Google says Income Tax website may harm your computer! (See 'DDT')

Port-based SEZ: MoF, MoC sort out differences; to issue fresh guidelines;

I-T return filing: PIB to organise camp for journalists tomorrow;

Left decides to withdraw support to UPA Government; to meet President tomorrom; BJP intends to move no-confidence motion;

FDI inflows shot up to USD 83 bn last fiscal from USD 30 bn in previous year: NCAER Study;

Traffic grows by 17% at Paradip Port in Q1;

CBDT ready with CITs transfer order + CBEC also ready with AC/DCs transfer order - North Block top brass yet to relent on 'size' of orders;

Wildlife Crime Control Bureau recovers 20 kg of suspected tiger bones near Pataudi village in Haryana;

ddt 8 july.pdf

Export Duty on clearances to SEZ – CBEC, PLEASE Clarify!

editorial.pdf

Is Export duty payable by DTA units for supplies to SEZs? If at all payable who is liable to pay?

mbuzz780.pdf

Silk exports rises; USA remains top importer ;

mbuzz779.pdf

Doha Round: India, EU hopeful of success;

mbuzz778.pdf

OECD wants Argentina to enforce anti-bribery laws with more firmness ;

2008-TIOL-305-ITAT-MUM.pdf + tv story.pdf

ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Sanskar Info TV Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 10, 2008)

Fee paid for use of transponder and up-linking facility in the satellite is royalty and TDS liable :- The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above facts is that the fee paid by the assessee company is not hire charges for Equipment but Fee for Service in the domain of Digital Broadcast. Thus transponder service fee paid by the assessee company to foreign company are covered by the definition of ‘royalty' and as this sum is chargeable to tax under the Act the assessee should have deducted tax and consequently provisions of section 40(a)( i ) are applicable in this case.

The assessee paid the service fee to the non-resident for use of transponder and up-linking facility in the satellite and the said sum was paid without deducting tax. Since the amount paid is considered as royalty covered by the provisions of section 9(1)(VI) the assessee should have deducted withholding tax as per the provisions and failure to do so result in being denied with a deduction under the section 40(a)( i ) of the Act.: MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-304-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Smt Shalini Lohia Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: February 22, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee is one of the non-executive Directors of the company - Revenue makes addition for a rent-free accommodation provided by the company in Delhi - Assessee pleads she never stayed in Delhi and her residential address is the same of her husband who stays in Kanpur - Since the AO notes in the assessment order that the assessee's company had a computer training institute in Delhi and the assessee always stayed with her husband, no perquisite can be added to the assessee's income - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-303-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Dongre Investments Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 30, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee holds shares as capital assets - incures legal expenses to protect their interests - AO disallows it - Held, since the shares are capital assets and the assessee earns capital gains on them and it is not a business activity of the assessee, legal expeneses cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure - Assessee's appeal disallowed : MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-302-ITAT-HYD.pdf

Baby Sarojini Vs DCIT, Hyderabad (Dated: May 15, 2008)

Undisclosed Income – already included in the Son's income; cannot be added to mother's income; The assessee is aggrieved against the assessment of the undisclosed income of Rs.1 ,75,000 despite the fact the same was substantially assessed in the hands of Shri K.V.Rao . Since the sum of Rs.1 ,75,000 is already taxed on substantive basis in the hands of Shri K.V.Rao , the addition made here on protective basis is deleted. : HYDERABAD ITAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1069-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Bajaj Auto Ltd story.pdf

CCE, Aurangabad Vs Bajaj Auto Ltd (Dated : June 2, 2008)

Merely because the appellants company had equity shares in another company and also that the Chairman of the two companies was common, the mutuality of interest, direct or indirect in the business of each other is not proved unless and until any extra commercial financial flow back is established with documentary evidence

SC decision in Atic Industries [2002-TIOL-364-SC-CX] and Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. relied upon.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1068-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd (Dated : May 15, 2008)

Central Excise – demand of duty on ready mix concrete - the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant by the Madras High Court – no merit in revenue's appeal. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1067-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Mumbai-V Vs Khanna Dyeing & Printing Works (Dated : May 16, 2008)

Central Excise – compounded levy under Section 3A for Hot Air Stenter Independent Processors – provisions of levy of duty under Section 3A have been rescinded without saving clause and demands raised under the erstwhile Section 3A will not survive. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1066-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Vapi Vs M/s R A Shaikh Paper Mills Pvt Ltd (Dated : June 9, 2008)

Central Excise – Education Cess on paper Cess – paper cess is also a duty of excise and education cess is payable on paper cess. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1065-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Parveen Travels (P) Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated : April 3, 2008)

Service tax – Stay / dispensation of pre-deposit – Tour operator service - the amended definition of “tour operator” under Section 65(115) does not make it mandatory that the vehicle operated by the tour operator should conform to particular specifications – no prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1064-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Goyal Knitwear (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Ludhiana (Dated : May 26, 2008)

ST - BAS - Revenue demands tax on commission paid to foreign commission agents - Assessee accepts demand for period from 18/4/06 but disputes for prior period - Not a fit case for total waiver from pre-deposit :DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08pn041.pdf

Flower, Fruit & vegetables: entitled for an additional duty credit scrip of 2.5%, over and above the normal VKGUY entitlement.

dgft08pn040.pdf

Sub-contracting of production process abroad by EoU: DGFT amends para 6.21.5 of HBP;

dgft08pn039.pdf

EPCG licences issued on or after 1.4.2007: Exports which have not been redeemed, shall not be added up for calculating the average export performance for the purpose of subsequent EPCG authorization;

dgft08cir017.pdf

Submission of multiple applications and part payments for claiming deemed export benefits under para 8.3.1 of HBP- Clarification regarding ;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-334-HC-DEL-AD.pdf + dumping story.pdf

M/s H & R Johnson India Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: May 14, 2008)

Anti Dumping _ Notification ordering Provisional assessment legally correct: - Needless to say, provisional assessments cannot be made with retrospective effect. Therefore, to avoid or at least lessen the chances of manipulation, there are three options available: to permit exports without the levy of anti- dumping duty; this may wipe out the domestic industry; to permit exports after levy of anti-dumping duty; this may financially wipe out first time exporters; to permit exports on the basis of provisional assessments. The Designated Authority has recommended the third option of exports through provisional assessments in respect of all exports of vitrified/porcelain tiles by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and this recommendation has been accepted by the Central Government as mentioned in the Notification dated 9th March, 2007. To this extent, there is a check on Respondents No. 3 and 4 and the interest of the domestic industry is protected and the decision is in conformity with Rule 22 (2) of the Anti- Dumping Rules and the proviso thereto.

Tribunal's view overlooks the language and purport of Rule: On a reading of Rule 22 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, we are not entirely in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal in H and R Johnson ( India ) Ltd. since it overlooks the language and purport of that Rule. Of course the decision needs to be looked at in greater detail but in our opinion, the language and intention of Rule 22 of the Anti-Dumping Rules does not prima facie, support the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Consequently, in our opinion, no prima facie case has been made out by the Petitioner for continuance of the interim order. : DELHI HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-1063-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Granules India Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : May 8, 2008)

Customs – import under value based advance licence – demand of duty on the grounds of excess importation under the licence with allegation of suppression of facts – the limitation aspect needs to be examined afresh by the Commissioner – he should also consider the extension of export obligation period by the DGFT - matter remanded. :CHENNAI CESTAT;