Payment and Settlement Systems Act, and Regulations come into effect (See 'DDT')

Singur controversy spoils 'Brand India'; Western Press raps Indian Govt approach;

Govt finalises Guidelines for giving nod to Greenfield Airports (See 'Common Basket')

DRI seizes 55 kg heroin -record quantity in last 10 years; Three persons, including two 'key' men, arrested in Amritsar corridor;

Nuclear deal: USA to push for waiver in NSG;

Net direct tax mop-up registers 38% growth in first five months;

Singur issue: Rally in support of project today; Centre not to step in unless pleaded for, says Santosh Mohan Dev;

Govt to implement 'workplace smoke-free policy' from Oct 2;

Justice Mathur takes over as Chairperson of Armed Forces Tribunal;

Trial court in Delhi holds Sanjeev Nanda and three others guilty in BMW case (We apologise for typo error in yesterday's flash);

ddt 3 Sept.pdf

Full Duty Exemption For Bihar Flood Relief Material;

spl down.pdf

The active citizen - True safeguard of democracy and human rights;

2008-TIOL-162-SC-SERVICE.pdf + sc service story.pdf

State of Uttaranchal Vs Kharak Singh ( Dated: August 13, 2008 )

Disciplinary Action - Enquiry Officer himself has acted as the Investigator, Prosecutor and Judge. Such a procedure is opposed to principles of natural justice and has been frowned upon: The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.; If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.;I n an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer.: SUPREME COURT;

payment settlementact.pdf

Payment and Settlement Systems Act, and Regulations come into effect;

RBI Notifi for Savings Bonds.pdf

Saving Bonds: RBI says one or more persons can be nominated;

mbuzz932.pdf

Govt finalises guidelines for giving nod to Greenfield Airports;

mbuzz931.pdf

CBI files charge-sheet for disproportionate assets against senior IAS officer;

mbuzz930.pdf

Net direct tax mop-up registers 38% growth in first five months;

mbuzz929.pdf

India terms US report on presence of heavy metals in ayurvedic medicines as flawed;

mbuzz928.pdf

Doha trade talks: OECD Chief calls for 'Let's Go the Last Mile';

mbuzz927.pdf

CBI raids three premises of retired Brigadier; finds huge assets;

mbuzz926.pdf

Govt grants Customs and excise duty exemption to goods supplied to relief work in flood-hit North Bihar;

2008-TIOL-399-ITAT-DEL.pdf + oracle story.pdf

M/s Oracle India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : August 29, 2008 )

Income Tax Act - Section 92 - AY 1999-2000 – Assessee claimed a deduction on account of payment of royalty to parent company for software duplication and sub-licensing – Royalty payments were made at 30 % of Indian Published Price (IPP) as per RBI norms – Assessee paying royalty to parent company at IPP whereas it was charging its customers a price lower than IPP – AO alleged that transactions between assessee and its parent company were arranged in such a manner that it resulted in assessee company earning less than ordinary profit – Held, that the precondition for invoking provisions of old section 92 was that there is no profit or less than ordinary profit accruing to resident assessee on account of business transacted with non-resident – Held further, that AO has not brought on record any comparable cases to show that assessee has earned less than normal profits – Held therefore, following the judgments in the case of Reuters India Pvt Ltd and Nestle India Ltd that onus was not discharged by revenue and thus disallowances made are not sustainable.

Condonation of delay in filling an appeal by 1297 days – Pay order prepared and appeal documents forwarded to the consultant but appeal not filled - Delay in filling of appeal for a lapse on part of the consultant needs to be condoned.:DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-398-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Airtime Marketing & Sales India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi ( Dated : July 4, 2008 )

Income Tax - Deduction for expenditure incurred on market research - A.O. disallows, on the ground that the expenditure had no relation with the current earning of income - CIT(A) confirms disallowance on the ground of enduring benefits - Held, the test of enduring benefit is not conclusive in deciding the nature of expenditure as capital or revenue as held by the Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Co case - the assessee has no advantage in the capital field, as the expenditure has not resulted into creation of any asset or a new source of income. The expenditure is revenue in nature. Assessee Appeal Allowed.:DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-397-ITAT-LKW.pdf

ACIT, Kanpur Vs Shri Deepak Kothari (HUF) ( Dated : September 21, 2007 )

Re-opening after expiry of four years – Though the fact of interest received being adjusted against the expenses on sale of shares was disclosed in a letter filed before AO before the completion of the original assessment proceedings under sec. 143(3), the full details of such interest receipts was not disclosed. This cannot be treated as full and true disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. Hence re-opening upheld.

There is no requirement in the law that reasons for re-opening should be recorded in a particular format. If entire satisfaction note ( ie. reasons recorded by AO ), in substance, confirm to the omission and failure of the assessee then it should be a sufficient compliance of sec. 147 for assuming jurisdiction. It is the substance of the reasons which has to determine the jurisdiction of the AO and not the form in which it is recorded.

Revenue appeal partly allowed.:LUCKNOW ITAT;

2008-TIOL-396-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : July 23, 2008 )

Sec. 35D applies only to industrial undertakings engaged in construction of ships and not in the operation of ships.

80I deduction to be calculated on each eligible ship independently. Deduction under sec. 33AC allowed to ships not considered for 80 I deduction cannot be considered for computing deduction on eligible ships.

Appeal by assessee partly allowed.:MUMBAI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

NOTIFICATION

etariff08_48.pdf

Exemption to goods supplied for relief work in flood-hit Bihar;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1433-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Ravi Bottling (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: June 16, 2008)

Central Excise – Benefit of SSI Exemption Notification for factories under rural area – Notification of bringing in a village under AP Urban Areas (Development) Act is only for a limited purpose – Administration and jurisdiction of the village still under the gram panchayat – Prima facie issue in favour of appellant – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1432-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Chandra Cotton Fabrics Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: March 7, 2008)

Manufacturer who exports finished products under bond and unable to utilize the input credit for payment of duty on clearances for home consumption – Entitled to refund of accumulated input credit under Rule 5 of CCR – Order by lower authority set aside – Appeal allowed

The ratio of this decision supports the obvious reading that when the manufacturer exports his finished products under bond and is not in a position to utilize the credit for payment of duty on clearances for home consumption etc, the manufacturer is entitled to receive refund of the input credit periodically (Para 5):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1431-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Vadilal Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Daman (Dated: July 29, 2008)

Central Excise - Cenvat Credit - Assessee avails credit on furnace oil even after it was not available w.e.f 16.05.05 - Assessee realises the mistake and deposit tax with interest - penalty - Since tax with interest was deposited before issue of SCN, penalty reduced to 25% of the duty amount :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

NOTIFICATION

stnot08_031.pdf

CBEC notifies new for ST-3;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1437-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + stock story.pdf

M/s Sriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd Vs CST, Kolkata (Dated: June 19, 2008)

Transaction charges paid by stock broking members to National Stock Exchange and collected from clients - Prima-facie, the transaction charges cannot be held to be reimbursible amounts from clients or excludible from service charges – Pre-deposit ordered:KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1436-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

ZAK Trade Fairs & Exhibitions Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated: May 15, 2008)

ST - Business Exhibition Service and Event Management Service - tax with interest paid before SCN issued - Commissioner demands differential tax on certain sums escaping assessment - Since excess amount was deposited before the issue of SCN and there were only some arithmatical mistakes made by the accountant of the assessee, it does not call for penalty - Matter remanded :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1435-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/S Universal Audyogik Samvardhan Samiti Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: July 01, 2008)

ST - Security Agency Servcie - Assessee pleads apart from security service it also provides manpower like driver, gardner and also security to movable assets which were not not covered under service tax - Revenue for levying tax on gross amount as assessee failed to provide break-up of payments - It is a fit case for reconsideration by lower authorities:DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff08_101.pdf

Exemption to goods supplied for relief work in flood-hit Bihar;

dgft08pn076.pdf

DGFT extends date for filing application for revalidation of DFIAs;

dgft08pn075.pdf

DGFT amends Para 2.4 related to product for which SION does not exist;

dgft08pn074.pdf

Correction in VKGUY product code;

dgft08pn071.pdf

EoU claiming deemed export benefits: DGFT says alternative bank certificate to be furnished;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1434-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Trustworth Enterprises Vs CC, Tuticorin (Dated: April 24, 2008)

Customs – demand of DEPB credit on the ground of over-valuation of export goods - Commissioner of Customs is not competent to curtail the DEPB credit allowed by the DGFT - Export value of consignments assessed and cleared for export cannot be revised much after export of the consignments contrary to official records such as shipping bills - There is no evidence to find that the exports had been overvalued. :MUMBAI CESTAT;