Rananjay Singh, CIT of 1985 batch, appointed as DG (Inv & Registration) with Ministry of Corporate Affairs;

Arcelor Mittal acquires US-based Bayou Steel;

Bihar Govt cuts VAT on LPG;

Mumbai DRI seizes 823 kg Amphetamine worth Rs 47 Crore, heading for Mexico; also seizes 1.5 lakh tablets of Caveta-100 from Mumbai Air Cargo;

Chennai DRI detects massive under-valuation in import of glass sheets; seizes goods worth Rs 2.5 Crore;

PM undergoes yet another minor eye surgery for cataract removal at AIIMS;

ddt 16 june.pdf

CBEC Chairman in Vizag – for our Seminar;

tiol top.pdf

Help us to help you - CBEC Chairman at TIOL Seminar;

guest column.pdf

Negotiable Instruments: Material alteration and its fall-outs;

satellite story.pdf

RBI offers incentive to banks using satellite communication for banking in underbanked pockets;

mbuzz710.pdf

Poachers with gun - Tigers on the run!

mbuzz709.pdf

FM urges bankers to change attitude to support entrepreneurial aspirations of rising India;

mbuzz708.pdf

Light Emitting Diodes are more efficient in saving electricity;

mbuzz707.pdf

World GDP growth to decline by 1%; Slowdown in developing countries to be slow: WB;

mbuzz706.pdf

Tainted blood transfusion causes spread of HIV in Central Asia;

mbuzz705.pdf

A lot more efforts needed to countervail Online Identify Theft: OECD ;

2008-TIOL-247-ITAT-MUM.pdf + 80I story.pdf

JCIT, Mumbai Vs Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd (Dated: February 5, 2008)

For deduction under Section 80I / 80IA there must primarily be manufacture or production of articles or things involving a new undertaking or undertakings. The relevant tests in this behalf have been laid down by the Supreme Court as under : -

( i ) Investment of substantial fresh capital in the industrial undertaking set up;

(ii) Employment of requisite labour therein.

(iii) Manufacture or production of article in the said undertaking.

(iv) Earning of profits clearly attributable to the said new undertaking; and

(v) Above all, a separate and distinct identity of the industrial unit set up : MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-246-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Sports Authority of India Vs DIT(Exemption), Delhi (Dated: February 22, 2008)

Income Tax - Registration as charitable institution u/s 12A - Revenue rejects the application on the ground that the special audit done u/s 142(2A) had pointed out certain discrepancies in its accounts and the institution may not be able to get Sec 11 benefits - CIT(A) agrees with the AO - Going by the provisions of the law the Director (Exemption) is empowered to make enquiry about the objectives and genuinenss of its activities before granting registration u/s 12A which will in turn enable the assessee to claim exemption u/s 11 but nothing of this sort was done rather the Revenue reversed the process by seeking first the eligibility for exemption u/s 11 before Sec 12A registration is granted - Since exemption u/s 11 is the prerogative of the AO, the Director (Exemtipn) is not justified in denying registration - Assessee's appeal allowed : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-245-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated: March 7, 2008)

Income Tax - The appellant being an NBFC had accepted deposits from the public. Due to business problems, it stopped accepting any fresh deposits w.e.f. 1.7.2002 and entered into a compromise with its depositors within the meaning of Section 391 of the Companies Act. Due to this, the Company did not pay certain amounts to the depositors, which the AO added back as income for the appellant, during AY 2003-04 and 2005-06. The Tribunal holds that since the deposits never formed part of a charge to the profit and loss account reducing the tax liability of the appellant in any of the earlier years, the balance amount of deposits which could not be paid by the appellant could not form part of income, chargeable to tax. Assessee's appeal allowed : BANGALORE ITAT;

2008-TIOL-244-ITAT-LKW.pdf

M/s Star International (P) Ltd Vs ACIT, Kanpur (Dated: January 25, 2008)

Income Tax - scrutiny - additions for commissions paid on sales of machines - AO asks the assessee to produce the commission recipients - Assessee fails to do so - AO finds additional evidence like cah withdrawal of commission cheques and no sales being made - Show Cause Notice - Assessee surrenders some money to buy peace with the Department as he could not produce uneducated but technically sound mechanics selling the assessee's products - Penalty - CIT(A) upholds it - No penalty can be imposed for merely disbelieving the explanation of of the assessee who made true disclosure - Revenue needs to substantiate the mens rea - Assessee's appeal allowed : LUCKNOW ITAT;

2008-TIOL-243-ITAT-HYD.pdf

Solaris Chemtech Ltd New Delhi Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (3), Hyderabad ( Dated : April 22, 2008 )

Even after additions made by the AO, the assessed total income is a loss – penalty cannot be imposed : HYDERABAD ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-938-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Hyva India story.pdf

M/s HYVA (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated: May 1, 2008)

Notification 6/2002-CE, Condition no. 53 – unjust Cenvat ‘enrichment' – it is not conclusively proved that Explanation to Rule 3 will be applicable – issue of interpretation – Pre-deposit waived : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-937-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Jaipur Vs Shree Pet (Dated: May 2, 2008)

Central Excise - Penalty under Sec 11AC - excess availment of Cenvat Credit - Commissioner(A) sets aside penalty - Since the issue is related to interpretation of Rules 3(7)(a) of the CCR, 2004, penalty cannot be imposed, and the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee vide Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd 2008-TIOL-226-CESTAT-MUM : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-936-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Ambuja Synthetics Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: May 14, 2008)

Central Excise - Penalty u/s 11AC for clandestine removal of goods - Duty deposited before issue to SCN - Penalty reduced in view of Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s K P Pouches 2008-TIOL-240-HC-DEL-CX : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-935-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Salem Vs KMD Clothing (Dated: March 19, 2008)

Central Excise – rebate of duty paid on the cotton fabrics exported on payment of duty – since the Order-In-Appeal has been set aside by the revisional authority in respondent's favour, the appeal of revenue on the question of imposing penalty is infructuous. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-933-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Twenty First Centry Pharmaceuticals P Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated : February 28, 2008)

Excise duty on physician samples - in the case of Henkel India Ltd Vs. CCE, Chennai [ 2008-TIOL-131-CESTAT-MAD ] the payment of duty in terms of Section 4 of the Act was approved – stay granted :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-932-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Cannanore Co-op Spinning Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Calicut (Dated : January 24, 2008 )

Central Excise – Rectification of mistake – Central Excise Act does not provide for rectification of mistake in the orders passed by the original authority and the first appellate authority, ie, Commissioner (Appeals) – the Act empowers only the Tribunal under Section 35 C(2) to rectify the mistake apparent on record. :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-931-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + dr story.pdf

M/s Ibex Gallagher Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated : February 25, 2008 )

Laxity of Commissioner in pursuing case in Tribunal - Post enough DRs to the Bench – CESTAT tells Board - We have already passed a few miscellaneous orders to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Secretary and Hon'ble Chairman of the Board with regard to the laxity on the part of the Commissioners in conducting cases before this bench. This bench represents three states in the South and has got very heavy matters. The JCDR Is on leave and despite directions given to them, there is none to take interest in the matters. Today there is only one DR and the SDR is also on leave. We again remind the Hon'ble Secretary and Hon'ble Chairman to look into the matter and direct the CDR to send enough DRs to this bench so that the work of the Tribunal is not disrupted. :BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-939-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + export st story.pdf

M/s National Engg Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: December 13, 2007)

Export of Services – Commission received by appellant from General Motors through Indian Railways in Indian Rupees in lieu of foreign exchange as less foreign exchange was released - Machinery of a statue should be interpreted so as to promote the object and purpose of the scheme – Denial of rule 4 not justified : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-934-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Susmi Impex Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: March 14, 2008)

Customs – confiscation – the impugned goods, fresh garlic imported without specific import lincence – also the goods were undervalued by misdeclaring the value – demand of duty and confiscation under Sec 111(d) and 111(m) upheld – However, redemption fine and penalty reduced. : CHENNAI CESTAT;