic customs duty under this notification during the period from 17th April, 2009 up to 30th July, 2009 shall be included, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because…. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This new entry 38BB is a modification of the existing entry at 38C (which has now been omitted). 38 C had been in existence since 17th April 2009. Under this entry, the 10 lakhs MT was divided 2.5 Lakhs each amongst ( i ) STC (ii) MMTC Limited (iii) Projects & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd ( PEC ) and (iv) National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd (NAFED). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2009/ctariff09_084.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOTIFICATION NO. 84/2009-Cus., Dated: July 31, 2009 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="3">tiol</font><font color="#006600" size="2">– Wednesday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#660099" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><b><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"></b></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font><font color="#663399">Central Excise </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Excise – Goods cleared to ship builders against certificates indicating goods as ship stores for Indian Navy – Benefit of Notification 64/95-CE not available – DGCEI has all India jurisdiction and SCN issued by officials of DGCEI under Central Excise Act not beyond jurisdiction: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee cleared wires and cables without payment of duty to M/s Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd and M/s Goa Shipyard Ltd by availing benefit of exemption Notification 64/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. The exemption under this notification was availed based on the certificates issued by the respective customers that the goods under question would be supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of Indian Navy or Coast Guard. Revenue proceeded against the assessee on the ground that the goods supplied under the exemption notification were not put to the intended use as per the said notification. Duty demand was confirmed by invoking the extended period. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax – CENVAT Credit - Services undertaken like lawn mowing, garbage cleaning, collection of household garbage, harvest cutting and weeding, etc. When the appellant is under an obligation to maintain a colony, all the services received in maintaining such a colony would also be covered as input services - CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> use of the expression “as such” indicates that list of activities given therein are only illustrative and not exhaustive. When the appellant is under an obligation to maintain a colony, all the services received in maintaining such a colony would also be covered as input services. In the light of the definition of input service, Tribunal did not agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the services undertaken like lawn mowing, garbage cleaning, maintenance of swimming pool, collection of household garbage, harvest cutting, weeding, etc. cannot be considered as input services. When a colony has to be maintained, all the above services are to be considered as input services. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income tax - Sec 54F - assessee is co-owner in a residential house - sells some shares in order to construct additional floor on existing house - claims exemption for capital gains - mere extension of existing property not to entitle assessee to benefit of exemption u/s 54F: ITAT Third Member </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SECTION 54F</strong> is one of the most popular sections in the Income Tax Act. This entitles an assessee to claim exemption for long-term capital gains if the same is invested in either purchase or construction of a residential property. However, the fact in the instant case is that the assessee is a joint-owner in a residential house, and he sells some shares in the same in order to construct an additional floor on the existing house for residential purpose, and claims exemption u/s 54F for capital gains arising out of sale of shares in the same house. Revenue disallows such exemption. Even the Tribunal Members differ on the issue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more DDT </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p>
</body>
</html>