Satyam: A recession baby! (See 'Common Basket')

Next Chairman for CBDT: Committee of Secretaries recommends name of Mr S S N Moorthy of 1973 Batch IRS;

PC calls for more economy stimulus package;

CBI arrests ACIT with Income Tax Inspector for demanding bribes; also arrests a Banker in another case;

India signs pact with Kazakistan for uranium supply;

PM's bypass surgery to take more than 7 hours; Congress rules out change in Govt leadership;

recession baby.pdf

Satyam: A recession baby!

review story.pdf

PM Advisory Council lowers growth rate to 7.1%; projects above 7% growth rate for fiscal 2009-10;

mbuzz0083.pdf

Govt empowers NSG to requisition aircraft from any operator;

mbuzz0082.pdf

CBI arrests ACIT with Income Tax Inspector for demanding bribes; also arrests a Banker in another case;

2009-TIOL-60-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Shri Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: October 17, 2008)

Income Tax - Condonation of delay - Assessee files Appeal before CIT(A) after two years and two months  - CIT (A) dismisses the appeal on the ground of delay and relies on an acknowledgement signed by the assessee for having received the assessment orders when he was lodged in Prison - Assessee contends that due to trials in 12 states he was busy attending court proceedings – Held, getting legal advise and preparing documents are in fact difficult for a person especially when he is in the Police and judicial custody. From the admitted facts, it is seen that the assessee was prevented from filing appeals before the CIT(A) in time - on the basis of earlier order of the tribunal in assessee's own case, matter remanded back to CIT(A) to consider it on merit.:BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-59-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Dabur India Ltd Vs CIT (Central) III, Delhi (Dated: October 31, 2008)

Income Tax Act – Section 263 – Held, that the submissions made by the assessee before AO clearly show that the issue relating to the assessee's claim for deduction on account of strategic management consultancy fees was duly examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and keeping in view the submissions made on behalf of the assessee explaining the nature of services etc. as well as and the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Empire International & Co. Ltd. the said claim was accepted by him. A possible view of the matter was thus taken by the AO accepting the claim of the assessee on this issue while completing the assessment u/s 143(3). Therefore, the CIT u/s 263 cannot resort to his jurisdiction to substitute such possible view taken by the AO with his own view merely on the basis of some comments made in the audit report which otherwise also were not conclusive in this regard.

Also held, that as regards the issue relating to the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 801A, 80HHC and 80Oin respect of capital gain and other income, that there was an error in the order of the AO in allowing the said claim at least in respect of capital gain. All these deductions claimed by the assessee were in respect of profits of the eligible business or undertakings and as the profits arising from sale of any capital asset declared by the assessee company itself under the head capital gain could not be regarded as profits of its business by any stretch of imagination, there was an error causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue in the order of the AO allowing the deductions claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA, 80HHC and 80O in respect of the said capital gain.:DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-147-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s PNC Construction Co Ltd Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: December 31, 2008)

ST - Maintenance and repair service - assessee gets contract from NHAI for maintaining and repairing a particular stretch of national highway - demand raised - Since pre-deposit is already made in this case, and the demand is partly time-barred, waiver from more pre-deposit granted:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-146-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Shri S P Sharma Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: December 5, 2008)

ST - Maintenance and Repair service - assessee undertakes work related to whitewashing and painting of building - Demand raised - Assessee argues such an activity is covered under the Construction of Residential /commercial complex' - Since no specific finding is given, the matter remanded:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-150-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Big Bags story.pdf

M/s Big Bags India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: September 11, 2008)

Central Excise – No bar in claiming rebate of duty paid on final products exported under DFIA and availment of CENVAT credit on inputs procured indigenously – Prima facie appellants have strong case on merits – Full waiver of pre-deposit of duty and interest granted:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-149-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Metco Roof Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated: December 15, 2008)

Central Excise – penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule 2002 – the dispute is in relation to the classification of the goods which was only finally resolved by the Larger Bench – no case for imposing penalty under Rule 25.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08not082.pdf

India bans import of toys from China for six months with immediate effect;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-148-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Nataraja Trading Company, Sivakasi Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: August 21, 2008)

Customs – Import- Barium Nitrate – Barium Nitrate being a hazardous chemical confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 without giving an option for redeeming the goods under Section 125 of the Act. Import of Barium Nitrate is neither prohibited nor restricted under the relevant EXIM Policy or by provisions of any other law. The MS & IHCR also does not prohibit import of Barium Nitrate. Rule 19 of MS & IHCR provides that the concerned authority could issue orders to the importer to remedy any contravention. Hence, the absolute confiscation of the consignment does not appear appropriate and the goods are ordered to be released to the appellant on submission of necessary clearance from the JDGFT. Appeal allowed. (Para 5):CHENNAI CESTAT;