FM holds on to 8 percent growth projection this fiscal;

ADB grants USD 800 mn loan to HP to become 'Hydropower State';

Govt ready with 'Vulture Action Plan' to revive declining number;

Rajya Sabha approves LLP Bill ;

sez story.pdf

SEZ Rule: EGoM decides 'Vacant' land also includes raised structures; Essar Steel and Mundra Port SEZs' issues stand settled;

mbuzz1101.pdf

Govt ready with 'Vulture Action Plan' to revive declining number;

mbuzz1100.pdf

1567 hectre of railway land stands encroached;

mbuzz1099.pdf

ADB grants USD 800 mn loan to HP to become 'Hydropower State' ;

2008-TIOL-511-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Ganges Lines (India) Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : March 27, 2008 )

Income Tax - ROM application in context of "speed-money" as AO considers it as undisclosed income and same being confirmed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal - Held, the Tribunal has overlooked the crucial distinction between "unlawful expenses" and "false" expenses. An expenditure incurred by the assessee cannot be treated as undisclosed income u/s.158B(b) only for the reason that the expenditure is hit by Explanation provided u/s 37(1). If the AO has to disallow the said expenditure, he should do it u/s 37(1) and not u/s 158B(b). The Tribunal has committed an error of law in treating the amount as part of the undisclosed income. Issue decided in favour of the assessee and the rectification to this extent to be done in the earlier order of the Tribunal. :MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-510-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Balaji Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : March 7, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assesse deals in jewellery and bullion - claims deduction for losses suffered due to dacoity - puts under the head "Administrative & other expenses" and submits that during the relevant time, the business was being carried on by one Umesh Chand Gupta as his proprietary business and later on the business was taken over by the assessee -company with the said Umesh Chand Gupta as one of the Directors - AO holds that losses not allowable - CIT(A) agrees with the AO - Held, since the conditions of section 36 (2)(i) have not been satisfied, the sum lost in dacoity cannot be written off as bad debts - even if it is presumed to be a business loss, it cannot be claimed as a deduction in the hands of a different entity/assessee in a different year. There is no direct authority which was brought to our attention in support of this proposition. Assessee's appeal dismissed. :DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1745-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs Taurus Novelties Ltd (Dated: July 31, 2008)

Central Excise – Small scale exemption for mugs cleared with label “Archies” affixed - small scale exemption is not available to goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee with a brand name belonging to another person. – matter remanded to re-quantify the demand in terms of Section 4(4)(d) of Central Excise Act. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1744-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Sivasakthi Textiles Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: July 11, 2008)

Central Excise – goods removed without statutory documents and significant quantity of goods was not accounted in the records – demand of duty and confiscation upheld. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1743-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Seaways Shipping Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: May 12, 2008)

ST - Port Service - Assessee provides loading and unloading service within the port area - Revenue raises demand - Waiver from pre-deposit granted in view of several decisions of the Tribunal deciding in favour of the assessees : BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt08_114.pdf

Customs Exchange rate for imports goods & export goods for November;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-201-SC-NDPS.pdf + narco story.pdf

Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau Vs Prasah Singh (Dated: October 15, 2008)

Offence – Punishment - It is not permissible to create an offence retrospectively - it is a fundamental right of every person that he should not be subjected to greater penalty than what the law prescribes and no ex-post facto legislation is permissible for escalating the severity of the punishment:

It is manifest from Article 20(1) of the Constitution that it prohibits

(1) making an Act for the first time and then making that law retrospective. In other words it is not permissible to create an offence retrospectively

(2) the infraction of the penalty may not be higher than what is prescribed in law which was in force at the time of the commission of the offence. SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-1742-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Easter Industries Ltd Vs CC, Kandla (Dated: September 16, 2008)

Customs - Once the out of charge from Customs is obtained after bill of entry is filed and duty is paid goods cannot be held as warehoused goods – SC judgment in Biecco Lawrie Ltd [ 2008-TIOL-13-SC-CUS-LB ] followed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;