CBDT issues transfer order of 15 CITs;

Mandatory e-payment of taxes (See 'Direct Tax Basket');

Rival MNCs trying to hurt deal with Japanese Co: Ranbaxy;

Income Tax field formations make special arrangements to handle returns-rush;

CPM asks Govt to scrap Doha Round demands;

PF scam involving members of judiciary: SC issues notices;

Inflation marginally scales up; FM says prices have stabilised;

ddt 18 july.pdf

Service Tax – No exemption to free computer training provided by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan to economically weaker sections - FM;

mbuzz807.pdf

DRI, Chennai Airport Customs seize Ketamine worth Rs 5 Crore;

mbuzz806.pdf

CBDT clarifies no annexures to be attached to returns;

mbuzz805.pdf

E-payment of taxes: CBDT clarifies 'tax' to include TDS/TCS;

mbuzz804.pdf

Concessional interest for short-term crop: RBI takes follow-up action;

CIRCULARS

it08cir05.pdf

Mandatory e-payment of taxes;

it08cir06.pdf

New return forms and issues related thereto;

ORDER

cbdtorder99_2008.pdf

CBDT issues transfer order of 15 CITs ;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-326-ITAT-MAD.pdf + Premier story.pdf

M/s Premier Housing And Industrial Enterprises Ltd Vs ACIT, Chennai ( Dated : March 5, 2008 )

Sale and Lease Back – depreciation eligible – The asset was valued by the independent valuer and certified by the Chartered Accountant and after completion of the lease period, the asset is to be re-delivered to the lessor. the essential characteristic of a sale is that the propriety in the goods passes to the buyer and it is not necessary that the assets should physically move to the buyer in order to constitute a valid sale. It is purely a business decision of the assessee to earn income by way of lease rentals. The decision to purchase and lease it back to the seller is therefore business decision of the assessee on which the department cannot sit in and decide the way the business could be done. It is the assessee's arm chair exclusively.

The theory of sale and lease back had not been invented by the assessee: tax planning can be tolerated whereas tax evasion by dubious means cannot be countenanced. In other words, the tax planning can be tolerated whereas tax evasion by dubious means cannot be countenanced. On seeing this it appears that each transaction can be scanned under the above scanner and it is easily segregated. But it is not so easy as it appears each and every transaction are to be viewed with caution so as to identify the intention of tax planning and tax evasion. The transaction which appears to be a tax evasion can on scrutiny of series of transactions, the transacting parties, the nature of transaction, the nature of trade, the nature of machinery, etc. will decide the ultimate litmus test. : CHENNAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-325-ITAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Blue Diamond Leders Vs DCIT, Chennai ( Dated : January 4, 2008 )

Income Tax - CIT(A) holds duty drawback and interest from bank are not derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of sec. 80IB - In light of settled judicial views duty drawback cannot be treated as income derived from the industrial undertaking and as such it is not available for deduction under sec.80-I of the Act - Assessee's appeal dismissed: CHENNAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-324-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Ms Shilpa Kalucha Vs DCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : February 22, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee pleads limitaiton - CIT(A) holds that as per section 153 of the Act, it was not necessary that the assessment order should have been communicated to the assessee within the period of limitation and that it was sufficient that the said order was passed within the period of limitation - As per settled law the assessee's plea that the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act on 30.3.2005 is barred by limitation having been communicated to him on 1.4.2005, should be rejected - Assessee's Appeal dismissed : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-323-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Sankar Krishnan Vs ACIT, Mumbai ( Dated : January 28, 2008 )

Income Tax - Rule 3(a)(iii) - valuation of perquisite of rent-free accommodation - AO makes additions - CIT(A) upholds - As per the amended and simplified rule 3 with retrospective effect the value of perquisite is the actual amount of lease rent paid or payable by the employer or 10 per cent of the salary whichever is lower, as reduced by the rent if any actually paid by the employee - As per amended rules, the fair rental value has no role. Since the fair rental value is not required to be computed, no cognizance can be taken of the interest free securities given to the landlord by the employer - Addition deleted - Assessee's appeal allowed : MUMBAI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1135-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + member story.pdf

CCE & CC, Bhubaneswar-II Vs M/s Bhushan Ltd (Dated : July 14, 2008)

CBEC vs CESTAT – Board Member again summoned by CESTAT :KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1134-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated : May 1, 2008)

100% EOU – duty demand on finished goods manufactured with the duty paid inputs and cleared in DTA after conversion to EOU unit – applicability of exemption under Notification 23/2003 CE – the appellant have made out a case on limitation – part of the demand falls within normal period - pre-deposit ordered. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1133-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Neel Metal Products Limited Vs CCE, Delhi-III (Dated : January 22, 2008)

Central Excise – special audit under Section 14 A and 14 AA of the Central Excise Act – the order for special audit can not be passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing – the impugned orders are set aside and the matter remanded for following the principles of natural justice. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1132-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated : April 30, 2008)

Central Excise – refund of duty of duty paid on HSD and LSHF supplied to Naval Ships – for the earlier period, COD had not allowed the revenue to file appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing refund, which attained finality and it also shows that the Government intends to allow the benefit – refund cannot be rejected on mere procedural omissions – matter remanded to the original authority to verify the quantum of refund. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1131-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Delhi Vs M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd (Dated : May 28, 2008)

ST - Service Tax on GTA paid from Cenvat Credit account - Revenue disallows on the ground that the Tribunal's decision in Nahar Industrial Enterprise has been challenged before the HC - Merely because a petition has been filed, the benefit to the assessee cannot be denied as the issue has been settled in a series of decisions by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1130-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Hoganas India Limited Vs CCE & CC (Dated : January 23, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Revenue demands tax for processing of goods on behalf of clients - Assessee argues that they were only processing goods for clients and not on behalf - Not a fit case for total waiver - pre-deposit ordered : CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt08_090.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Arushi Exports;

cnt08_089.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd;

cnt08_088.pdf

Dhannad Rau and Talegaon notified for loading and unloading of export & imported goods;

ctariff08_086.pdf

CBEC amends 93/2004 + 94/2004;

dgft08cir022.pdf

Requirement of endorsement of specific ITC(HS) Code against each input allowed as per Standard Input Output Norms (SION) under Export Promotion Schemes such as Advance Authorization, DFRC, DFIA etc- Regarding;

dgft08pn050.pdf

Import of spices : DGFT fixes 120 days deadline for fulfilment of EO;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-137-SC-CUS.pdf + sc story.pdf

CC, Kolkata Vs Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd (Dated: July 16, 2008)

Having availed of the benefit of notification, the assessee has necessarily to comply with the conditions. The assessee cannot approbate and reprobate: Of course, there is no estoppel against the law but having sought for and taken the benefit of the notification to import goods without payment of duty, it is not open to the assessee to contend that the conditions in the said notification need not be fulfilled, be it on the ground that the benefit under another notification is available to him or otherwise. : SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-1129-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Sawant Food Products Ltd Vs CC , Mumbai (Dated : April 22, 2008)

Customs – refund – since the amount paid by M/s R.W. Sawant & Co was adjusted against the demand against the appellant, which was set aside by the Tribunal, the appellant would be eligible for refund especially in view of the undertaking by M/s Sawant & Co that they have no objection to grant refund to the appellants. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1125-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CC, Chennai Vs M/s India Gypsum Ltd (Dated : May 15, 2008)

Customs – refund – unjust enrichment – it is settled that unjust enrichment is applicable to capital goods also – matter remanded to examine whether excess duty paid had been passed on to the customers of the respondent. Appeal allowed by way of remand. :CHENNAI CESTAT;