Wrong availment of Customs Duty Exemption on import of Cash Dispenser Machines declared as "ATM" – DRI Alert (See 'DDT')

CoS recommends N B Singh's name for CBDT Chairman's post;

CBDT seeks choice of posting from 1987 & 1988 batch officers who are in zone of consideration for promotion to CIT + Transfer policy makes exception on ground of children being in Class X / XII;

DPC for ad hoc promotion to Commissioner: CBEC manages to cover entire 1987 batch;

Monetary tools to control inflation: RBI hikes Repo Rate + CRR by 0.5%;

EC orders lodging of FIR against Jaya Bachchan for filing false affidavit;

ACC reappoints Sheela Bhide, IAS of 1973 batch, as CMD of ITPO in rank of Secy for one year + Secy, Sports, Sudhir Nath to continue with Enforcement Directorate charge for two more months;

ddt 25 june.pdf

AP celebrates anniversary of emergency with editor's arrest;

spl down.pdf

INFLATION - Are we heading in right direction?

mbuzz742.pdf

Retired sportspersons living in penury: Govt hikes pension & sops;

mbuzz741.pdf

Direct tax mop-up grows by 43.5%;CBDT refunds Rs 10800 Cr this fiscal so far;

mbuzz740.pdf

Hike in CRR & Repo Rate: FM looks for salutary effect on inflation;

mbuzz739.pdf

50% surge in FDI from OECD countries in 2007 but set to fall in 2008;

2008-TIOL-274-ITAT-DEL-TM.pdf + marina story.pdf

ACIT, New Delhi Vs Hotel Marina ( Dated : March 24, 2008 )

Imported Cars – eligible for depreciation :- Depreciation on imported cars would be permissible if cars are used for providing transportation services to tourists. This legal position would not change if transportation services are provided as part of package tour for tourists since the tourist who opts for package tour agrees to pay for a number of services including the use of car : DELHI ITAT (THIRD MEMBER);

2008-TIOL-273-ITAT-BANG.pdf

ACIT, Belgaum Vs M/s Mohan Finance Corporation ( Dated : February 29, 2008 )

Income Tax - Search u/s 132 - Revenue finds entries of unaccounted money-lending in small diary - no corresponding entry found in the books of account - Additions made u/s 69 - CIT(A) deletes additions on the ground that AO did not make proper enquiry and brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the unaccounted nature of transactions - CIT(A) order upheld : BANGALORE ITAT;

2008-TIOL-272-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Algid Investment & Finance Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : January 30, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee holds shares of a company and incures legal expenses to protect it - claims deduction for the same - AO disallows it and CIT(A) agrees with the AO - Since there is no business activity undertaken by the assessee in shares and the shares invested in one company is capital asset, no legal expenses can be allowed as revenue expensiture under the head 'business' - Assessee's appeal dismissed : MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-271-ITAT-HYD.pdf

Shri R Sunandan Reddy Vs ACIT, Hyderabada ( Dated : April 25, 2008 )

The assessee cannot be tainted with a stigma that he adopted a higher rate to hoodwink the revenue The first issue has two limbs, one whether there is any failure to make a return and two, whether there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. So far as the first limb is concerned, there is not dispute that the assessee had duly filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act. The dispute is with regard to the second limb. The allegation of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has taken the cost of acquisition of the property at an inflated figure to reduce capital gains. Therefore, failure to declare correct cost of acquisition constitutes failure to disclose a material fact. The allegation of the CIT(A) is that in the original return of income, the date of transfer of the property and the details about the compensation received are not made available. It is also alleged that the period of acquisition of the property by the assessee and the time of acquisition by the Government are not provided in the original return of income. It is further observed by the CIT(A) that the property was held by the assessee even prior to 1-4-1981 and the market value as on 1-4-1981 has to be considered. Let us deal with each of these allegations/objections/observations separately. The assessee cannot be tainted with a stigma that he adopted a higher rate to hoodwink the revenue. Thus, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not justified in upholding the issuance of notice u/s 148 on this ground.

Can the CIT (A) give directions to an AO who is not the respondent in the case?   The CIT(A) in the case of Niranjan has given direction to the Assessing Officer to take appropriate action in the case of the assessee. The question is, to which Assessing Officer can he issue directions? Does his authority extend to all the Assessing Officers or only to the Assessing Officer who is the respondent before him? In the present case, we find that Mr. Niranjan was assessed by ITO, Ward 6(3) whereas the assessee is assessed by DCIT, Circle 4(4). It is a moot question whether the CIT(A) can issue directions to the Assessing Officer who is not the respondent before him. Not only that, an assessment u/s 147 can be reopened only if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus, it is the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that guides him to reopen the assessment and not the direction of any other authority : HYDERABAD ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CIRCULAR

excircular873.pdf

MRP valuation – Government accepts Jayanti Food judgement – circulars amended;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-992-CESTAT-KOL-LB.pdf + tisco lb story.pdf

CCE, Jamshedpur Vs M/s Tisco Ltd (Dated : May 26, 2008)

Order of Reference made by Division Bench was non est in law – Loss in whatever way or form is a loss referred to in Section 35B of the CEA'44 – Appeals arising from Commissioner(A)'s order not maintainable before Tribunal

Issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Supercoats Industries [ 2005-TIOL-332-CESTAT-MUM-LB ] and where it is held that loss of goods in whatever way or form is a loss and so long as such loss occurs in storage, it is a loss referred to in Section 35B proviso.

'loss' found in course of stock-taking would be a loss within the meaning of clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 35B – LB of Tribunal.

Remedy lies in filing a revision application before the Central Government in terms of section 35EE of the CEA'44 – time spent during pendency of appeal before Tribunal to be excluded – Tribunal cannot on its own transfer appeal to Central government – Madras HC decision in India Pistons referred. :KOLKATA CESTAT (LARGER BENCH);

2008-TIOL-991-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Coimbatore Vs M/s The Nilgiri Dairy Farm Pvt Ltd (Dated : March 19, 2008)

Central Excise – Small scale exemption – denial of – the respondents paid the entire amount of duty under protest – the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was silent on the interest issue and was focused only on considerations which were relevant to Section 11AC, a provision which was not invoked even by the original authority - Considerations of malafides, suppression etc. are irrelevant to the penal provisions of Rule 25 – the case is sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issues of interest and penalty afresh. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-990-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Abdul Vali Hafizi Vs CCE, Mumbai-V (Dated : April 7, 2008)

Ice Cream cleared under the brand name “Pastonji” - brand name was assigned to M/s KCEC during the relevant period - On assignment, the assignee is to be treated as the brand name owner, even when the assignment deed is not registered – Benefit of SSI notification available. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-989-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Rao Insulating Co Ltd (Dated : March 11, 2008)

Central Excise – Cenvat credit – irregular availment of – the assessee has periodically filed details of input credit availed in the Rule 57G (8) returns and RT 12 returns - Show cause notice issued in June'99 to recover credit, particulars of which were furnished in the statutory returns is barred by limitation – no merit in revenue's appeal :CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-988-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + cf story.pdf

M/s Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd Vs CST, Kolkata (Dated : June 11, 2008)

Service tax – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - liability to pay service tax in cases where the service provider is located outside India and the service is received in India – relevant date for attracting liability by the recipient of the service – As the matter is pending before the Larger Bench, waiver of pre-deposit granted. :KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-987-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd Vs CCE, Tirunelveli (Dated : April 21, 2008)

Service tax – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - liability to pay service tax in cases where the service provider is located outside India and the service is received in India – relevant date for attracting liability by the recipient of the service – As the matter is pending before the Larger Bench, waiver of pre-deposit granted : CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt08_078.pdf

No drawback for HSD and Furnace oil - Govt amends Notification 68/2007;

dgft08pn032.pdf

Sandalwood oil export allowed till Dec 31, 2008 for 1143 kg;

dgft08pn031.pdf

Sandalwood oil export allowed till Dec 31, 2008 for 710 kg;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-986-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Nicolas Piramal India Ltd (Dated : January 9, 2008)

Customs – refund – limitation – refund arising due to arithmetical errors on account of exchange value can be corrected at any time – refund can not be rejected on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the statutory period :MUMBAI CESTAT;