DDT 1000 – GRAND celebration in Chennai (See 'DDT')

That is INTERPOL – Delegation to India – Mumbai Attack (See 'DDT')

Hyderabad Excise Consultant killed in Mumbai Blast (See 'DDT')

PM speaks to his Pakistani counterpart about Mumbai attacks; seeks ISI chief to come to India;

Oberoi and Trident under NSG's control; death toll rises to 125; 148 hostages rescued; Firing still on at Taj ;

Operation still on in Taj Hertiage; several grenade explosions heard;

US sending FBI team to Mumbai; Team of paramedics, medics and other professionals form Israel leaves for Mumbai to assist rescue efforts;

War against Mumbai: Interpol sends delegation to India;

Mumbai operation against terrorists closing to end; 16 policemen and 6 foreigners among dead; 25 foreigners among 40 rescued from Oberoi Trident

Govt announces 7 day state mourning to mark demise of V P Singh; President along with several dignitaries condole former PM's death

125 so far killed in Mumbai terror strike + above 300 injured; About four more terrorists still holed up in Taj and Nariman House

ddt_1001.pdf

ST 3 Form – No Slot to mention payment of Education Cess/SHE Cess under Rule 6(3) ;

azadi_bachao.pdf

The watchdog's plight: Reflections on role of CAG;

editorial.pdf

It's not Mumbai but India under siege! Has our State failed to protect our right to life?

mbuzz1210.pdf

War against Mumbai: Interpol sends delegation to India;

mbuzz1209.pdf

Hyderabad to host 3rd Internet Governance Forum, 2008;

2008-TIOL-582-HC-RAJ-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s Charbhuja Trading Co ( Dated : September 25, 2008 )

Income tax – Tribunal being the last fact finding authority cannot pass orders without examining the facts and assigning appropriate reasons – Matter remitted back to Tribunal to decide the issues afresh : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-581-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

Mrs Farhana Sait Vs ACIT, Ernakulam ( Dated: October 21, 2008 )

Income tax - writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition filed without availing alternate remedy of revision u/s 264 - Revenue attaches property for default in payment of tax - Appellant claims to be the owner on account of gift of the said property by her ex-husband but fails to prove the gift - Held, Revenue had no jurisdiction to declare the 'Oral Gift' as void. Remedy under Section 264 relating to the 'Revision' was available with the petitioner as proceedings were initiated against both the appellant and her ex-husband - Writ petition dismissed :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-590-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Indian Institute Of Management Vs DIT, Bangalore ( Dated : July 13, 2007 )

Registration U/s 12A - Application filed with supporting documents for exemption - Evidence to show that application was filed with department - If there is deficiency in filing of supportive document Dept should intimate the applicant instead of declining registration - order U/s 12(AA) directed to be modified to make registration available.:BANGALORE ITAT;

2008-TIOL-589-ITAT-MAD.pdf

Shri M Srinivasulu Vs ACIT, Chennai ( Dated : May 09, 2008 )

Unexplained cash and investments – Cogent explanation backed with reasons to be advanced by assessee to substantiate source of such assets. 

Assessee was carrying cash of Rs. 50 lakhs when he was taken into custody by Police at Chennai. On the basis of information, I.T. Department conducted search. In the block assessment, in addition to the cash seized of Rs. 50 lakhs a sum of Rs. 561 lakhs being deposits in various bank accounts were added. On appeal, CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 561 lakhs and upheld addition of Rs. 50 lakhs. Both assessee and Department are in appeal before ITAT.

As far as cash remitted in bank accounts amounting to Rs. 561 lakhs, AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee that it represents sale proceeds of its consignment business in Gutka and Pan Masala business since the business is conducted at Palakkad in Kerala whereas cash is deposited in the bank accounts in Coimbatore and Chennai. The AO of M/s Dariwal Industries at Pune for whom assessee was acting as consignment agent, confirmed that assessee was consignment agent of that company and that such bank transactions are reflected in the books of accounts of that company. On this basis, the addition was deleted by CIT(A) and this stand was upheld by ITAT.

Regarding cash seized amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs, Tribunal held that the time lag of one day between Police apprehending assessee and I.T. Department executing the warrant cannot be stretched by assessee to claim that Department has falsified in recording the correct date of executing the warrant. Assessee initially stated that the amount was handed over to him by Mr. Abdulla to hand over to Mr. Mohammed. Though Mr. Abdulla denied this, assessee did not ask for cross-examination. Further he did not ask for examination of Mr. Mohammed. Then he took a different stand that this sum represents sale proceeds of his business but could not prove that claim also. Hence the addition was upheld by CIT(A) and ITAT.

Appeal by both assessee and revenue dismissed. :CHENNAI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1952-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + cenvat story.pdf

Ballarshah Plywood Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated: October 10, 2008)

Utilization of Cenvat Credit for payment of duty during forfeiture period – Commissioner(A) has shown considerable leniency in reducing penalty – Tribunal orders pre-deposit.

Tribunal's observations:

It is an admitted fact that the applicants have cleared the goods by utilizing the Cenvat credit during the forfeiture period. 

The offence in the present case is not concerned with the calculation of one month or 30 days, as the case may be, but of subsequent default in utilizing the Cenvat credit for payment of duty during the forfeiture period. 

This also was not a one time mistake but was repeated.   

Commissioner(Appeals) has shown considerable leniency by reducing the penalty from 100% to 10%.

Applicant has not been able to make a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalty - directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively and report compliance. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1951-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

ACC Ltd Vs CCE, Nagpur (Dated: September 1, 2008)

Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - welding electrodes are eligible for credit - Tribunal decisions in Lloyds Metals & Engineering Ltd., India Sugars and Refineries and Manikgarh Cement followed. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1947-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai III Vs M/s Indian Steel And Allied Products (Dated: September 11, 2008)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – credit cannot be denied on the ground that the supplier of the inputs has failed to discharge the duty liability when the transactions of the user of the inputs were genuine and bonafide in nature. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1950-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Johnson Matthey Chemical India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated: October 14, 2008)

ST - Cenvat credit - assessee provides scientific and technical consultancy service - also avails GTA service for supplying raw materials to a manufacturer - avails credit of tax paid on GTA service - Revenue disallows on the ground that the credit can be aviled only when the input service has a nexus with the output service - not a fit case for total waiver of pre-deposit : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1949-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Indore Vs M/s Indore Composite Pvt Ltd (Dated: October 7, 2008)

ST - Consulting engineer service - Transfer of technology against a consideration is not covered under service tax : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-583-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + cus hc story.pdf

UoI Vs R K Ranganathan ( Dated: November 21, 2008 )

Customs – Reward to Informers – contraband seized two months after information was given, but the same quantity and from the same ship as furnished by the informer – Department claims seizure was based on intelligence gathered later by an officer – Single Judge orders reward – Revenue appeal dismissed :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1948-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Alok Surajmal Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: July 25, 2008)

Customs – Non-declaration of foreign currency at the time of entry into India and exit out of India is an offence liable for penalty – Facts peculiar to the case requires a lenient view for reduction of redemption fine and penalty : MUMBAI CESTAT;