CVC's Code of Ethics for CAs and advice to Banks (See 'DDT')

Satyams flourish due to benign regulatory oversight (See 'Common Basket')

Bank frauds by consortium: CVC concerned; RBI asks banks for information sharing;

PPP Projects worth Rs 2053 Crores approved;

4th Amendment Rules, 2009 - CBDT Amends TDS Return filing dates for non resident;

States cannot deprive people of enjoying rights over natural resources like river, forests and beaches;

ACC approves CBEC foreign posting file for five stations;

Indian Navy commissions first helicopter base;

ddt 22 Jan.pdf

Income Tax – 50% Depreciation for New Motor Vehicles;

TCW119.pdf + introspection.pdf

Satyam-gate: A failure for corporate journalism and CA profession as well!

Satyams flourish.pdf

Satyams flourish due to benign regulatory oversight;

0fficememorandum.pdf

ED looking for Spl Director;

mbuzz0075.pdf

Bank frauds by consortium: CVC concerned; RBI asks banks for information sharing;

mbuzz0074.pdf

PPP Projects worth Rs 2053 Crores approved;

mbuzz0073.pdf

Interpol chief reiterates importance of anti-counterfeiting technologies and secure travel papers;

mbuzz0072.pdf

CBI raids premises of CIT in Delhi, Kanpur & Bangalore; seizes cash of Rs 66 lakh;

it09not011.pdf

4th Amendment Rules, 2009 - CBDT Amends TDS Return filing dates for non resident;

CBDT Notification No. 1

CBDT gives NFSG benefits to 9 officers;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-36-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s Lakhani India Limited (Dated: December 16, 2008)

Income tax - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO imposes penalty for claiming deduction u/s 80HHC on whole of export turnover - Held, penalty cannot be levied for mere claiming a deduction when there is no concealment of income or information from the AO - Revenue's appeal dismissed:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-35-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Coimbatore Vs M/s Adar Tea Products Company (Dated: December 23, 2008)

Income Tax - AY 1994-95 - Depreciation - assessee claims 100% depreciation on energy saving device called fluid bed drier - AO allows - later notice u/s 154 issued for withdrawal of allowance on the ground that the device is not specified in the schedule of items entitled for the benefits - Tribunal declines to buy Revenue's argument - held, the table indicates its intention to afford depreciation at the rates mentioned only to the specifically listed equipments. It is not even proved that a drier of the kind mentioned herein is an energy saving device - Revenue's appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-55-ITAT-BANG.pdf

DCIT, Bangalore Vs M/s ICICI Venture Funds Management Co Ltd (Dated: December 12, 2008)

Income tax - Sec 115JA - Assessee is into leasing capital assets - credits a sum to P&L Account after reducing it by a sum as lease equalisation account - AO takes the view that the lease equalisation account is in nature of reserve and adds back the sum to book profits as per Explanation u/s 115JA(2) - CIT(A) deletes the addition - held, lease equalization charges cannot be regarded as an amount transferred to reserve as investment in Explanation (b) to section 115JA(2). The adjustment made by the AO by adding the amount of lease equalization charges to compute the book profit u/s. 115JA is not permissible as the said amount is not covered within any of the clauses to Explanation below section 115JA(2) - CIT(A) order upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-54-ITAT-DEL.pdf + technip story.pdf

DDIT, Dehradun Vs M/s Technip Offshore Contracting BV (Dated: January 01, 2009)

Income tax - assessee is a Netherland-based company - provides services related to exploration, exploitation and prospecting of mineral oil to ONGC - paid service tax on services provided - retuns income net of service tax - AO takes the view that the service tax is includable in the total receipts on which 10% tax is to be paid under Sec 44BB - CIT(A) disagrees with the AO - held, Sec 44BB is a special provision and a self-contained code which cannot be guided by Sec 5 for arriving at total income - since it reckons total recipts for determining presumptive tax u/s 44BB, service tax being a part of contractual receipts cannot be excluded for paying tax - Revenue's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-53-ITAT-BANG.pdf

DCIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Medreich Ltd (Dated: November 21, 2008)

Income tax - Sec 10B - assessee is a 100% EoU - claims profits from exports and also incures losses from non-EoU unit - AO sets off losses of non-EoU units against profits of EoU and also denies deduction of carried forward losses as benefits u/s 10B were allowed - CIT(A) directs AO not to set off losses of non-EoU units against profits of EoU - held, no infirmity in CIT(A) order - Revenue's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-136-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Rohit Surfactants Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated: December 16, 2008)

ST - Cenvat credit - assessee is a manufacturer of soaps and detergenets - takes credit for service tax paid on services like telephone, mobile, banking, insurance and courier - Revenue disallows - held, prima facie credit can be availed by the assessee as the words - “directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of finished products”- used in the definition of ‘input service' have to be given very wide meaning - waiver from pre-deposit granted: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-135-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Rubamin Laboratories Ltd Vs CCE, Vadodara (Dated: December 26, 2008)

ST - assessee receives services from non-resident service provider - held, in view of Bombay HC decision in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association, demand raised for period prior to 16.6.2005 is not sustainable - Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-134-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Vapi Vs M/s Neral Paper Mills P Ltd (Dated: December 26, 2008)

ST - Cenvat credit - assessee avails GTA service - furnishes declaration from transporters on their letterheads that they have not availed credit on inputs and capital goods - Revenue disallows on the ground that the declaration was not given on the consignment note - held, a substantial benefit cannot be denied for the lapse of procedure compliance and there is also a Board's instruction in favour of the assessee which is to be given full effect of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-133-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs Aasin Industries (P) Ltd (Dated: August 20, 2008)

Central Excise – SSI exemption – brand name – the respondents are not eligible for exemption as the goods were cleared under brand name which did not belong to them – Revenue appeal is well-founded.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-132-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Jaipur II Vs M/s Aditya Cement (Dated: October 27, 2008)

Central Excise – Onus on Revenue to prove whether assessee availed MODVAT credit – Appellants claim of receipt of capital goods prior to 1994 not rebutted - No reversal of credit required for clearance of waste and scrap of capital goods received prior to 1994 – Revenues appeal devoid of merits: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-131-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Cadila Healthcare Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: November 24, 2008)

Central Excise – Credit of service tax paid on technical testing and analysis service not deniable even for trial production of medicines – Service tax paid on outward transport admissible so long as buyer's premises is considered as place of delivery and property passes on at buyer's premises – Primafacie case in favour of appellants – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

CIRCULAR

dgft08cir055.pdf

Clarification on applicability of Public Notice No. 28 dated 9.6.2008;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-05-SC-NDPS.pdf + ndps story.pdf

Hamidhbhai Azabhai Malik Vs State of Gujarat (Dated: January 12, 2009)

NDPS – Search - when information or intimation or knowledge comes to the notice of the Investigating officer in course of the regular patrolling or an investigation of some other offence, it is not necessary to follow the conditions incorporated in section 42 (like informing the superior officer) ; it is settled proposition of law when such an information or intimation or knowledge comes to the notice of the Investigating officer in course of the regular patrolling or an investigation of some other offence, itis not necessary to follow in all cases the conditions incorporated in section 42.

Jurisdiction cannot be questioned for the first time before the Supreme Court. The question as to whether the officer who conducted the proceedings was empowered officer or not was not raised before the trial court and the High Court and, therefore, that plea cannot be entertained: SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-37-HC-AHM-CUS.pdf + drawback story.pdf

Gujarat State Fertilizers Co Ltd (Fibre Unit) And Another Vs UoI (Dated: June 20, 2008)

Customs – Drawback allowable only if the goods which are re-exported are the goods which are identified as having been imported into India and upon which duty is paid at the time of import – S tatute cannot be interpreted so as to resolve one or the other practical difficulties that may arise in implementation thereof, as that would lead to uncertainty and the interpretation would keep on changing with factual matrix - If the language of the statute is capable of a plain meaning without doing violence to the language, it is not open to add any words therein so as to give a meaning which the Court might think might be more appropriate: GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-138-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + cess story.pdf

CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Rice India (Dated: January 2, 2009)

Unconstitutional “collection” of Sugar Cess is subject to the Doctrine of Unjust enrichment – Tribunal allows Revenue appeal by way of limited remand.

Tribunal's observations on the question of applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment –

The decision in Mafatlal Industries is not applicable in the present case as para 108(ii) of that decision refers to a case where the Act itself has been declared unconstitutional and not the collection.

In the present case, the Sugar Cess Act has not been declared unconstitutional and hence the case is not a case of unconstitutional levy as was being made out by the respondents. 

This distinction is very clearly brought out by the Apex Court in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. Asst. Collector of C.Ex. – [2002-TIOL-56-SC-CX] wherein in para 6 it has been clearly stated that the Mafatlal Industries case refers to a situation where a provision of the Act under which tax is levied is struck down as unconstitutional for transgressing unconstitutional limitation . 

Para 7 of the said judgement further goes to state that even if it is assumed to be unconstitutional levy, even in that eventuality it has to be established that incidence of duty has not been passed on to others. 

Commissioner(A) order set aside as the refund claim of Sugar Cess has to pass the test of unjust enrichment.  However, since no findings given as to whether the appellants had produced sufficient evidence to counter the charge of unjust enrichment, matter remanded for passing a reasoned order.

Revenue appeal allowed by way of limited remand.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-137-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Soni Ispat Ltd Vs CC, Nhava Sheva (Dated:September 5, 2008)

Customs – When classification of imported goods not disputed at lower stages, plea of wrong classification cannot be raised in appellate stage – Once goods were declared as defective sheets, goods cannot be treated as scrap subsequently – Fine and penalty reduced as there is no misdeclaration of description and value: MUMBAI CESTAT;