PC takes over as new Home Minister; PM to look after MoF; Shivraj Patil's resignation accepted by President;

Hillary Clinton likely to be nominated as Secretary of State tomorrow;

PM's Economic Council Member says India to record 8% growth this fiscal despite slowdown;

Veteran film actor Dev Anand honoured at Goa Film Festival;

India, Myanmar agree to sign tax treaty;

editorial.pdf

India v Pakistan: Don't press the panic button;

mbuzz1211.pdf

Mumbai terror attack: Govt to offer petrol pump to martyrs' families;

cbdtorder158_2008.pdf

CBDT issues transfer order of 4 CCITs and also issues additional charge order;

INSTRUCTION

instruct0817.pdf

Assessment of Banks - Check List for deductions - regarding;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-592-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s New Era Impex India Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 12, 2008)

Income Tax - assessee pays interest on capital borrowed for construction of the property - CIT(A) allows interest expenses against rental income assessed under the head "income from house property", besides 30% of the rental income - Held, interest on borrowed capital is deductible in computing the income under the head besides deduction of 30% of the rent. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

On issue of deduction of expenses against share trading operations, CIT(A) order held to be correct for the reasons that expenses incurred in this business will have to be deducted for computing the income.

In regard to the income arising from maintenance agreement - Held, the assessee is not carrying on any business of maintenance of property. The income is taxable under the residuary head and not under the head "income from house property". CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to compute the income from maintenance agreement under the property head. The assessee entitled to deduction of the expenditure incurred for carrying out its obligation under the agreement against property income or share trading business. The AO to compute such expenditure after hearing the assessee and deduct the same while computing the income from the agreement under the residuary head.

Appeals partly allowed: DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-591-ITAT-DEL.pdf + rental story.pdf

Standing Conference Of Public Enterprises (Scope) Vs ITO, New Delhi ( Dated : August 29, 2008 )

Income Tax – Rental income of SCOPE not taxable - satisfies the test of mutuality  : the rental income is not chargeable to tax and satisfies the test of mutuality whereas we set aside the matter of interest income to the file of the Assessing Officer to work out the taxable income with the similar directions.:DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1956-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Rao Industries Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: August 13, 2008)

Central Excise – Clubbing of clearances of units for denial of SSI exemption – When the units are manufacturers of excisable goods burden on Revenue to identify real unit from dummy unit – Fundamental flaw in the SCN not curable at Appeal stage – No merits in the impugned order: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1955-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

ECE Industries Limited (Transformer Division) Vs CC & CCE,Hyderabad-II (Dated: August 26, 2008)

Central Excise – Refund of duty initially paid on higher value – Whenever there is a price revision clause in the agreements the assessments should be considered as provisional – When b uyer reimbursed lower price and duty on finalization of price n o unjust enrichment – Eligible for refund of excess duty paid : BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1958-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + nahar story.pdf

M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated: October 6, 2008)

Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service - overseas agents procuring orders for export goods -the middlemen abroad are providing a service in relation to the marketing or sale of the goods produced and the service is covered by the definition of ‘Business of Auxiliary Service'.

Service received from outside India - relevant date of taxability in the hands of the recipient of the service in India is 1.1.2005: DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1954-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Aksh Optifibers Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: November 7, 2008)

ST - Consulting Engineering service - assessee develops technical knowhow for e-governance project - sells the same for monetary consideration - Revenue alleges they have an agreement to provide consulting engineering service - held, it is a case of complete transfer of technical knowhow and no service tax is leviable : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-219-SC-COFEPOSA.pdf + cofeposa story.pdf

State Of Tamil Nadu Vs Abdullah Kadher Batcha ( Dated: November 12, 2008 )

Detention under COFEPOSA - The Court has a duty to see whether the non supply of any document is in any way prejudicial to the case of the detenu – High Court order quashing detention set aside – Merely because copies of some documents have been supplied they cannot by any stretch of imagination be called as relied upon documents. While examining whether non supply of a document would prejudice a detenu the Court has to examine whether the detenu would be deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of a document.Primarily , the copies which form the ground for detention are to be supplied and non supply thereof would prejudice to the detenu. But documents which are merely referred to for the purpose of narration of facts in that sense cannot be termed to be documents without the supply of which the detenu is prejudiced.The High Court has lost sight of the relevant factors and, therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is therefore set aside.

Whether detenu is to be picked up fort preventive detention after a decade to be decided by State: Considering the nature of the order of detention which is essentially preventive in character, it would be appropriate for the State Government and the detaining authority to consider whether there is any need to take the detenu back to detention for serving the remainder of the period of detention which was indicated in the order of detention. : SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-1957-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: August 27, 2008)

Customs – valuation – technical know-how fee is not to be included in the value as the requirement under Rule 9(1)(c) is not satisfied: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1953-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: August 27, 2008)

Customs – refund of duty paid on goods abandoned – condonation of delay in filing the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act on the ground of provisional assessment - where an assessee, by his own conduct, renders a condition attached to exemption notification unworkable or incapable of being complied with, he is precluded from pleading that the assessment was provisional by virtue of such condition – refund hit by limitation. : CHENNAI CESTAT;