TIOL-DDT 1829 · 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><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1829 </font><br>
03.04.2012 <br>
Tuesday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Budget
Notifications - Despicable Confusion at Top </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> is certainly understandable that in making and amending large number of notifications, they are bound to make mistakes, but the way they try to cover up their mistakes is really appalling. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here is an example: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The issue is Sl. No. 15 of Notification No. 18/2012–CE dated 17.03.2012. Sl.No 15 in this notification as uploaded in the site <a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2012-13/cen/ce1812.pdf"><strong>http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2012-13/cen/ce1812.pdf</strong> </a>is as given below. </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#AFCAE4">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sl. No </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rate </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#AFCAE4">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15. </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2710 12 11 to 2710 12 90, 2710 20 00 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#AFCAE4"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">14% + Rs 15 per litre </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This Indiabudget.nic.in is the official website of Government of India and the budget was uploaded in that site minutes after the FM finished reading his budget speech. The CBEC website also showed it exactly like this after the budget. And everybody believed that the effective rate of duty is 14% + 15 rupees per litre. The items are motor spirit and petro products. The Oil refineries thought their refineries were on fire and made frantic phone calls. This meant an additional payment of duty of Rs. 15 per litre of petrol – refineries would have closed down or petrol would have cost more than a hundred rupees per litre. In one Commissionerate, they were told that they have to pay the duty at the new rates as per the notification from 17.03.2012. In fact, the tariff rate is also same; so there was no need for this notification. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then came the tinkering! Board coolly deleted the <strong>Rs. 15</strong> from the notification in its website and so the CBEC website showed it as follows after a week or so. </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#AFCAE4">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sl. No </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rate </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#AFCAE4">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15. </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2710 12 11 to 2710 12 90, 2710 20 00</font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">14% </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the meantime, a leading publisher in the print media known for his astonishing accuracy, had printed his tariff book which showed the rate as 14%+ Rs. 15 per litre. When I pointed out to him the error, he told me that he had a signed printed copy of the notification - but in this electronic age, you can change your notifications retrospectively without anyone realising it! And that is what exactly the Board did. But very late, they realised that somebody would have printed copies and they could not get the change carried out in Indiabudget.nic.in. It still shows the Rs. 15. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, now they have issued a notification amending Notification No. 18/2012-CE to delete the controversial Rs. 15 from the Notification. Finally, this is how the notification would read: </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#AFCAE4">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p align="left"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sl. No </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="left"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule</font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="left"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rate </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#AFCAE4">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15. </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2710 12 11 to 2710 12 90, 2710 20 00 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">14% </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, this amendment is made on 30.03.2012. So from 17.03.2012 to 29.03.2012, the rate of duty was 14% + Rs. 15 per litre and all oil companies will have to pay a differential duty of Rs. 15 per litre for their clearances during that period. This will run into thousands of Crores! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe Board will come up with a Section 11C Notification, but till then, Show Cause Notices, adjudications, appeals – all for nothing! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If this is how the Apex Board works, can you blame the field staff for minor misdemeanour? </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If an assessee does this kind of tinkering with his records, he will be called an evader and imposed mandatory penalty. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2012/etariff12_22.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 22/2012-CX., Dated: March 30, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Naphtha at 14%, but since when? </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SIMILARLY</strong>, Naphtha is also to attract 14% effective rate of duty from 30.03.2012, but what about the period from 17.03.2012 to 29.03.2012? Notification No. 12/2012-CE is amended. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2012/etariff12_21.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 21/2012-CX., Dated: March 30, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CE Rules Amended - CENVAT Credit Rules 2002 - Still in Vogue? </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has amended the Central Excise Rules, 2002, to make consequential changes due to its various amendments in statutes. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Section 11AB was removed from the Central Excise Act in Budget 2011, but its ghost continued in various provisions including the Central Excise Rules. Now mention of Section 11AB in Rule 7(4) is omitted. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. "CENVAT Credit Rules 2002" bid way to "CENVAT Credit Rules 2004" eight years back but still the 2002 Rules figure even in the Central Excise Rules. Now, in Rule 11, for “CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002”, “CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004” shall be substituted. But "CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002" is mentioned even in Rule 16(1) of the CE Rules – and they forgot to amend that rule!!! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Now an assesse is required to produce documents even to the cost accountant or chartered accountant nominated under section 14A or section 14AA of the Act, apart from officers of the Department and AG's office and that too <strong>within the time limit specified</strong> by the said officer or the audit party or the cost accountant or chartered accountant. Draconian????? </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>They have all the powers and you have all the responsibilities – that is what simplification is all about! </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everybody seems to be working overtime to ensure that this Government becomes so unpopular that there is no hope of coming back to power in 2014. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2012/exnt12_22.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 22/2012--CX., (N.T.), Dated: March 30, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">POT Rules - Associated Enterprises - Credit or Debit? </font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AN</strong> alert Netizen sent us this: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">While reading the service tax notifications on amendments to POTR, 2012, we observed that in Rule 7, there is an amendment in case of reverse charge transactions with associated enterprises, which is as under: </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td width="32%" valign="top"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Old Proviso </font></strong></p></td>
<td width="31%" valign="top"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">New proviso </font></strong></p></td>
<td width="37%" valign="top"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Comment </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Provided also that in case of “associated enterprises”, where the person providing the service is located outside India, the point of taxation shall be the <em>date of <strong>credit</strong> in the books of account</em> of the person receiving the service or date of making the payment whichever is earlier. </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Provided further that in case of “associated enterprises”, where the person providing the service is located outside India, the point of taxation shall be the <em>date of <strong>debit</strong> in the books of account</em> of the person receiving the service or date of making the payment whichever is earlier.? </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Why is '<strong>credit'</strong> changed to ‘ debit '? </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. While the intention appears to be that the date of credit is the correct one, as the service receiver credits the account of the service provider, there seems to be no logic why this one word was changed. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Is it that the Government wants to see the debit in the expense account and not the credit entry in the service receiver's account? </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. If this entry continues like this, either new or old, only one provision will be correct in which case service tax on reverse charge basis is not applicable in the other situation. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. When the double entry system is already in vogue for ages, is it necessary to specify whether it is debit or credit? Would it not be better if they merely mention that the relevant date is the date of making relevant entries in books of account? </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on bias tyres – Resurrection In Full Swing </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC</strong> is back to its old game of resurrecting dead notifications. Provisional Anti Dumping Duty was imposed on import of bias tyres, tubes and flaps originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China (China PR) and Thailand, by Notification No. 106/2006-Customs, dated the 9th October, 2006. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Definitive Anti Dumping Duty on these goods had been imposed by Notification No. 88/2007-Customs dated the 24th July, 2007. Government had by Notification No. 117/2019-Cus dated 18.11.2010, in supersession of Notification No. 88/2007-Customs, imposed new Anti Dumping Duty on these products from 18.11.2010, which was to be valid till 8th October 2011, that is till the expiry of the original Notification No. 106/2006-Customs, dated the 9th October, 2006. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On 8th October 2011, they were sleeping and forgot all about this notification. So, this notification is/was not valid after 8th October 2011. Now they have amended this notification to stipulate that it is valid till 7th October 2012. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Government means audacity, arrogance and retrospective harassment! </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_017.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 17/2012-Cus., (AD), Dated: March 30, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Overseas Direct Investments - Liberalisation </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> per the provisions of FEMA, an Indian party is required to obtain prior permission of the Reserve Bank to open, hold and maintain Foreign Currency Account in a foreign country for the purpose of overseas direct investments in that country, in case the regulation of the host country requires that the investment in the country is to be made through a particular account to be opened with the commercial bank of the country. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To provide operational flexibility to the Indian party, it has been decided to liberalise the regulations pertaining to opening / holding / maintaining the Foreign Currency Account by Indian party outside India as: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An Indian party will now be allowed to open, hold and maintain Foreign Currency Account (FCA) abroad for the purpose of overseas direct investments subject to the following terms and conditions: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. The Indian party is eligible for overseas direct investments in terms of Regulation 6 (Regulation 7, if applicable) of Notification No. FEMA 120/RB-2004 dated July 7, 2004, as amended from time to time. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. The host country Regulations stipulate that the investments into the country is required to be routed through a designated account. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. FCA shall be opened, held and maintained as per the regulation of the host country. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. The remittances sent to the FCA by the Indian party should be utilized only for making overseas direct investment into the JV / WOS abroad. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Any amount received in the account by way of dividend and / or other entitlements from the subsidiary shall be repatriated to India within 30 days from the date of credit. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. The Indian party should submit the details of debits and credits in the FCA on yearly basis to the designated AD bank with a certificate from the Statutory Auditors of the Indian party certifying that the FCA was maintained as per the host country laws and the extant FEMA regulations / provisions as applicable. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. The FCA so opened shall be closed immediately or within 30 days from the date of disinvestment from JV / WOS or cessation thereof. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=280&filename=notification/rbi/2011/rbi11cir101.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI A. P. (DIR Series) Circular No.101, Dated: April 02, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Use of International Debit Cards by Resident Indians while on a visit outside India </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RBI</strong> notes, “resident Indians who purchase their travel cards, are permitted refund of the unutilised foreign exchange balance only after 10 days from the date of last transaction and accordingly, this condition is stated in the "user guide". Since these cards are expected to act as substitutes for cash/Travellers Cheques, the facilities available to the user will have to be similar.” </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, RBI now directs that; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All Authorised Persons shall redeem the unutilized balance outstanding in the cards immediately upon request by the resident Indians to whom the cards are issued subject to retention of:-. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. The amounts that are authorised and remain unclaimed/ not settled by the acquirers as of the date of redemption till the completion of the respective settlement cycle; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. A small balance not exceeding USD 100, for meeting any pipeline transactions till the completion of the respective settlement cycle; and </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Transaction fees/service tax payable in India in Rupees. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=280&filename=notification/rbi/2011/rbi11cir102.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI A. P. (DIR Series) Circular No.102, Dated: April 02, 2012</font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><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"> – Wednesday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></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">Central Excise </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Advance Ruling – Central Excise - "Yum Creamy" and "Yum Chusky" shall be classifiable under headings 04039090 and 22029030 respectively; “Yum Chusky” eligible for exemption under the <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/etariff11_01.htm"><em>Notification No. 01/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011</em> </a> - AAR </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"<strong>YUM</strong> Creamy" is made by mixing sugar, flavour, vitamins, wheat and rice flour with cow's milk. Since the stabilizers, sweeteners etc. are permissible additives as mentioned in the relevant HSN Notes, the product "Yum Creamy" will be correctly classified under heading 04039090 of CETA. Any beverages based on milk and flavored with cocoa or any other substance will fall for classification under Chapter Heading 22 of the CETA and appropriate heading would be 22029030 of CETA.</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"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income
tax - Whether when assessee pays for business and commercial rights like
business claims, business records, contracts and skilled employees in slump
sale of running business, such rights are akin to a licence, eligible for
depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii): Delhi HC</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>issue
before the Bench is - Whether when assessee pays for business and commercial
rights like business claims, business records, contracts and skilled employees
in a slump sale of a running business, such rights are akin to a licence,
eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) as intangible assets. And the verdict
goes in favour of the assessee.</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">Advance Ruling - Service Tax - Identical questions pending before CESTAT - No Advance Ruling: AAR </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IF</strong> Ruling is given by AAR on the same issue pending before CESTAT and if CESTAT is free to free to render a ruling ignoring what is being ruled by this Authority, it could lead to incompatible decisions concerning the same question, being rendered by two different Authorities on an identical transaction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, such a situation should be avoided. This will be in furtherance of the spirit of enacting the bar to the jurisdiction of this Authority to entertain an application for advance ruling, when the identical question is pending before an authority under the Act, the Tribunal or Court. </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 <strong>DDT </strong></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"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>