CBEC Chairman appeals for better compliance (See 'DDT')

Indirect Tax collections upto June: Central Excise shows only 2.8% growth;

SP demanding levy of profit tax on RIL: Mukesh Ambani meets PM and calls it bad economics;

Left kick-starts drive against UPA Govt in Delhi;

BJP, Left come forward to support Mayawati on CBI issue;

ddt 14 july.pdf

20- 20 IPL Cricket and Income Tax – are players ‘Stock in trade' or assets?

tiol top.pdf

A common man's perspective of Nuclear deal ...

guest.pdf

Warehousing of bulk liquid cargo and assessment of Customs duty;

mbuzz794.pdf

Acute shortage of staff: CBDT says, no way!

mbuzz793.pdf

Govt issues guidelines for Camp Sites and Tented Accommodation for tourism;

mbuzz792.pdf

Creation of charge on immovable assets for ECB: RBI allows banks to issue NOC under FEMA ;

cbdtorder95_2008.pdf

CBDT issues transfer order of 9 CITs;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-343-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

The CIT Vs M/s Dodsal Ltd ( Dated: July 2, 2008 )

Income Tax - Penalty u/s 158BFA(2) - Whether the first proviso to Sec 158BFA (2) is directory or mandatory - Going by the expression 'may' it is the discretion of the AO to direct payment of penalty, and once the Revenue decides to levy penalty, it will not be less than the tax leviable and shall not exceed three times the tax so leviable - No ambiguity in the statute - such a proviso is directory - Revenue's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-342-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

The CIT Vs Shri Manoj Kumar Beriwal ( Dated: June 26, 2008 )

Income Tax - Sec 249(4) - Does the expression 'tax dues' also include interest u/s 234 B & C? - Tribunal says no - The expression tax has been defined in Sec 2(43) and it does not include interest which has been separately referred to u/s 2(28)(a). When the legislature has used two different expressions separately, the courts not expected to interpret the same outside differently - Revenue's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-315-ITAT-DEL.pdf + hughes story.pdf

Hughes Network Systems India Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : March 20, 2008 )

The law is settled : If a business liability is definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in present though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.

What is Gift? whenever a person is making gift it will write off of that amount from its accounts in case the gift is voluntary, unconditional and without quid pro quo and is irrevocable. In case the assignment of receivable was in the form of gift, it should have resulted into the reduction of capital of the parent company i.e., HNS. Whereas there was no reduction in capital but on the contrary such receivables were converted into investment. Thus the audited books of account which have been duly certified by the Auditors and accepted by the General Body meeting by its shareholders, goes against the gift declarations executed by the parent company and duly accepted by the assessee company. Such treatment given to the assigned amount in the books of HNS is contrary to the facts placed by the assessee before AO or CIT (A). : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-314-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs ABN AMRO Bank ( Dated : February 15, 2008 )

Income Tax - TDS u/s 194J - Assessee is a bank - enters into agreement with DSAs for promoting loan scheme - deducts TDS u/s 194C - AO alleges short deduction and holds the assessee in default - Differentail tax and interest demanded - Assessee pays up and accepts applicability of Sec 194J - Penalty u/s 271C - CIT deletes it - Held, since the DSA activities do not figure in the list of services listed out u/s 44AA or 194J and the fact that it was principla to principal relationship and the assessee acted on the basis of legal advice, mere disallowance of a claim cannot be a valid ground for levy of penalty - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-130-SC-CX.pdf + sc story.pdf

M/s Asian Peroxides Ltd Vs CCE, Guntur ( Dated: July 7, 2008 )

DTA clearances from EOUs – wholly made from indigenous raw materials – Difference between ‘raw materials' and ‘consumables' – matter remanded; The ingredient goes into the making of the end product in the sense that without its absence the presence of the end product, as such, is rendered impossible. This quality should coalesce with the requirement that its utilization is in the manufacturing process as distinct from the manufacturing apparatus : SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-1102-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Nagpur Vs Solar Explosive Ltd (Dated : January 17, 2008)

Central Excise – refund – the prices were provisional and were subsequently finalized on the lower side – assessee is eligible for refund of excess duty paid – matter remanded to verify whether the burden of duty has been passed on to the buyers. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1101-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Pune Vs Premium Energy Transmission Ltd (Dated : May 2, 2008)

Central Excise – demand of interest under Section 11 AA – Section 11 AA can not be made applicable for the demands pertaining to the period 26/05/95 as Section 11 AA was inserted only with effect from 26/5/95.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1100-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Indian Oil Blending Limited Vs CCE, Kolkata (Dated : April 15, 2008)

Central Excise – Cenvat Credit under transitional provisions under erstwhile Rule 57 H of the Central Excise Rules – the Appellant's case is appreciable being a public sector undertaking to the effect that they have maintained a detailed account which is reflected from the Chartered Accountant's Report submitted in the paper-book – however, due to the scanty regard to the law by the Appellant who has not followed the appropriate procedure laid down in the Central Excise Rules, 1944, imposition of penalty is upheld.: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1099-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd Vs CCE, LTU Bangalore (Dated : Feburary 2, 2008)

Earthquake relief - Vivisection of the notification cannot be done to interpret all goods does not cover “Intermediate” goods – Chassis – Parts and accessories – Pre-deposit waived and recovery stayed – CESTAT. : BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-341-HC-UTTRANCHAL-ST.pdf

CCE, Meerut Vs M/s Maha Laxmi Sugar Mills Co Ltd ( Dated: July 4, 2008 )

Service Tax – non filing of Service Tax return for the quarter ending December 1997 – no penalty: non-submission of one particular return ST-3 for only quarter ending December 1997, on the part of the assessee cannot be said to be intentional withholding of the same for the purposes of avoiding the payment of tax, which has been paid by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that amount of tax was only Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise has committed no error of law in dropping the proceedings and the CESTAT has also committed no error in upholding the same and in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, in revision. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that though penalty can be imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, for violation of Section 70 of said Act, even for the period prior to 31.03.2000, but in the present case the same was not justified : UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1104-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Cellebrum Technologies Ltd Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated : June 18, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee provides SMS Service to subscribers of its clients - Demand and penalty confirmed - Assessee argues that it is not providing any service on behalf of its clients rather its clients themselves accessing its server and the same being used for sending SMS messages - it is not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit - Rs 40 lakh pre-deposit ordered : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1103-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CST, New Delhi Vs A T Kearaney Ltd (Dated : March 28, 2008)

Penalty - Penalty - Invocation of Sec 80 - the expression 'reasonable cause' means something which is reasonable to a man of ordinary prudence - Since there were only clerical mistakes in the invoice where the service tax was charges @ 5% in place of 8%, there is no infirmity in the Commissioner's order invoking Sec 80 - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-1105-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Fontansey Engg Story.pdf

Ms Fontansey Engg Exports Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated : May 29, 2008)

Scribbling by the Commissioner on the margins of the party's letter is also appealable under Section 129A(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962 – Conversion of Draw back shipping bills to DEEC shipping bills can be allowed as no draw back claimed - Tribunal.

Tribunal decisions in Sanghi Industries Ltd. [ 2004-TIOL-805-CESTAT-Del ], Smruti Pottery Works [ 2003-TIOL-140-CESTAT-Del ], JSW Ltd. [ 2006-TIOL-359-CESTAT-Mum ] and Jindal Stainless Ltd. [ 2005-TIOL-99-CESTAT-Mad ] relied upon. :MUMBAI CESTAT;