Assocham for State-funding of elections; seeks income tax exemption on donation by corporates to political parties;

Unemployment rate climbs to 7.6% in USA; Lufthansa shuts down four city offices In India;

Delhi DRI seizes another consignment of 19 kg heroin; arrests two persons, including one Zimbawean national unauthorisedly staying in India;

Believe it, Bihar bags first prize in e-governance award;

To promote financial literacy, RBI prescribes new model scheme of FLCC for banks;

Addl Judges appointed for Bombay and Patna High Courts;

Pranab hints at one more Economic Stimulus Package;

rbi story.pdf

To promote financial literacy, RBI prescribes new model scheme of FLCC for banks;

rbi_circular.pdf

Interest Rates on Export Credit in Foreign Currency;

CIC Story.pdf + CIC.pdf

Appellant, a Superintendent, wants to know when he will be promoted as an Assistant Commissioner - CPIO says file with CAT hence information cannot be provided - CIC agrees;

mbuzz0135.pdf

Delay in cheque clearing: RBI issues guidelines for banks;

mbuzz0134.pdf

Govt to double number of post offices offering electronic money order service;

mbuzz0133.pdf

India shows resilience at times of downturn: ADB President;

mbuzz0132.pdf

Cabinet Secy reviews response mechanism to emergency scenario at civilian airports;

mbuzz0131.pdf

Believe it, Bihar bags first prize in e-governance award;

mbuzz0130.pdf

JWG on atutomotive sector: Plenty of scope to widen trade with Germany, says Minister;

mbuzz0129.pdf

Addl Judges appointed for Bombay and Patna High Courts;

2009-TIOL-88-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s L T Karle Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: November 21, 2008)

Income tax – Deduction u/s 80HHC – AO disallows the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80HHC considering that after excluding the job work income the assessee did not have any profit from the export business and following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd no deduction is allowed – CIT (A) confirms the disallowance – Tribunal upholds the order of CIT (A) following the decision of the Apex court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Ravindranattan Nair that job work charges received cannot become the profit for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC.

Income tax – While calculating deduction u/s 10B, the assessee excludes jobwork receipts from the total turnover of the unit and includs these receipts in eligible profits from the unit – AO recomputes deduction by including job work receipts in total turnover and excluding it from the profits eligible for deduction – CIT (A) held following the decision of K. Ravindranattan that job work receipts will form part of eligible profit for deduction and the total turnover will also include job work receipts – Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT (A): BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-87-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society Of Pennsylvania Vs DIT, Bangalore (Dated: November 21, 2008)

Income Tax—Appellant (WTP), a religious society incorporated outside India applied for registration in India u/s 12A—DIT refused registration on the ground that it is not established in India—Held Sec 11 which exempts income from property held for charitable or religious purposes and which requires compulsory registration of charitable or religious trusts does not require that such trusts or institutions should be established or created in India, all that they require is that the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes should be applied to such purposes in India—Appellant's appeal allowed for statistical purposes.: BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-231-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + rubicon story.pdf

M/s Rubicon Formulations Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C& ST, Aurangabad (Dated: November 10, 2008)

Service Tax under head BAS - Production of goods containing alcohol and discharging State Excise duty – Modification application dismissed as infructuous and matter to be heard finally on 10.02.2009: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-230-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Idea Cellular Ltd Vs CCE, Rohtak (Dated: January 19, 2009)

ST - Cenvat Credit - Assessee takes credit of excise duty paid on towers and shelters used as components of base station control - Revenue denies it - Since the Tribunal has granted stay in a similar case in another party's case, stay granted: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-227-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Gyarasi Lal & Co Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated: December 17, 2008)

ST - supply of manpower - assessee supplies labour to industrial client on contract basis - held, supply of manpower is not covered prior to 16.6.2005 for the purpose of levy of service tax - Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-226-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Shree Nakoda Travelling Agency Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: December 1, 2008)

ST - Tour Operator - assessee plies buses and has obtained 'stage carriage' licence under Motor Vehicles Act - Revenue raises demand - In view of settled views the assessee's service is not taxable as it cannot operate as Tour Operator - Assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-228-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Bangalore Vs Sindhur Beedi Works (Dated: August 21, 2008)

Central Excise – Refund – Unjust enrichment – The respondents cleared goods at a cum-duty price. Advalorem rate of duty reduced but respondents continued to pay duty at higher rate. Respondent claimed refund of excess duty paid. Refund sanctioned. Revenue is in appeal. HELD - Respondent collected the same price and the same duty from its customers before and after the change. The duty payment to government also did not change during the material period. By continuing the same cum-duty price, after the reduction in rate, assessee effectively collected duty at the revised lower rate on a higher value. This arithmetic does not affect the collection of duty at the pre-revised rate and value during the material period by the assessee. The respondent has not established that the excess duty paid to the exchequer had not been passed on to its customers to qualify for the refund claimed. Revenue appeal allowed. (Para 5): CHENNAI CESTAT;

CCE, Chennai-I Vs Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills (Dated: December 12, 2008)

Central Excise – refund – bar of unjust enrichment and limitation – advance deposit paid under protest pending investigation – claim is not hit by limitation or unjust enrichment – revenue appeal has no merit. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-13-SC-NDPS.pdf + ndps story.pdf

UoI Vs Rattan Mallik @ Habul (Dated: January 23, 2009)

Bail – NDPS Act - Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, the other twin conditions, the satisfaction of the Court that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied: the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject to the restrictions placed by sub-clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz ; ( i ) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is manifest that the conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on "reasonable grounds". The expression `reasonable grounds' has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act.

The stated circumstances may be relevant for grant of bail in matters arising out of conviction under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 etc. but are not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements as stipulated in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Merely because, according to the Ld. Judge, nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, it could not be said at this stage that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and convicted. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-229-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Shashi Prakash Lohia Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: July 9, 2008)

Customs – diversion of Cassia imported under DEEC by showing export of ground nut oil mixed with Cassia oil –the export was permitted based on the inspection report of the DRI – the DRI report should be supplied to the parties and a reasonable opportunity of being personally heard should also be given – matter remanded.: CHENNAI CESTAT;