Expansion of UN Security Council: India for immediate inter-governmental negotiations;

Indian Naval vessel attacked; Somalian Pirates' speed boats blown off;

Import of sensitive items jumps by 27% in first half of fiscal;

India, UK to work together for project impact evaluation;

Kochi Customs detects huge illegal export of rice to Dubai;

ddt 19 nov.pdf

1041 branches of Banks to accept Advance Income Tax;

spl down.pdf

Andhra Pradesh VAT - No concessions, please!

mbuzz1180.pdf

India, UK to work together for project impact evaluation;

mbuzz1179.pdf

Import of sensitive items jumps by 27% in first half of fiscal;

mbuzz1178.pdf

Indian Naval vessel attacked; Pirates' speed boats blown off;

mbuzz1177.pdf

'Sanitation is more important than independence';

CBDT Order 150_2008

CBDT posts two DCITs from Delhi region in Board as OSD;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-567-ITAT-MUM.pdf + hypo tax story.pdf

Roy Marshall Vs ACIT (OSD), Mumbai ( Dated : October 15, 2008 )

Income tax - hypothetical tax - assessee is a non-resident - comes to India to work for two MNC employers - files return and claims deduction for hypothetical tax - assessee explains that the hypo-tax is the tax which he would have been liable to pay in his home country if he would not have come to India. Since his employers were liable, under the 'Tax Equalisation' agreement, to bear tax liability only to the extent of his liability in India and the hypo-tax is never paid to the employee - AO takes the view that the same is to be added to his income - CIT(A) confirms the AO's order - Relying on Jaydev H Raja case ( 2003-TIOL-56-ITAT-MUM ) , the Tribunal held that since no deduction was actually claimed by the taxpayer for the hypo-tax, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not called for - Assessee's appeal allowed :MUMBAI ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-566-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ACIT, New Delhi Vs Shri Sanjay Bhalla ( Dated : June 06, 2008 )

Income Tax - Sec 10A benefits - Assessee claims deduction for income derived from development and export of computer software - AO rejects the claim as assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence which could prove that STPI is authorized to issue any certificate which could enable the assessee to claim exemption - CIT(A) allows assessee's claim relying on the Instructions of the Board which stated exemption u/s 10(A) cannot be denied on the ground that approval is granted by the Joint Director of STPI - Held, CIT(A) justified in allowing the claim as Revenue fails to prove that the assessee has not fulfilled other condition to qualify for the exemption - Revenue's appeal dismissed. :DELHI ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-565-ITAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Marine Container Services (South) Private Limited Vs ACIT, Chennai ( Dated : June 13, 2008 )

Foreign education expenditure of daughter of director – held not for business purposes

Human Resource expenditure amounting to Rs. 24.86 lakhs held not for the purpose of business. Expenditure incurred towards foreign education of daughter of a Director of company with a condition to join the assessee company or its associates on completion of the studies held to be not for the purpose of business. 

Appeal by Assessee dismissed. :CHENNAI ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-564-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons Vs J/DCIT, Bangalore ( Dated : August 22, 2008 )

Income tax – Addition of prior period income and deduction of prior period expenses – Assessee to adduce evidence to show that the prior period expenses had crystallized during the relevant accounting year - Unless this fact is proved, no allowance can be obtained in respect of the prior period expenses – Deduction allowable only in part for the evidence produced :BANGALORE ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-563-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Fairwood Consultants Pvt Ltd ( Dated : September 30, 2008 )

Income Tax Act – Section 37(1) – Expenditure on Foreign Travel – Held, that having regard to the business of the assessee of project management consultancy, project development work etc., project expansion of cement plant in Sudan or visit to office in UK cannot be treated as not related to business.

Income Tax Act – Slump Sale – Section 2(42C) – Held, that slump sale means transfer of one or more undertaking as a result of sale for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to individual assets and liabilities in such sale. Undertaking includes any part of the undertaking or a unit or a division of an undertaking. Sale of shares of subsidiary cann't be held to be transfer of an undertaking.

Income Tax Act – Explanation to section 73 – Held, that the assessees was holding shares as investment and not as stock-in-trade and thus provisions of Expl to section 73 were not applicable. :DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1891-CESTAT-DEL-LB.pdf + Gupta Metal Sheets LB Delhi story.pdf

M/s Gupta Metal Sheets Vs CCE, Gurgaon (Dated: October 17, 2008)

Central Excise – Remission of duty - 'Theft' or 'dacoity' involves forcible removal of goods by non-violent or violent means and cannot be regarded as a natural cause or unavoidable accident – Remission of duty not available in such instances

'Theft' has been defined in the Indian Penal Code to mean dishonestly taking of any moveable property out of the possession of any person without his consent. Theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, they are said to commit dacoity. It would thus appear that 'theft' or 'dacoity' involves forcible removal of goods by non-violent or violent means, as the case may be, and this cannot be said to be a natural cause. : DELHI CESTAT ( Larger Bench );

2008-TIOL-1890-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Ahmedabad Vs M/s CMC (India) (Dated: August 29, 2008)

Central Excise - demand of duty on losses occurred while the parent factory received back the material under Rule 56 B - no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the losses were not unreasonable - revenue appeal dismissed. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1889-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Raigad Vs M/s Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd (Dated: June 2, 2008)

Central Excise - excisability - Spent Nickel Catalyst arising during the course of manufacture of final products is not excisable - the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law and the order does not require any interference. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1888-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + homa story.pdf

Western Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated: August 26, 2008)

Service tax – port services – whether the provisions of Major Port Trust Act 1963 and India Ports Act 1908 are applicable for interpretation of the port service under Section 65(82) of the Finance Act, 1994 – matter referred to Larger Bench.

If only those services specified under Section 42 (1) of the Major Port Trusts Act can, if provided by the Port or by a person authorized by the Port, be charged to service tax as “port services”, as there is no corresponding provision in the Indian Ports Act specifying services to be provided by a minor port or a person authorized by such Port, it would mean that, in respect of minor ports, no activity/operation (including stevedoring) is liable to be exigible to service tax under the head “port services” defined under Section 65 (82) - An interpretation leading to such anomalous results is unreasonable.

It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that, when the language of a statute is capable of two interpretations, one of which is reasonable and the other unreasonable, the court should hold that the former must prevail.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1887-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Delhi Development Authority Vs CST, Delhi (Dated:September 19, 2008)

ST - Condonation of delay - assessee is a govt deptt and has its own legal cell - Commissioner (A) rejects the application for condonation on this ground only - Since the delay was not on part of the Legal Cell but Member, Finance who took time to decide, the delay can be condoned - matter remanded :DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1886-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Bajaj Auto Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: October 3, 2008)

ST - Assessee is recipient of consulting engineering service - Service prior to 1.1.2005 is not liable to service tax :MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt08_128.pdf

CBEC notifies Customs exchange rates for December;

dgft08pn109.pdf

EPCG application form amended;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1885-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Apex Recycling Pvt Ltd & Ors Vs CCE, Delhi-I (Dated: August 26, 2008)

Customs - 100% EOU - demand of duty on the material imported under Notification 52/2003 Cus dated 31.3.2003, based on allegations of undervaluation of the material imported to facilitate the suppression of NFEP to be achieved - Commissioner's order holding that the Appellant company has not been able to achieve positive NFE, without any reference to the Development Commissioner, and that too without any detailed calculation in this regard, is totally wrong - If a show cause notice is answerable to a Commissioner, it is the Commissioner who has to adjudicate on all the points of dispute in it. It is not open to him to decide some points and thereafter leave the quantification of duty demand to some officer under him - the adjudication has been done by the Commissioner in a most careless and irresponsible manner - matter remanded. : CHENNAI CESTAT;