News Update

When a similar activity is performed by a similarly placed entity in India who is acting to fulfil the same function for another Indian entity, same would normally be exigible to GST - To hold otherwise, in appellant's case would go against the grain of expressed intention of legislature: AAARNo material evidence is needed to substantiate retraction of statements recorded under coercion: ITATProvisions for doubtful debts must be deducted when computing a Trust's income available for application to charitable purposes: ITATNon-availability of PAN of deductee is not reasonable cause to explain delay in deducting TDS: ITATMandate u/s 68 is not fulfilled if assessee does not establish source of cash credits or genuineness & creditworthiness of depositors: ITATCX - Amendment carried out in Rule 6(6) of CCR by way of Notification No.50/2008-CX(NT) is retrospective - supplies made to SEZ developer are also to be considered as export: CESTATST - If transporters engaged are goods transport owners, not registered under service tax, there is no question of assessee availing credit on inputs - Conditions for availing abatement under Notfn No 32/04-ST are satisfied: CESTATCus - Appellant is not entitled to refund without having first challenged assessment order itself: CESTATCus - It was not open to Commr.(A) to revisit a decision taken in favour of appellant, save on appeal authorised by Commissioner of Customs: CESTATSynergy between seizure and confiscation under GSTInternational Customs Day - 20 officers & CHA to receive WCO Certificate of MeritRevision of Anti-dumping duty on imports of 'Sodium Nitrite' from PR China - Notfn. 40/2017-Customs(ADD) amendedWTO Chief hails support from many countries at DavosIndia, USA may settle trade spat over steel productsIncome tax raid on prominent hotel chain finds undisclosed foreign assets worth Rs 1000 CrIncome tax raids TN education institution; seizes cash of Rs 2 Cr + undisclosed income of Rs 532 Crore
Cabinet okays funding of Delhi Metro's three Priority Corridors of Phase – IV

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, DEC 11, 2019: THE Union Cabinet has given its approval for revision in the funding pattern of three approved priority corridors of Delhi Metro Phase-IV projects, namely, (i) Aerocity to Tughlakabad, (ii) R.K Ashram to Janakpuri (West) and (iii) Mukundpur - Maujpur with sharing of land cost in the ratio of 50:50 between Government of India (GoI) and Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).  This is in pursuance of the amendments to Metro Rail Policy, 2017 applicable only for Delhi, in compliance to the Supreme Court order dated 06.09.2019.

The total cost of the project which is Rs. 24,948.65 crore remains unchanged. The contribution from GoI increases from the existing Rs. 4,154.20 crore to Rs. 4,643.638 crore resulting in a net increase of Rs. 489.438 crore. The amount of external loan from bilateral/multilateral agencies which DMRC has to repay increases from the existing Rs. 11,462.60 crore to Rs.12,930.914 crore with a net increase of Rs. 1,468.314 crore.


Three priority corridors of Delhi Metro phase-IV project were approved by the Government of India in March, 2019 at a completion cost of Rs. 24,948.65 crore. The funding pattern was kept in line with provisions of Metro rail policy, 2017. GNCTD in April, 2019 directed DMRC not to start work on the sanctioned corridors unless MoHUA revises the cost sharing pattern in tune with approval concurred by them.

After intervention of the Supreme Court, the work was started in July, 2019. The Supreme Court in its order dated 06.09.2019, upheld the provisions of Metro Rail Policy, 2017 regarding bearing of operational losses and repayment of external loan and currency fluctuation cost by the State in case the Special Purpose Vehicle (DMRC in this case) fails. The Supreme Court directed to make a departure from the Policy to be applicable only in the case of Delhi and to share land cost in the ratio of 50:50 between GoI and GNCTD. The relevant para of Metro Rail Policy, 2017 is also amended accordingly.