If AO has doubts over info furnished in return he can issue scrutiny notice to call for further deta

IT: In case, Assessing Officer has any doubts on information and supporting documents in return, he is required to issue notice under section 143(2)

Revenue directed to lift attachment order as assessee agreed to furnish bank guarantee against tax d

IT : Where assessee was ready and willing to furnish a bank guarantee to extent of liability that might arise on conclusion of assessment, revenue was directed to lift attachment order over bank account and stock of assessee

HC slams Tribunal for ordering pre-deposit without first considering assessee's case on merits

Central Excise : For deciding question of waiver of pre-deposit, prima facie case as raised by assessee is required to be considered and where same was not considered, matter was remanded back

Profits rightly deduced on estimation basis from invoices as assessee failed to produce cash book ev

IT: Where assessee did not produce cash book and related vouchers for verification as required by Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer rightly rejected assessee's books of account

11-Year-Old Suspended For Turning In A Plastic Toy Gun

Many schools have ‘zero-tolerance’ weapons rules, but a Chicago school went a little too far last month when they interrogated, scrutinized and suspended an 11-year-old boy for a plastic, non-firing, toy gun.

Even worse, the 6th grader, Caden Cook, voluntarily turned in the gun to school security after realizing he had mistakenly taken it to school.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties group, has taken up the boy’s case on behalf of his mother, Edith Fraustro.

“According to Caden’s mother, Ms. Fraustro, Caden was waiting in line to be patted down on Friday, January 31st, when he realized that he had mistakenly left in his sweater pocket a toy plastic gun which he had played with the previous night…” a letter from Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead to the Director of Chicago Public Schools reads. “Caden alerted the security personnel to his predicament.”

After turning in the toy, Cook was allegedly subjected to an interrogation with intimidation tactics, threats and accusations of lying by Vice Principal Timothy Daly — all before his mother was even notified of the incident. After being interrogated, Cook was suspended for one day and required to participate in counseling and psychiatric evaluation before returning to school. The suspension will remain part of Cook’s permanent record.

According to Whitehead, “the entire incident has been greatly distressing for Caden and his family, resulting in nightmares for the 11-year-old and a complete loss in trust in the school system to act judiciously In loco parentis such that Ms. Fraustro removed both of her children from the District in order to homeschool them.”

Sadly, Cook’s situation is becoming far too common. At the end of last year, an 8-year-old boy in Florida was suspended for pointing his fingers like a gun and a 12-year-old in Rhode Island was suspended for having a mini gun key chain the size of a quarter. Earlier last year, a West Virginia eighth grader was arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school.

The zero tolerance policy has gone so off-track that some legislators have decided to act. After a Maryland second grader was suspended for eating his Pop-Tart into a shape that his teacher thought looked like a gun, Florida lawmakers decided to form a policy that would protect students from getting into serious trouble for harmless objects. The ‘Pop-Tart’ school-gun bill cleared its first hurdle just last.

Source:- redalertpolitics.com

HC slams revenue for initiating reassessment in relation to matters dealt with in block assessment

IT : Reopening of assessment in relation to a matter which is subject matter of block assessment is evidently without jurisdiction

Additions made by enhancing rate of profit deleted as no incriminating materials were found during s

IT : Enhancement in profit rate was not justified where revenue failed to point any special circumstances for estimation of high profit

Fruit, Vegetable Markets Under Health Department Scanner

Fruits and vegetable markets in the state will be periodically inspected by the health department officials to check if they contain harmful chemicals like insecticides or pesticides beyond acceptable limits.

The health department is planning to intensify its efforts to keep a check on fruits and vegetable markets in the state. The health department on January 23 wrote to all chief medical health officers (CMHOs) in the state to conduct periodical inspections and monitoring of major fruit and vegetable markets. Along with the directions, the health department has attached a circular of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, which has all the details of how the periodical inspections and monitoring of major fruits and vegetable market could be done.

A senior health department official said they have already directed the CMHOs to conduct periodic inspections so that they could check the use of carbide in ripening of fruits. As per the surveillance plan for fruits and vegetable, the health department would collect samples of seasonal fruits and vegetables. Minimum number of 10 of each fruit and 10 of each vegetable would randomly be collected from each market in every three months.

As per the directions, analysis of fruits and vegetables will be done on physical parameters, heavy metals and crop contaminants and microbiological parameters. In microbiological parameters, there is total plate count, yeast and mold, E. coli, coliforms, B. cereus, salmonella, shagella would be checked in vegetables and fruits as they are harmful for health.

The officials have been directed to send the samples collected to laboratories authorized by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. However, a government-run laboratory official pointed out that so far samples of milk, mawa and other milk products come to them for testing but the samples of fruits and vegetables never came for testing.

Source:- timesofindia.indiatimes.com

India May Produce Record 263.2 Mt Foodgrains This Year: Sharad Pawar

Foodgrain prouction is likely to touch a record 263.2 million tonnes (mt) this year, beating the previous high of 259 mt achieved two years ago, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said today.

"The country is likely to achieve record 263.2 mt foodgrain production this year. This would be about 4 mt higher than the record of 259 million tonnes achieved two years ago," Pawar said at an agricultural exposition here.

The foodgrain production fell marginally to 255.36 mt in the last crop year (July-June) due to drought in some parts of the country.

A good monsoon along with improved sowing of both kharif (summer) and rabi (winter) crops have improved prospects of a better foodgrain production this year.

India has now emerged as the world's top rice exporter and second-top exporter of wheat and cotton. The country is also the top producer of milk and horticultural crops, Pawar said highlighting progress made in the farm sector.

The Central Statistics Office (CSO), in its recently-released advanced estimates for the current fiscal, has projected 4.6 per cent growth in agriculture and allied sectors, up from 1.4 per cent a year earlier.

Impressed with the exhibitions by 92 successful farmers, the minister also called upon others to emulate their success stories for improving their production and prosperity.

The five-day exposition, Krishi Vasant, has been organised by the Centre and Maharashtra along with industry body CII. It also showcases the history of agricultural research accomplished in last the 100 years by ICAR.Nearly five lakh farmers are expected to visit the event, an official release said.

Source:- financialexpress.com

Iran And The Global Nuclear Picture: William Fickinger

The negotiations now taking place concerning Iran’s nuclear program can only be understood with knowledge of a few key facts about uranium enrichment, power production and weapons, as found in dozens of “nuclear states” worldwide.

Uranium ore is mined in many places ranging from Australia to Kazakhstan to Canada, and it is widely available on the world market. The ore contains two types of uranium: mostly the heavy isotope uranium-238 (U-238) and less than one percent of the lighter uranium-235 (U-235). The lighter form is needed to sustain a chain reaction in either power reactors or a bomb. A chain reaction is created when a neutron hits a uranium nucleus, breaking it apart, releasing a lot of energy and shooting out more neutrons which hit other nuclei. U-235 breaks apart more easily than U-238 because it has three fewer neutrons, and it’s largely the neutrons inside the nucleus which act as a glue holding it together.

Enrichment increases the fraction of U-235: the ore is converted to a gaseous form and put into spinning cylinders. The U-238 moves toward the outside; the desired U-235 is drawn out near the spin axis. The gas is then converted back to uranium metal. To function in energy production the fraction of U-235 must be increased to three percent -- low-enriched uranium, or LEU. For a bomb, it must be raised all the way to 90 percent -- highly-enriched uranium, or HEU.

The amount of enrichment which a centrifuge can do is measured in a unit called an SWU (Separative Work Unit). The Perry Nuclear Power Plant near Cleveland, which produces 1.3 gigawatts of power, needs about 120,000 SWU’s per year. A simple nuclear bomb requires about 10,000 SWU’s. In other words, any country that enriches uranium for its power plants will necessarily have the “capacity” to produce enough for a few nuclear bombs.

Let’s look at enrichment, power production and nuclear weapons all around the world. Currently there are 31 nations with significant nuclear power programs: the United States, Russia and Japan, each producing around one fifth of their electricity; France at three-quarters; the United Kingdom at about half; South Korea at one-third -- ranging down to India with less than 4 percent and Iran, less than 1 percent. Other nations will soon join in: For example, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have arranged with South Korean companies to build and operate reactors in their countries.

Among those 31, only 15 do their own enrichment. Nine of these produce some HEU for weapons: the United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and, presumably, Israel. The other six limit their product to LEU: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and, so far, Iran.

The remaining 16 countries have no enrichment facilities and must buy their LEU from commercial firms in other countries. There is currently more than enough LEU available on the world market to supply all potential buyers.

It should be pointed out that there are other ways to make a chain reaction without using enriched U-235, such as in “heavy water” reactors and in plutonium reactors. These have been developed in several countries and any effort to control nuclear weapon production must take these other techniques into consideration.

Iran has been working on expanding its enrichment facilities, but its only significant power reactor, at Bushehr, is still fueled entirely by uranium bought from Russian suppliers. Iran is getting more attention than other nuclear countries partly because of strained relations with Israel and with the Sunni states. The big question at the Geneva negotiations is whether Iran must discontinue all enrichment and buy LEU for power production, or whether intrusive and unannounced inspections will make it impossible for Iran to produce HEU.

Many arms control experts argue that, given the determination by many in the Iranian government to maintain their own source of LEU, intensive inspections provide the best deterrent available. It is unlikely that the imposition of additional sanctions will lead the Iranian leaders to discontinue their enrichment program or to allow effective inspections. Sanctions will only strengthen the position of those seeking a full nuclear weapons program.

Source:- cleveland.com

Miners' Greed To Make Quick Money Led To Cartelisation: Vinod Nowal

Iron ore miners and steel makers in Karnataka are blaming each other for cartelization. Vinod Nowal, deputy managing director, JSW Steel Ltd and President of Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers’ Association explains the stand of the steel industry to Mahesh Kulkarni. Edited excerpts:

Steel mills including JSW Steel have been buying iron ore in the e-auctions even when the prices were very high. What makes you to suddenly make allegations of cartelisation by iron ore miners?

As long as the Monitoring Committee is vested with the power to fix the price based on prevailing pan India iron ore prices, the private mining companies were restrained to hike the prices indiscriminately. Unfortunately, when the right to fix the price is shifted to private mining companies, unfair practices crept in, showing a pattern of increase in prices not aligning with the price trends in the international market nor in India nor NMDC.

Even though steel companies were buying iron ore at high bid prices earlier due to shortage, the recent pattern of unfair price fixation at Rs 5,000 per tonne by certain mining companies has left no option except to resort to certain actions against this unfair practice.

The iron ore miners have alleged that 2-3 big steel companies have formed a buyers' cartel and trying to put pressure on mining firms to reduce prices?

The bid prices have been increasing in the E-Auctions over base prices due to acute shortage of iron ore. If 2 to 3 steel companies can influence the price, the E-Auction price could be at base price only. When E-Auction bid prices are known to all which are higher than base prices, it can be conclusively said that it is mischievous and misleading to make a false allegation of forming a buyers’ cartel.

The greed to make quick money even at the cost of causing enormous damage to environment which led to mining ban with consequent pain and anguish to the steel industry, has now resurfaced by way of unfair price fixation in the E-Auction taking advantage of severe shortage of iron ore in Karnataka.

Is it true that only 3-5 steel companies buy almost 75% of the iron ore produced in Karnataka?

The Monitoring Committee has restricted the companies who can participate in the E-Auction and also restrained the participants in buying ore beyond their requirements. The mining companies are used to disseminate misleading information by saying earlier that Indian Steel companies cannot use fines and therefore they are to be exported.

Now in order to justify unfair pricing with an intention to make excessive profit at the cost of Indian economy, they are now making false allegation of cartel when the iron ore has been sold in E-Auction at a premium to the base price and when the base price itself is unfairly fixed.

Why did steel mills from Karnataka bought ore from other states and NMDC ore were left unsold?

Most of the steel plants, pellet plants and sponge units in Karnataka are either closed down or operating below the potential capacity due to acute shortage of iron ore. In these circumstances the steel companies are constrained to buy some quantities from other states to keep their furnaces running. Why would a steel company buy iron ore from other states by paying extra Rs 2,500 to Rs 3,000 per tonne towards the freight charges if the ore of the same quality and quantity is available in Karnataka.

Private sector miners say that NMDC has been pricing their ore abysmally low to benefit a very few steel producers. What is your stand on this?

It is known fact that NMDC has been following export parity pricing consistently to sell ore in the domestic market. It is not uncommon for a developing country like India to follow export parity pricing for domestic sales.

In fact, there are several examples worldwide of export parity pricing being followed by mining companies in Brazil, South Africa and China. It is relevant to note that even NMDC tweaked its export pricing formula after mining ban which in fact increased the prices to the domestic steel companies relative to that of earlier formula.

Why did NMDC, which sold its iron ore at Rs 4,110 per tonne on December 10, 2013, suddenly reduced it to Rs 3,227 on December 23, 2013. What caused such sudden downward revision in the price of iron ore, which is supposed to be in short supply in Karnataka?

This information is once again erroneously represented. The base price fixed by NMDC on December 10 was Rs 2,250/- per tonne from Donimalai and on December 23, it was Rs 2,190/- per tonne and Rs 2,050/- per tonne from C&B block of Kumarswamy respectively.

The difference in the prices is accounted by varying loading costs at different mines. The bid price being quoted was higher than base price majorly due to acute shortage which the steel industry has been complaining. Besides, the bid prices as mentioned in the question were also different due to varying Alumina, Silica and quality parameters for the ore auctioned.

The steel mills have been buying iron ore at subsidized prices from NMDC. But, they sell steel at Rs 38,000 per tonne, which is same as in Japan, when Japan's cost of iron ore is three times that of India.

This is again fallacious argument. The domestic iron ore prices determined by NMDC are based on export parity. Absolutely there is no subsidy. In fact, the steel companies are burdened with high interest rates of over 12% when the interest rates overseas is less than 2% and the steel companies are compelled to compete with these international steel players where there is no level playing field.

The current hot rolled coil prices in USA is $745 per tonne, Europe $610 per tonne, China $480 per tonne, India $575 per tonne, Japan $650 per tonne. The prices in each country are governed by different parameters and governing regulations.

What would be your next course of action, if your plea for appointing a price regulator is not considered by the Supreme Court?

At the current cost of production we incur Rs 40,000 per tonne of steel and given the current selling price of Rs 34,000 per tonne, we will end up losing Rs 6,000 per tonne of steel. We have borrowed huge amount of loans and we cannot afford to pay interest and lose money by buying high cost iron ore.

We will not be left with any other choice but to close down our steel plants, which will be a disaster not only for us, but the governments will lose revenue to the tune of Rs 10,000 crore by way of.

Source:- business-standard.com

'India May Produce Record 263.2 Mt Foodgrains This Year'

Foodgrain prouction is likely to touch a record 263.2 million tonnes (mt) this year, beating the previous high of 259 mt achieved two years ago, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said today.

"The country is likely to achieve record 263.2 mt foodgrain production this year. This would be about 4 mt higher than the record of 259 million tonnes achieved two years ago," Pawar said at an agricultural exposition here.

The foodgrain production fell marginally to 255.36 mt in the last crop year (July-June) due to drought in some parts of the country.

A good monsoon along with improved sowing of both kharif (summer) and rabi (winter) crops have improved prospects of a better foodgrain production this year.

India has now emerged as the world's top rice exporter and second-top exporter of wheat and cotton. The country is also the top producer of milk and horticultural crops, Pawar said highlighting progress made in the farm sector. The Central Statistics Office (CSO), in its recently-released advanced estimates for the current fiscal, has projected 4.6 per cent growth in agriculture and allied sectors, up from 1.4 per cent a year earlier.

Impressed with the exhibitions by 92 successful farmers, the minister also called upon others to emulate their success stories for improving their production and prosperity. The five-day exposition, Krishi Vasant, has been organised by the Centre and Maharashtra along with industry body.

Source:- business-standard.com

Textile Export Subsidies Distort Normal Trade, Turkey Tells India

India has to phase out textile export subsidies gradually as it has reached ‘export competitiveness’, says Turkey Trade Minister Nihat Zeybekci. Zeybekci, who was in India recently, spoke to Business Line on the areas of bilateral cooperation between the two countries, a possible Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and how it wants to keep this relationship separate from its stance in multilateral agencies like the World Trade Organisation.

Turkey, along with some other countries, has questioned the sops given to textile exporters in India. Is this a serious issue for the country?

On request of the US in February 2010, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Secretariat calculated the export competitiveness of textile and apparel products from India. These calculations clearly showed that India has reached export competitiveness on the said products at least in 2007, if not earlier.

Therefore, India has to phase out its export subsidies gradually over a period of eight years starting not later than 2007. In that sense the implementation of new export subsidies programme or the extension of existing programme is disturbing the normal flow of business.

How does it hurt Turkey?

It has a potential to hurt Turkey’s interest both in the domestic and international markets. Export subsidies have the most trade distortive effects. Our textile and apparel producers are competing with Indian textile and apparel exporters in domestic and export markets.

India’s textile and apparel export to Turkey has increased significantly in the last couple of years. Turkey’s textile and apparel exports were around $17 billion in 2013.

This figure shows that Turkey’s textile and apparel producers have to compete with subsidised India textile and apparel producers in the domestic and export markets.

From a wider perspective, our political and economic relations with India are at their best. I am confident we will find an amicable agreement on such issues.

Last year, Turkey had removed safeguard duties on India cotton yarn exports. Is there still discomfort amongst the Turkish industry on the issue?

In order to protect our domestic cotton yarn manufacturers in December 2008 we started implementing safeguard measures for all cotton yarn imports without any discrimination.

We started consultations with India in 2012 in WTO and subsequently decided to eliminate the safeguard measures on cotton yarn imports as of January 1, 2013. Cotton yarn is a crucial component of our textile production and we monitor its production and import very closely. However, we have not received any complaints from our producers since the elimination of the measures.

What are the possible areas where India and Turkey can cooperate?

We have complementary economies. Moreover, as developing countries, we have been dealing with similar problems. Turkey’s strong historical and cultural relations with Central Asia, Caucasia, West Asia and Mediterranean Regions enable us to extent our economic and commercial ties to these regions.

We can make it comfortable for Indian companies to do business in these countries more profitably. India can provide same opportunity to Turkish companies in South Asia.

I met the Indian Commerce and Trade Minister Anand Sharma and we decided to start talks on Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement within next the three months and conclude the agreement as soon as possible. Construction sector is an area where Turkish companies can explore opportunities in India.

Turkey needs $130-billion investment in order to meet its high electricity demand. Renewable energy is an area which has gained importance.

Technology transfer from India will be beneficial for manufacture of equipments for solar and wind power plants in Turkey. Another area for cooperation is establishment and rehabilitation of hydropower projects.

There is a need to increase the frequency of flights operated by Turkish Airlines and commencenew destinations by the Airlines, encourage tourist exchanges and cooperation in the field of SMEs, and cooperation in agriculture and education sectors.

Source:- thehindubusinessline.com

TPO can’t make adjustment to ALP by relying on its earlier order without going into merits of the ca

IT/ILT-I : Prior to amendment made in sub-section (4) to section 92CA with effect from 1-6-2007, Assessing Officer was not bound to accept ALP as determined by TPO but had to determine ALP only after giving an opportunity of hearing to assessee

Charges collected and paid to electronic media not includible in value of advertising agency's servi

Service Tax : Amounts collected and paid to print/electronic media towards space/time for display of advertisement cannot be said to have been paid towards services rendered by advertising agency and are, therefore, not includible in taxable value of said services

Injunction isn’t appropriate where it not only affects parties to dispute but also third party bidde

CL : Where by time CIC considered issue, tenders against which injunction was claimed, was finalized and contracts were signed with third party bidders who were not parties to complaint, injunction could not be granted