Customs bosses do not provide effective leadership - employees! (See 'DDT')

Empanelment of 1981-84 batches for JS-level posts: CBDT issues fresh reminder to correct deficient ACRs;

PM to take final call on petro price hike on Saturday;

Quota stir by Gujjars: Rajasthan seals borders with Haryana + Madhya Pradesh; Life in Delhi disrupted;

Deora for immediate hike in petro + diesel prices; PM to decide by Saturday;

Nepal new govt asks King to vacate palace in 15 days;

ddt 29 may.pdf

Services provided in relation to chit – 30% abatement granted;

cobweb.pdf

Liechtenstein - A beleaguered tax haven - Taxing time lies ahead!

mbuzz648.pdf

Food Safety Scheme to encourage industry to adopt safety standards;

mbuzz647.pdf

Oil India, IOC team up with Sonatrach to acquire 4 Libian blocks;

mbuzz646.pdf

CPCB identifies 17 categories of industries polluting our rivers and lakes;

mbuzz645.pdf

TRAI releases Paper on licensing of value added telecom services;

2008-TIOL-293-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

CIT, Vs M/s Ambica Corporation ( Dated : April 15, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee is a registered firm of 11 partners and carry on construction business - Assessee completed by taxing only property income - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of valuation made by departmental valuer - AO makes additions u/s 69B - CIT(A) justifies the reopening but does not sustain the additions - Tribunal dismisses the Revenue appeal on limitation ground - Held, the period of four years to be counted from the end of AY when the notice u/s 148 was issued and no fault can be found with the Revenue - Additions u/s 69B also justified as no contrary evidence or facts have come to light to controvert the findings of the AO and the Tribunal - Revenue's appeal upheld : GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-292-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

CIT, Vs Amrik Singh ( Dated : February 6, 2008 )

Income Tax - capital gains tax - Assessee gets land by decree under Punjab Occupany Tenants Act - AO makes additions for acquisition of land - CIT(A) deletes the same as there was no acquisition cost to the land - Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal - Held, for capital gains, the charging section and the computation provision together form an integrated code and any transaction to which these provisions cannot apply must be regarded as never intended by Sec 45 - Revenue's appeal dismissed : P & H HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-207-ITAT-DEL-SB.pdf + rent sb story.pdf

ACIT, Delhi Vs M/s Mayur Recreational & Development Ltd (Dated: March 28, 2008)

Income Tax - Standard rent of property can be determined by applying a rate of 10 per cent to the base value :. As such, taking into consideration all the facts of the case as well as keeping in view the relevant provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as discussed above, we are of the view that standard rent of the property in question belonging to the assessee can be determined by applying a rate of 10 per cent to the base value i.e. aggregate amount of the actual cost of construction and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of the construction. Since the said base value as taken while determining standard rent in the year 1971 was Rs. 4 ,15,267 (i.e. Rs. 31,145 x 100/7.5), the standard rent of the property by applying the rate of 10 per cent to the said base value in accordance with the principles laid down in s. 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 would come to Rs. 41,527. As the standard rent so determined at Rs. 41,527 is lower than the ALV of the relevant portion of the property declared by the assessee at Rs. 52,540 on the basis of the municipal valuation fixed by NDMC , we hold that no adjustment/ addition to the ALV of the property declared by the assessee as done by the AO is called for. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue in assessee's own case for asst. yrs. 1988-89 and 1989-90 accepting the ALV of the property declared by the assessee which has been followed by the AO himself subsequently in asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and even in asst. yr. 2000-01 and onwards.

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to all the earlier orders of the Tribunal, the IT authorities were justified in estimating the ALV of the property at Nos. 14-16, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs. 9 ,32,888 as against Rs. 5,12,932 declared by the assessee in the return ?", is the question before the Special Bench.: Accordingly, the question referred to this Special Bench is answered in negative i.e in favour of the assessee. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for disposing of the appeal of the Revenue being ITA No. 6101 /Del/1996 in conformity with the aforesaid decision of this Special Bench. : ITAT DELHI (SPECIAL BENCH);

2008-TIOL-206-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s K Raheja Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: May 2, 2008)

Income Tax - Preponement of date of hearing by an administrative order - Assessee argues since a date of hearing was fixed by the concerned Bench, the Vice-President has no authority to issue an administrative order and prepone the same as it amounts to review of the judicial order passed by the Bench - As per Rule -4, 19 & 20 of ITAT Rules the ITAT President or Vice-President has the jurisdiction to either prepone or adjourn the matter even if a date is given by the bench depending on the administrative exigency in constitution of the Bench. When the bench do not function the Vice President can adjourn the matter to a subsequent date which is invariably at the variance of the date granted by the bench. There is absolutely no violation of the rules while the Vice President exercising his administrative powers - Assessee's appeal partly rejected :ITAT MUMBAI;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

NOTIFICATION

etariff08_29.pdf

CBEC grants excise exemption to doughs for preparation of bakers' wares;

exnt08_26.pdf +exnt08_25.pdf

CBEC notifies Chief Commissioners + Commissioners' Committees for Mumbai LTU Review cases;

CASE LAW

2008-TIOL-837-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + yamaha story.pdf

M/s Yamaha Motors India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi (Dated: April 25, 2008 )

Central Excise - Dealer's providing after sales service to customers and being reimbursed by manufacturer – no cause for adding this amount in A.V even under new section 4 of the CEA'44 : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-836-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Surana Metals & Steels (India) Limited Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: March 13, 2008)

Central Excise – compounded levy under Section 3A for CTD bars – duty for the month of August 1997 – confusion prevailed in the minds of the assessees regarding duty payment for the month of August 1997 which was clarified only 2000 – In view of payment of duty in full, at the rate of Rs 300 per month, demand of duty and penalty not sustainable. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-835-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Nagpur Vs M/s ACC Ltd (Dated: April 16, 2008)

Clearance of Cement in bags - difference in weight as shown in the invoice and as per the weighment slip – differential duty demand - difference between the automatically filled quantity and the one arrived on the weigh bridge is 0.005% which is within permissible limit mandated in Weight and Measurement Act/Rules – even a difference of 1% allowed by Tribunal in case of Sagar Cement – Revenue appeal rejected. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-834-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd Vs CCE- II (Dated: February 12, 2008)

Cenvat credit on capital goods & simultaneous depreciation - show cause notice is bad in law for the reason that the erstwhile modvat Rules cannot be invoked in the year 2002 for the purpose of credit taken there under, in the light of Tribunal's order in Sunrise Structural &. Engineering Ltd followed in Surindra Engineering Co, & Dutta Metal Industries [ 2007-TIOL-284-CESTAT-MUM ]. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-294-HC-MAD-ST.pdf + st hc story

AVM Studio Vs Union of India ( Dated : March 11, 2008 )

Service Tax – video tape production - whether an activity comes within the purview of the tax net has to be done by the authorities only ant the High C ourt in writ petition.- . If the activity of the appellant does not come within the purview, it is well open to the appellant to explain the activity carried on by the appellant so as to have a finding to that effect. It is well settled and well established principle that a classification or whether an activity comes within the purview of the tax net has to be done by the authorities only, which cannot be determined on the basis of an affidavit and counter affidavit in a proceedings under Article 226 of the C onstitution of India. : MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-833-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Jaipur Vs Bhiwadi Cylinders Pvt Ltd (Dated: February 18, 2008)

ST - Reapir & Maintenance Service - Assessee gets into rate contract with oil companies for repair of LPG cylinders - Revenue raises demand - Assessee pleads exemption for goods used in repair - Held, maintenance is a preventive action which may or may not require repair, and repair is something which is required only after an equipment fails - since reapir contract cannot be treated as maintenance contract and that the Board has clarified that there is no tax leviable on repair, Revenue's appeal is allowed : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-832-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s G M Exports, Iikal Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: February 15, 2008)

Customs – confiscation – redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings on the goods not seized whereas the tribunal remand order was only with reference to the redemption fine in respect of goods seized which is definitely an error – also the countervailing duty has to be recomputed after computing the MRP by taking the value of the imported tiles at 6.5 US Dollar. : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-831-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Nitco Tiles Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: April 15, 2008)

Import of Rough Marble blocks – 7% excess quantity imported – Customs authorities have entered the imports of the rough marble blocks as was given in the bill of entry & also debited the excess quantity in the licence – same indicates that the said marble was imported against the specific import licence – order that there is mis-declaration is incorrect – there is also no allegation that there is a mis-declaration in value - Appeal allowed with consequential relief. :MUMBAI CESTAT;