Yes, we can - DDT turns 1000 today; TIOL to go ahead with celebration in Chennai tomorrow as scheduled despite torrential rains inundating and uprooting hundreds of trees in city (See 'DDT')

Problems faced by new units under Advance License and EPCG licences (See 'DDT')

CBEC staff contribute Rs 44.5 lakh to PM's Relief Fund for Bihar flood victims;

Union Cabinet gives nod for acceptance of recommendations of Rly Convention Committee (2004) + air services with UAE + MoU of cooperation with League of Arab States;

Stalemate continues at Taj hotel in Mumbai; sounds of explosions and gun-battle continue to rattle TV viewers nationwide;

Death toll in Mumbai terrorist attacks surpasses 100; More than 242 injured

Merchants of terror are extremely motivated; says Army;

NSG Commandos save French nuclear physicist & his wife;

PM to visit Mumbai today; England going to call off current cricket tour;

Unilever honchos are safe in Taj;

Terrorists demand release of mujahideens jailed in India;

Five senior police officers, including ATS Chief Hemant Karkare killed, battle continues at Taj Hotel;

Dubai Customs seizes priceless artefacts - jewellery, coins and pottery; Some of them are as old as 5000 years;

FM approves 32 FDI proposals worth Rs 856 Cr, including Rs 108 Cr proposal of Reid & Tailor and Rs 450 Cr of Oriental Structural Engineers;

New Tax Treaty between Singapore and Belgium ratified;

ddt1000.pdf

YES, WE CAN; DDT is 1000 today;

cobweb.pdf

'Horned' pirates of Somalia emerge as serious disruption to international trade;

mbuzz1207.pdf

Govt amends FCCB Scheme to relax pricing norms;

mbuzz1206.pdf

Oil blocks under exploration exceed 200: Deora;

mbuzz1205.pdf

CCEA gives nod to Kakatiya Longwall Project of Singareni Collieries;

mbuzz1204.pdf

Interpol hosts world's first meet on homicide and serial sex crimes ;

2008-TIOL-588-ITAT-MUM-TM.pdf + it tm story.pdf

M/s Mahindra Holdings & Finance Limited Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : June 23, 2008 )

Exclusion under Section 67A is for "association of persons or body of individuals" and not the member of such AOP or BOI : whether the expression ' AOP or BOI ' can include a company or a cooperative society or a society within its ambit so that such entities can be excluded from the scope of AOP / BOI for the purpose of section 67A . Anything can be excluded from an item only when it is included in that item. If the answer to such question is in affirmative then the second question is what is the purpose behind such exclusion.

The expression ' AOP ' includes a company or a cooperative society or a society mentioned in the parenthesis. Had the Legislature not excluded the entities specified in the parenthesis, it would have resulted in double taxation - once as per share determined under section 67A read with section 86 of the Act and again when dividend income is distributed by such entities to its members.

“ it is clear that the words in the parenthesis in section 67A of the Act qualify the expression "Association of Persons or Body of Individuals" and not the members of such AOP / BOI .” :MUMBAI ITAT (THIRD MEMBER);

2008-TIOL-587-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Cebon Apparels Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : September 9, 2008 )

Income Tax - Sec 80HHC benefits - Sale of quota licences are directly linked to the business, and therefore not to be excluded from profits of the business while computing the deduction under Section 80-HHC

Receipt of compensation earned during the course of carrying of its business and is part of the profits of the business and accordingly the said compensation of is includable in the profits for the purposes of deduction under Section 80HHC - Assessee's appeal partly allowed. :MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-586-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd Vs ACIT, Bangalore ( Dated : October 17, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee company files return of income declaring a loss which was further enhanced on account of revised return - AO disallows certain expenses - CIT(A) deletes some disallowances - Held, provisions for warranty are not contingent since warranty liabilities are inbuilt in the sale price and provision is a meagre percentage of the total sales - Disallowance u/s 43B for unpaid interest was rightly disallowed as Explanation 3C to Sec. 43 B requires actual payment of interest; Set off of unabsorbed depreciation against STCG held justified on the combined reading of Section 32(2) and Section 71(2) which clearly provides that unabsorbed depreciation brought forward forms part of the current depreciation and can be set off against income under any other head - Assesse's appeal partly allowed. : BANGALORE ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-585-ITAT-MAD.pdf

M/S PCR Investments Ltd Vs DCIT, Chennai ( Dated : March 28, 2008 )

Disallowance under sec. 14A – Interest on funds borrowed for investing in shares of group companies – Not allowable deduction since dividend earned will be exempt from tax.

Assessee, a group company of Apollo Hospitals claimed expenditure by way of interest amounting to Rs. 387 lakhs. AO disallowed this expenditure since borrowed funds were invested in purchase of shares and dividend income from such shares are exempt. Assessee contended that purchase of such shares in health care industry were strategic in nature as it will improve its income from consultancy services in hospital field. Tribunal held that interest incurred in respect of shares purchased for investment purpose ie. with the intention of earning dividend which is exempt income, the expenditure is not allowable in view of sec. 14A and the interest incurred in respect of funds utilised to purchase shares for trading, is allowable.

Assessee claimed loss of Rs. 78.75 lakhs on sale of shares of a group company to another group company. AO held it as a fit case for lifting the corporate veil and held it to be a sham transaction. On appeal Tribunal held that it falls under Explanation to sec. 73 and hence is a speculative transaction loss in which cannot be set off against business income.

Appeal of assessee partly allowed.:CHENNAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-584-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Garware Shipping Corporation Ltd ( Dated : September 17, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee, engaged in shipping business, claimed expenditure incurred towards major overhauling of the ships - AO allowed proportionate expenses in view of the period between the current dry dock schedule and next dry dock schedule date of dry docking overhauling and disallowed remaining expenditure - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that there is no revenue effect if a part of the expenditure is disallowed during the current year and allowed in subsequent year  and hence deletion of disallowance upheld. Deletion of disallowance on account of non-substantial liabilities held justified since the creditors have been ultimately re-paid by the assessee, hence, it cannot be a case of cessation of liability. Deletion of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35D upheld as assessee was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of provisions of Sec 35D and other conditions specified therein were also satisfied, hence, the assessee was entitled for the said deduction - Appeal of Revenue dismissed. :MUMBAI ITAT;

CASE LAWS file no 89-Part - 2.pdf + CASE LAWS file no 89-Part - 1.pdf

RLT Case Laws Headnotes;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1945-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + interscape story.pdf

CCE, Mumbai Vs M/s Interscape (Dated: October 23, 2008)

Commissioner directing the Deputy Commissioner u/s 35E(2) of the CEA'44 to file an appeal to Commissioner(Appeals) against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner – He couldn't have done so at the material time viz. February 2003 – Tribunal dismisses Revenue appeal.

Bombay High Court in the case of Silver Streak Welding Products India Pvt. Ltd. held that authorization to seek review given by Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner and not the adjudicating authority viz. Additional Commissioner is legally improper.

Since the Bombay High Court is the jurisdictional High Court for the West Zonal Bench, following its decision in Silver Streak Welding Products India Ltd ., the appeal filed by the revenue is required to be dismissed and the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) is required to be upheld - Tribunal. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1944-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Hinduja Foundries Limited Vs CCE & ST, Hyderabad (Dated: August 1, 2008)

Central Excise – Demand of interest without issue of show cause notice – Commissioner (A) order rejecting appellant's appeal against the demand notice not maintainable - Revenue at liberty to proceed for recovery of interest by issue of SCN and following due process of law : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1943-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Tata Motors Limited Vs CCE, Jamshedpur (Dated: September 25, 2008)

Central Excise – Classification and levy of NCCD on chassis for ‘All terrain heavy duty multi-axle tipper and concrete mixer trucks' – NCCD leviable on goods notified in seventh schedule in terms of s. 136 of Finance Act, 2001 – Prima facie chassis of these goods not specified under seventh schedule - Levy of NCCD not applicable – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted – Liberty granted to both parties to move applications for early hearing : KOLKATA CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1940-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CST, Bangalore Vs M/s Vanitha Nambiar (Dated: July 29, 2008)

Service Tax – Penalties imposed for failure to furnish returns & pay service tax set aside by Commissioner (A) without passing a speaking order – Order set aside and matter remanded for determining quantum of penalty : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1939-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Jaipur Vs M/s Metal Engineering & Forging Co (Dated: October 14, 2008)

ST - consignment agent - assessee enters into contract for C & F service and transportation of the goods - Since it is a composite contract for all the services provided by the assessee, the tax is leviable on the gross amount basis but penalty is not leviable as the return was accepted by the Revenue under the Amnesty Scheme : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1938-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s BSNL Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated: October 13, 2008)

ST - Cenvat credit - Assessee receives invoice at circle headquarters but the capital goods are received at the site of installation - Revenue raises objection - since capital goods are duty paid, credit cannot be denied - pre-deposit waived off : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-218-SC-CUS.pdf + sc cus story.pdf

CC, Gujarat Vs M/s Atam Manohar Ship Breakers Ltd ( Dated: November 11, 2008 )

Customs – valuation – import of ship – addendum to MOA not accepted – Supreme Court : we find that the date on which the said addendum stood executed is not given. Further, when did the addendum stand incorporated in the MoA . We do not find the date on which the clause stood inserted in the MoA . Further, the said addendum does not give any reason for reduction in the price from US$ 9 ,70,960.23 to US$ 8,70,960.23. Further, the most clinching factor to be seen is that the said addendum appears to have been executed at the request of the buyer. In our view, this is a self-serving document. In this connection, it may also be noted that the MoA dated 13th April, 1999 states that the vessel is bought on "as is where is" basis. If that be the case, we do not know on what basis the value of the vessel stood reduced from US$ 9 ,70,960.23 to US$ 8,70,960.23. Lastly, it is stated on record that one of the items was not in a working condition and by way of damages, the price stood reduced. It is not so stated in the addendum. If it is the case of damages, then, surely it would have been so stated in the addendum. : SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-217-SC-CUS.pdf + garlic story.pdf

UoI Vs M/s Exim Rajathi India Pvt Ltd ( Dated: November 26, 2008 )

Customs – Imports - Fungus infested garlic – To be destroyed by fire in the presence of Customs officers: SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-1942-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Finesse Creations Inc Rajiv H Mathur Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: September 23, 2008)

Customs – When duty paid along with interest and penalty within 30 days of the order no requirement to pay the balance penalty – It is settled law that when partnership firm is penalized separate penalty on partners not imposable – When goods liable for confiscation are not available for confiscation impugned order for confiscation of goods liable to be set aside – High Court's decision in Raja Impex (P) Ltd [ 2008-TIOL-280-HC-P&H-CUS ] followed : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1941-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s A R Marines Pvt Ltd Vs CC (EXP), Mumbai (Dated: August 1, 2008)

Customs – When a person is identified as not an employee of the CHA as on date of export penalty cannot be imposed on CHA – Impugned order set aside : MUMBAI CESTAT;