Tighten your belts ' there is no money ' Expenditure Department wants a cut in Government spending (See 'DDT')

Olympics: Abhinav Bindra wins Gold Medal for India in 10m Air Rifle;

I & B Ministry working on new content code for broadcasters;

Govt to release five lakh MTs sugar to curb rising prices

Fire scare at RBI building at Parliament Street; Minor fire brought under control;

ddt 11aug.pdf + expendituremanagement.pdf + cabinetsecretary.pdf

Valuation of goods manufactured by a job worker – What is the value?

top tiol.pdf + indian_independent_act1947.pdf

There cannot be Democracy in India: Self government is no substitute for good government;

guest column.pdf

Services provided from outside India - Tour de 2(1)(d)(iv);

mbuss864.pdf

Trial run of third runway at IGI Airport to begin on Aug 21: Patel;

mbuss863.pdf

600 armament companies to participate at Aero India – 2009;

2008-TIOL-392-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd ( Dated: July 29, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee is a software exporter - Claims deduction u/s 10A - AO reopens the assessment as the assessee had taken deduction on interest receipt from bank - AO cannot issue notice u/s 148 when the time for issuing notice u/s 143(2) has not expired - Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-391-HC-UTTRANCHAL-IT .pdf

CIT, Dehradun Vs Shri Sunil Goyal ( Dated: June 20, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee deals in hardware items - Huge sundry credits - CIT invokes powers u/s 263 and issues notice to the assessee to prove the credit entries - No reply given - CIT remands the order for fresh consideration - Tribunal quashes CIT order - the word 'errorneous' used in the Section includes the expression ‘erroneous in law' as well as ‘erroneous in fact'. When the CIT was satisfied that the sundry credits were not duly verified, it rightly found that the AO has erred in accepting the huge sundry credits. As far as the requirement of ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue' is concerned if the amount shown on sundry credits is not found verified and becomes part of the taxable income, the interest of the revenue is certainly prejudicially affected. Since both the conditions were fulfilled and the CIT had committed no error of law in passing the remand order - Tribunal order set aside: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-362-ITAT-DEL.pdf + oil story.pdf

ACIT, Dehradun Vs M/s Paradigm Geophysical Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 27, 2008 )

Income tax – Revenue earned by non-resident company from services which are in the nature of processing of 2D/3D data for oil exploration /extraction project in India – Not to be regarded as "fees for technical services" within the meaning of the term under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii)(b) – Amount received under the contract neither represented consideration for any technical services rendered by making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. nor consisted of the development and transfer of any technical plan or design within the meaning of Article XII (3)(g) of the Indo Australian Treaty – Revenue earned could be termed business profits from services rendered with regard to exploration/ extraction of mineral oils in terms of section 44BB(1) – Revenues not taxable in India in terms of Article VII of the Indo-Australia DTAA as NRC does not have a PE in India – Revenue appeal set aside

Income tax – Payment received by non-resident company for technical guidance and training of client's personnel for usage of the assessee's proprietary software tools – Provisions of section 115A read with section 44D not applicable - Consideration for such services will not be treated as fees for technical services for the purpose of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act but income chargeable to tax under section 44BB – Board Circular No. 1862 dated 22.10.1990 relied – Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-361-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Top Forty Suspension (Dated: June 06, 2008 )

For the purpose of computation of deduction under s. 80 HHC, what can be included in total turnover is only the turnover in respect of goods regularly dealt with by the assessee and scrap sales does not fall under this category. Since scrap generated in the course of the manufacture of the motor vehicle or auto part has no sale value as the part itself and hence the assessee has rightly reduced it from the purchase price of raw material. This will only reduce the cost of production and hence there is no need to include the same in the total turnover.

While computing deduction under s. 80 HHC, Assessing authority excluded 100% of interest earned by the assessee from the profits of the business. Assessee contended that such interest was received on FDRs purchased under compulsion for obtaining bank guarantees and packing credit account and hence such interest earned was netted against bank charges and interest paid and only the balance amount is debited to P&L a/c. Though Department relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Shri ram Honda Power Equip (2007-TIOL-38-HC-DEL-IT), the decision of ITAT went against Revenue since there was no finding by AO that the interest earned in the present case is “Income from other Sources”. Since the interest receipts were assessed as Business income, the matter was remitted back to AO to see whether any nexus exists between the interest earned and expenditure incurred for earning such interest during the year and to allow netting to that extent.:DELHI ITAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1287-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + raymond story.pdf

Raymond Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai III ( Dated: May 2, 2008 )

Notice issued under Section 11A cannot be presumed to invoke extended period – SCN has to spell out the nature of suppression or mis-representation on the part of the appellant – Tribunal allows appeal on ground of limitation.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1286-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CC & CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Larsen And Toubro ( Dated: April 21, 2008 )

Commr (A) remanded the case for de novo adjudication after giving findings on merits – No reason to interfere with this order – No merit in Revenue's stay application - Rejected:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1285-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Limited Vs CCE & CC, Belgaum ( Dated: April 24, 2008 )

Each bench of the Tribunal has to hear the matter pertaining to their own Jurisdiction – Plea for transfer to Delhi bench, where appellant's other cases on identical issues are listed for final hearing declined – CESTAT President's Circular followed – Since identical cases of this assessee were stayed with waiver of pre-deposit earlier, stay granted and pre-deposit waived: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1284-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Brown & Buck Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai ( Dated: April 29, 2008 )

Central Excise – demand of 8% amount under Rule 57 CC on exempted goods exported – the goods exported are not Generic Medicines under 3003.20 as contended by the revenue, which are exempted, but are P or P Medicines falling under 3003.10 which are subject to duty – Original authority rightly held the provisions of rule 57 CC are not applicable – the order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside order-in-original is set aside.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1281-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd Vs CCE, Mysore ( Dated: March 13, 2008 )

Commission paid to foreign agents for procurement of export orders in foreign currency - Assessee under bonafide belief paid service tax along with interest – SCN issued much later – No penalty imposable in terms of Sec 73(3) of Finance Act : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1280-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Coimbatore Vs M/s Coimbatore Kanaraga Lorry Urimaiyalargal Nala Trust ( Dated: May 2, 2008 )

Service Tax – Business auxiliary service – applicability of service tax to a non-profit trust - the provisions of the Trust Deed require to be examined for the purpose of determining as to whether the respondents can be treated as a ‘commercial concern' - Neither of the lower authorities has examined the case in this perspective – matter remanded.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1279-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Sri Venkateswara Cable Network Tirupathi Vs CC And CCE (Appeals), Guntur ( Dated: March 24, 2008 )

Appellant discharged the service tax liability along with interest even before the issue of show cause notice - When the adjudicating authority is satisfied for the delay in payment of Service tax, with the reasons furnished by appellants, then imposition of penalties is not warranted - Appellants are entitled to protection under Sec.80 of the Finance Act – Penalties set aside and Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08cir025.pdf

Import of rough marble blocks / slabs: DGFT adds one more condition for eligibility;

dgft08pn060.pdf + dgft08pn059.pdf

DGFT amends index of market-linked Focus Products Scheme;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-393-HC-MUM-COFEPOSA.pdf + cofeposa story.pdf

Shashikant Ramjidas Chawla Vs State Of Maharashtra ( Dated: August 4, 2008 )

COFEPOSA - indolence on the part of the authorities has vitiated the Detention order on the ground of unexplained delay even if it is presumed that the detenue was absconding :BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1283-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CC (Airport), Chennai Vs Eurostar Communications P Ltd ( Dated: April 25, 2008 )

Customs – refund sanctioned but was not released to the assessee – no case for invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act as no amount was refunded to the assessee - the issue was not addressed by the lower appellate authority which allowed itself to be misguided by the assessee's arguments based on Section 28 of the Customs Act – matter remanded to take a fresh decision in accordance with Section 27.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1282-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd Vs CC, Coimbatore ( Dated: February 13, 2008 )

No evidence on record against CHA for abetting over-invoicing of exports along with exporter – No reason to invoke Section 114 of Customs Act – Moreover Section 114 and 117 cannot be invoked simultaneously as both the provisions cannot operate together – Impugned order set aside – Appeal allowed

In the circumstance, there is no reason to invoke Sections 114 against them. As rightly pointed out by ld. Counsel and as held in the case of Vetri Impex (supra), it is not open to the department to invoke Section 117 of the Act (being a residuary penal provision) inasmuch as the provisions of Section 114 were already invoked. In other words, both the provisions cannot operate together in a given case (Para 4) :CHENNAI CESTAT;