Karnataka Assembly polls to be held in three phases - May 10, 16 & 25;

ADB projects 8% growth rate for India in 2008-09;

Civil Aviation Ministry denies move to change name of Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport;

Mumbai Customs (General) detects another case of 'customised' vessel import; recovers Rs 12 Crore;

IGI Airport Customs seizes 1.9 kg brown sugar; arrests South African female national;

SC says do not rush to court if you are not happy with governance; use voting right to vote out Govt;

NOTIFICATION

it08not047.pdf

CBDT notifies Chief Commissioner LTU, Mumbai;

it08not048.pdf

CBDT notifies jurisdiction of Commissioner LTU, Mumbai;

it08not049.pdf

CBDT notifies Chief Commissioner LTU, Mumbai ;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-187-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT-V, Delhi Vs Narain Jewels International Ltd (Dated: February 20, 2008)

Income Tax - A.O. adds a sum u/s 68 and levies penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income - Tribunal sets aside penalty on the ground that assessee furnished all information available with it with respect to share capital and it is not proved that the explaination offered by it is false or lacked bonafide as the addition was simply made on the ground that assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction which does not amount to concealment of income - It is not a case of cncealment of income or giving false information thus penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been rightly invalidated - Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-186-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, Delhi VI Vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd (Dated: March 14, 2008)

Income Tax - Sec 68 - AO makes addition for advance taken as the assessee fails to furnish satisfactory explanation - CIT(A) and Tribunal delete the additions - Since the CIT(A) has given a finding of facts that the credit entry does not relate to the previous year and stands there for many years as an advance against breeding stallions, no infirmity in Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-139-ITAT-HYD.pdf + capitation story.pdf

Vodithala Education Society Vs ADIT (Exemption), Hyderabad (Dated: October 31, 2007)

Is the assessee a Charitable Institution? The Tribunal noted that it is obvious that “education” is included in the charitable purpose. Admittedly, the assessee society is running educational institutions. So the answer is ‘YES”

When the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. Capitation fee is nothing but a price for selling education. As held by the Apex Court, the concept of ‘teaching shop' is contrary to the constitutional scheme and is wholly abhorrent to Indian culture and heritage. Some of the State Legislatures passed legislation prohibiting the collection of capitation fee and also made the same as a punishable offence. Collection of capitation fee is contrary to the Constitutional scheme and prohibited by State enactment. When the assessee used the charitable activity/educational institution as an apparatus for selling the education, the element of charity no longer remains in the activity of the assessee.

Even if it is charitable, no exemption: Even assuming for the sake of argument that the assessee is a charitable institution under section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is not entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. ‘Education' falls within the definition of charitable purpose. Therefore, any income derived from property held under Trust for charitable purpose and applied for education, is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has not derived any income from any property held under Trust. The only source of receipt is, the education itself, i.e. from educational institution.

Whether the educational institution owned by the assessee society would be regarded as a property held under Trust by the society. Section 11 speaks of the property held under Trust. The legislature visualized two situations. One is income derived from the property held under Trust and another is application of that income derived from the property held under Trust for a charitable purpose. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the property held under Trust for a charitable activity. In the present case, the assessee society is carrying on charitable activity by establishing educational institutions. Therefore the charitable activity of the assessee is education. Since such receipt / income is inevitable or consequential while carrying on the activity of education, such income also become eligible -apparatus for carrying out the charitable activity. Therefore, the educational institution or charitable activity itself cannot be construed as the property held under Trust.

Whether the assessee was running the educational institution for the purpose of profit or not. The assessee has no independent source of income other than the income from the educational institutions. During the course of survey, admittedly, the revenue authorities found incriminating material which shows the collection of exorbitant amounts from the students, who are admitted under the management quota. The material found during the course of survey operation clearly shows that the assessee-society collected money over and above the fees prescribed by the government for admitting the students under the management quota.: HYDERABAD ITAT;

2008-TIOL-138-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Patel Engineering Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: February 26, 2008)

Income Tax - Deduction u/s 80IA - Assessee claims benefits for developing a dam, irrigation project and a rail link - AO disallows but CIT(A) allows - ''It'' used in section 80-IA(4)(i)(a) refers to 'enterprise' and not 'infrastructure facility' as wrongly interpreted by the Revenue. In terms of section 80-IA(4)(i)(a), the enterprises and not infrastructure facility should be owned by a company - Benefits allowed

No development is possible without the execution of civil construction works. These civil constructions themselves represent development of the infrastructural facility.

Revenue's objection is that the infrastructure facilities are required to be transferred to the Government/statutory bodies and the enterprise should start operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities on or after 1st April 1995. Sub-section 80-IA(4)(i)(b) envisages three types of activities - development, operation and maintenance and the law permitted the enterprise to take up any of these activities and it was not necessary that if the assessee has entered into agreements with the Government/statutory bodies of any of these activities.:DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-501-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + rom story.pdf

CCE, Thane I Vs Shri Mohammed Hussain Abdul Sattar (Dated: March 3, 2008)

Rectification application has to be filed within six months of the date of the order and in any case, the present application is beyond that time and hence cannot be considered.

If the revenue feels that the signatures are not that of Mohammed Hussain Abdul Sattar, they should file proper complaint before the competent court and once the competent court holds that the signatures were not that of his, only then cognizance of such findings, if at all, can be taken by this court in determining whether the signature on the restoration application was that of Mohammed Hussain Abdul Sattar or not.

Tribunal is not the proper authority to determine whether the signature on ROA application was forged or not – Tribunal decision in Badri Narain Sharma [2005-TIOL-1242-CESTAT-DEL] distinguishable.

Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue dismissed as being without any merits.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-500-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai I Vs M/s Metropolitan Transport Company (Dated: January 1, 2008)

Central Excise – manufacture – conversion of used lubricating oil into reusable lubricating oil does not amount to manufacture.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-499-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Thane II Vs Pioneer Ball Industries (Dated: January: January 28, 2008)

Erroneously taken Cenvat credit without utilization reversed on own before issuance of show cause notice – Interest not payable – Revenue appeal rejected.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-498-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Supercoat Industries Vs CCE, Chennai II (Dated: January 31, 2008)

CE - SSI exemption-Paint-brand name of another person used on secondary packing - SSI exemption eligible : CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-505-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + st story.pdf

CCE, Pune I Vs Madhuri Travels (Dated: February 22, 2008)

Service Tax – Commissioner(A) reducing penalty in terms of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 not improper - Following judicial discipline does not mean re-writing of the statute : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-504-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Jindal Steel & Power Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: January 24, 2008)

ST - Pre-deposit u/s 35F - Assessee declines to comply with the Commissioner (A) order - Since the service was rendered and also payment was made outside India, the case is prima facie a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit - Matter remanded to the Commission (A) : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-503-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Jay Security Services Vs CC, CE & ST, Daman (Dated: February 29, 2008)

ST - Security Service - Tax with interest confirmed - Commissioner enhances penalty - Since the demand relates to a period prior to registration, the ratio of Bharat Security Services & Worker's cont ( 2005-TIOL-1463-CESTAT-DEL ) will apply and there is no justification for enhancement of penalty: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft07not093.pdf

Ban on export of non-Basmati rice - a few exclusions;

dgft07not092.pdf

Ban on export of edible oils not to apply to castor oil, coconut oil;

dgft07not091.pdf

Ban on export of pulses extended to March 2009;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-62-SC-CUS.pdf + sc story.pdf

Gurcharan Singh Vs DRI (Dated: April 1, 2008)

Customs – drawback – prosecution: A person is said to have done anything fraudulently if he does that with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The requisite guilty knowledge or mens rea under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 135(1) of the Customs Act can be established by circumstantial evidence. Here the petitioner is alleged to have floated fictitious firms with dishonest intention to obtain the duty draw back. In my view on the facts alleged, offence under section 135 of the Act is prima facie made out."

We are not unmindful of the proposition of law that a penal statute must receive strict construction.

But it is also a trite law that the Court while interpreting a statute must consider the purpose for which the Act has been enacted.: SUPREME COURT ;

2008-TIOL-502-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s L M Glasfiber India Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: December 12, 2007)

Customs – refund – refund claim filed without challenging the assessment order – not admissible as the issue has already been decided in favour of the revenue by the Larger Bench.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

ddt april 2.pdf

CBDT notifies Chief Commissioner LTU, Mumbai;

spl down.pdf

PC's Budget delivers a deadly blow to IT SMEs ;

mbuzz486.pdf

Japanese Parliament okays measures to stop tax benefits from lapsing;

mbuzz485.pdf

Second gas discovery by RIL to enhances Krishna Basin prospectivity;

mbuzz484.pdf

DoT drafts guidelines for infrastructure sharing by service providers ;