TIOL-DDT 1798 · 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><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=14276"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/ddt/ddt_1794.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1798</font><br> 17.02.2012<br> Friday</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tariff Value increased for Brass Scrap and Poppy Seeds, Gold Untouched </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has increased the tariff values of Brass Scrap (all grades) from USD 4078 to USD 4176 and increased the tariff value of poppy seeds from USD 2205 to 2439. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no change in the tariff value of other items, including Gold and Silver. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2012/cnt12_011.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 11/2012-CUS (N.T.), Dated: February 15, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT makes corrections in PNs 80 and 83 of 2011</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT</strong> has made certain corrections in Public Notice No.80/(RE2010)/2009-14 dated 13.10.2011 and Public Notice No.83/(RE2010)/2009-14 dated 31.10.2011. And they have not smuggled in the corrections - they made it publicly by another Public Notice. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft10pn099.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Public Notice No. 99/(RE-2010)/2009-2014, Dated: February 16, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">India's Dispute with Turkey in WTO </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>INDIA</strong> had requested for consultations with Turkey, under the dispute settlement system, about the latter's safeguard measures on import of cotton yarn (other than sewing thread). </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Turkey imposed definitive safeguard measures on imports of cotton yarn with effect from 15 July 2008 for a period of 3 years. The said measures were to expire on 14 July 2011. Turkey initiated a review on 11 June 2011 to consider extension of the period of application of the said measure. Turkey imposed provisional safeguard measures on 4 August 2011 with retroactive effect from 15 July 2011 without making the required determination in the said review. Upon conclusion of the review, Turkey issued the definitive findings on 25 January 2012 recommending continuation of the measures. The safeguard measures as recommended in the definitive findings were imposed on 28 January 2012 retroactively with effect from 14 July 2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">India considers that as Turkey initiated a review to extend the safeguard measures, it is under an obligation as per the provision of Article 7.2 of the AoS to make a determination before the extension of measures, in conformity with the procedures set out in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the AoS that the safeguard measures continue to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury to its domestic industry, that there is evidence that the industry is adjusting and the pertinent provisions of Articles 8 and 12 have been observed. Without making a determination as required under Article 7.2, Turkey imposed provisional safeguard measures on 4 August 2011 with retroactive effect from 15 July, 2011 as per Decree /notification No. 2011/2041 dated 4 August 2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">India considers that the extension of safeguard measures by imposing provisional measures is inconsistent with the AoS as Turkey cannot take recourse to provisional measures under Article 6 of the AoS while undertaking a review of existing measures. At the time of applying initial safeguard measures in 2008, Turkey had also applied safeguard measures on provisional basis for 200 days, which were followed by definitive safeguard measures. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">India considers that imposition of provisional safeguard measures is permitted under Article 6 of the AoS for a maximum period of 200 days only in an original investigation and not in a review for extension of existing measures. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">India considers that the measures at issue have a serious adverse impact on the export of cotton yarn from India to Turkey. India also reserves its right to raise additional claims and legal matters that may arise during the consultations in relation to the measures at issue and their application under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">India looks forward to receiving Turkey's reply to this request within the prescribed time limit. India proposes that the date and venue of these consultations may be mutually agreed. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">AoS = Agreement on Safeguards </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Crores of rupees Seizure from Liquor Baron - CBDT Clarifies </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">IT</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> has been reported in a section of the media that there has been a leak in a search case conducted recently by the Income Tax department on a ‘liquor baron'. It is also reported in the media that CBDT has instituted an inquiry into the matter. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBDT clarifies:,</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“During the search operations held on 1st February, 2012 with regard to the <em><strong>concerned</strong></em> (he was certainly concerned) liquor baron, cash of Rs.2.03 Crore, jewellery and ornaments worth the value of Rs.5.18 Crore, fixed deposits of Rs.4.4 Crore, and large number of documents were seized. Further, restraint orders on 13 bank lockers and 2 other premises are pending. The search is yet to be completed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the matter is still under investigation, these media reports are found without any factual basis and only speculative.”</font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is this, another official leak? </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC wants Ombudsmen at Ahmedabad, Kolkata and Chennai</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> of India had created seven posts of Ombudsmen in CBEC at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Ahmedabad and Lucknow. The Government had invited applications for these posts and CBEC had recommended some names. The former CBEC Chairman Dutt Mazumder, former CBEC Member Lalitha John were selected for Delhi and Bengaluru respectively. And two others were selected for Mumbai and Lucknow, whose selection ran into rough whether with the noted advocate Prashant Bhushan complaining to the Prime Minister about their proven integrity (?). With this, all the four appointments got stuck and the Government is yet to appoint a single Ombudsman. The company you keep is very important. Because two of the selected members had complaints against them, the other two, whose credentials are impeccable, are not appointed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And even initially, the Committee could not find anyone capable of being an ombudsman in Ahmedabad, Kolkata and Chennai. So, now the Government is again trying to get somebody for this job at these places. The Revenue Department has asked the CBEC to send names of prospective candidates by 9th March 2012. Chief Commissioners and above are eligible to apply. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But when will they finalise the previous appointment of four (or is it two) Ombudsmen? </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=70&filename=pitara/do_letter_12026.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dept of Revenue D.O.No. A-12026/18/2011-Ad.I, Dated: February 08, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Budget 2012 - With TIOL </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHEN</strong> it comes to the Budget, all of us have our opinions and given a chance, we can all do things better than Pranab Da, but since that is not possible, we will tell the FM, what we want from him. We start our Budget Run Up on Monday. As usual, we promise to bring you the best possible budget coverage. Your response to our request for budget suggestions has been overwhelming. Even if we are not able to cover all your suggestions in our Budget Run up, be sure, we will bring them to the notice of the <em><strong>concerned</strong></em> authorities. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most of the suggestions are about cumbersome procedures, as everybody seems to be happy with the tax rates – at least in indirect taxes. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An assessee told me, “get a small thing done and I will recommend your name for Guinness Record - instead of paying 2% cess and 1% cess separately, allow us to pay this 3% along with the duty/tax as 10.3%, 8.24% etc,. Let the Government divide it among various duties and heads” (instead of asking the assessees to break their heads). </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A Central Excise officer wrote in, “The Government has done away with presentation of budget at 5 PM because it was British Legacy. However, we are still continuing with khaki uniform of Central Excise Inspectors, which was used by British to terrorise the Indian salt and tobacco manufacturer. Why is this uniform required at all? When income tax can function without uniform, then why Not Central Excise?” </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An assessee wrote in, “Every Medical Practitioner (Doctor) and Legal Advisor (Advocate) should be brought under income tax as they are earning more than any common person and without giving receipts for their earnings”. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sir, about 90% of the advocates do not earn enough to afford a decent wash for their coats! </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our budget Run up every day from Monday for more such interesting inputs for the FM. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> –Tuesday's cases </font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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">Customs</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Re-export allowed after more than three years and drawback rejected on ground of delay (by the officers) - The facts speak for themselves and elucidate harassment suffered by petitioner. Refund Ordered with interest and costs: HC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> respondents have been taking different stands. It is rightly pointed out by the petitioner that in case goods had not been imported into the country then there is no question of assessment, demand and payment customs duty. Thus, Rs.1,52,251/- deposited by the petitioner with the respondents should be refunded. The administration should not be put to inconvenience. In the present case, the lapses and default have been on the part of the Respondents. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, is quashed. The penalty imposed of Rs.10,000/- is also quashed. The respondents will refund Rs.1,49,207/- along with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 1st January 2008 till payment is made. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether when assessment is made u/s 143(1), mere production of books of account would not amount to full and true disclosure within meaning of sec 147 - NO, says HC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RETURN</strong> was filed alongwith the balance sheet and profit and loss account. A revised computation chart was filed claiming investment allowance. Assessment was completed u/s 143(1). Similar claim was made for the earlier assessment year, which was disallowed by AO and in the CIT (A) allowed the claim. ITAT upheld the order of AO and disallowed this claim. A raid was conducted. Assessee alleged that the raid was conducted with a mala fide intention. After raid AO assessed the income for the subsequent years after clubbing the income of the assessee with that of the lessee firm. Appeal against the said order was dismissed. Notice u/s 148 was issued for re-opening of the assessment already done. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Banking and Other Financial Services" - A bank run by Co-operative Society liable to pay tax: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Short point for decision in these appeals is whether a co-operative society is covered by the expression "or any other body corporate, or any other person" used in sub-section 65 (105) (zm) and sub-section 65 (12). Tribunal did not agree that the expression is used in Finance Act 1994 for giving exemption to co-operative societies. By borrowing this expression from Companies Act, it brings in all the entities covered by Finance Act, 1994 section 2 (7) of the Companies Act, into the ambit of Finance Act, 1994 and if there was no other expression which could have brought co-operative societies into the scope of the entry it would have remained outside the scope of section 65 (105) (zm). If there is an expression, which can otherwise cover co-operative societies, it would get covered. So, the real point to be examined is whether the expression "any other person" can bring in co-operative society; The very fact that section 2 (7) of the Companies Act specifically excluded co-operative society shows that in many respects co-operative society is of the same genus as a company. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Monday is a Holiday</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Tuesday for the judgements </font></strong></p> <p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more <strong>DDT </strong></font></p> <p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a Nice Day. </font></p> <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"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font> </body> </html>