RTI - DG, Valuation also need not part with certain Information (See 'DDT')

Right To Information - DRI Exempted - CPIO can appeal against Appellate Authority(See 'DDT')

Delhi DRI seizes 108 kg of imported gold jewellery + detains 60 kg of gold jewellery being exported + seizes 200 kg of metal scrap declared as export of gold jewellery;

DGCA orders probe into Mumbai airport incident involving Presidential convoy of helicopters and Air India aircraft;

India's Per Capita Income to cross Rs 38000-mark this fiscal: MoF;

India takes giant leap forward in countervailing bio-piracy;

CADWM Scheme amended to sail through 11th Five Year Plan;

PM's Economic Advisory Panel sticks to 7.1% growth theory for current fiscal

Govt gives nod to DIAL to levy Development Fee of Rs 1300 on international pax & Rs 200 on domestic pax;

ddt 9 Feb.pdf

MoC amends SEZ Rules to grant more concessions;

top guest.pdf

Global financial crisis: Greed stands between West and the rest! An advice given in 1969 saved Indian banks;

guest column.pdf

Cenvat credit and cascading effect of taxes;

cic_circulal_01.pdf

Decision No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00291 dated 08/09/2008 on Appeal from Shri V.R. Eliza, CPIO, Commissioner of Customs, Import & General, New Delhi Vs Central Board of Excise & Customs;

amendment_2009.pdf

SEZ Rules Amended;

2009-TIOL-03-CIC.pdf

RTI – Customs – DG, Valuation – data which was collected, collated and analyzed through own efforts of the public authority- based on their own labours – need to be furnished - CIC;

2009-TIOL-02-CIC.pdf

RTI - CPIO/Public Authority concerned is entitled to appeal against the order of the 1st Appellate Authority – DRI exempted from furnishing Information – CIC Full Bench;

mbuzz0139.pdf

India's Per Capita Income to cross Rs 38000-mark this fiscal: MoF;

mbuzz0138.pdf

India takes giant leap forward in countervailing bio-piracy;

mbuzz0137.pdf

CADWM Scheme amended to sail through 11th Five Year Plan;

mbuzz0136.pdf

Govt gives nod to DIAL to levy Development Fee of Rs 1300 on international pax and Rs 200 on domestic pax;

2009-TIOL-92-ITAT-DEL.pdf + mayawati story.pdf

Ms Mayawati Vs CIT, New Delhi (Dated: December 29, 2008)

Mayawati wins again in ITAT – Gift of Rs. 11 Lakhs allowed by AO after proper inquiry and consultation with CIT – Commissioner's Review order quashed: Not only the evidences have been examined, but the donors in person have also been examined by the AO and after examining all the evidences and donors, a conclusion has been arrived at by the AO that these gifts were not to be added to the income of the assessee. Therefore, on the basis of evidences placed on record by the assessee and after examining those evidences, a view has been formed by the AO. When it is not a case of improper inquiry or where it has not been shown that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law, the order of AO cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The assessment order was passed by the AO after discussion with the then Addl. CIT and CIT and where the assessment order is based on the discussions with CIT, the same cannot be revised by subsequent Commissioner as it will be a case of substitution of view of earlier CIT.

No Merger: So far as it relates to merger of the assessment order with the appellate order, there is no force in the argument of the AR as these two gifts on the basis of which CIT has invoked power u/s 263 were not the issue before CIT (A). Therefore, on account of merger the order u/s 263 cannot be held invalid. Therefore, agreed with the DR that on theory of merger the order passed by CIT u/s 263 cannot be held to be invalid.

Can gift to a politician be treated as Professional income? declined to express any opinion on the said argument as the same in the present case will be academic as it is held that invocation of power u/s 263 is contrary to law.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-91-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Punjab & Sindh Bank Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: November 20, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee, a public sector bank, claimed the deduction of broken period interest in P&L a/c - AO disallowed the same holding it as a capital expenditure - CIT(A) allowed deduction—Held when the bank purchases security for the purpose of its trading activity and pays consideration quantified partly by the value of security and partly by the interest accrued, it is clear that the entire amount in any case is liable to be deducted in the computation of income - Assessee's appeal partly allowed.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-90-ITAT-MUM.pdf

T Two International Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: October 17, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee, engaged in manufacturing and export business, claims deduction u/s 10A - AO disallows deduction in entirety applying proviso to Sec 10A(1) holding that local sales was more than 25% of total turnover - CIT(A) deletes part disallowance holding that deduction w.r.t to export turnover can be claimed notwithstanding the local sales at more than 25%, but the deduction would not be available on the local sales - Held, Proviso to Sec 10A states that the profits and gains on the domestic sales not exceeding 25% of the total sales shall also be deemed to be the profits and gains derived from the export of eligible articles qualifying for deduction under the section - profits from both the self manufactured as well as trading in goods have been made eligible for deduction—Assessee's appeal partly allowed.:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-89-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Datamatics Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: December 17, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee utilizes part of its interest-bearing funds for making investments, income from which did not form part of the total income of the assessee - AO disallows proportionate expenses u/s 14A in respect of expenses incurred to earn tax free dividend income - CIT(A) confirms disallowance - Held, the contention of the assessee that no interest bearing borrowed funds has been utilized for investment tax free incomes can only be proved by a cash flow statement - The file restored back to AO and assessee directed to establish that there is no nexus between the interest bearing borrowed funds and the investment in question - Appeal allowed by statistical purposes:MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-238-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + Robot Detective Security Agency Stroy.pdf

M/s Robot Detective & Security Agency Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: December 30, 2008)

Service Tax – Security services – limitation – subsequent show cause notice issued by invoking extended period after the first show cause notice was issued by invoking larger period – not barred by limitation.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-237-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Indore Vs M/s P T Education & Training Service Ltd (Dated: December 31, 2008)

ST - Commercial Training & Coaching service - Fee received prior to the levy but service provided after the levy was imposed - Demand sustainable but no penalty as it was an issue of interpreation of law:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-236-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Indian Institution Of Quality Assurance Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: November 27, 2008)

Service tax – Consulting Engineer Service – since the services provided by the appellant were classified under Technical Inspection and testing services from 1.7.03, revenue cannot classify the same activity under Consulting Engineer for period prior to 1.7.03 – Demand also barred by limitation.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-234-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Raipur Vs M/s Raipur Lamps (P) Ltd (Dated: November 26, 2008)

Central Excise – Legally availed input credit not to be reversed when dutiable final products are subsequently exempt – Larger Bench decision in HMT & Ors. Vs CCE, Panchkula [ 2008-TIOL-1884-CESTAT-DEL-LB ] followed:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-233-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

Mukesh Ram Nivas Gupta Vs CCE, Surat (Dated: Junuary 7, 2009)

Central Excise – 100% EOU – alleged diversion of goods procured duty free – the appellant EOU has not made out a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit – EOU and its directors directed to pre-deposit Rs 1.75 crores and Rs 10 lakhs respectively.:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-232-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE & CC, Vapi Vs M/s Supertex Indus Ltd (Dated: November 25, 2008)

Central Excise – In view of Supreme Court order in Dharmendra Textile case, no discretion in penalty:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-66-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + copier story.pdf

CC (Sea Port - Import) Vs M/s Unistar World Trade (Dated: January 12, 2009)

Import of Second-hand copiers without licence - single Judge ought not to have ordered the release of the goods in a hasty manner; It is the admitted case of the respondent that he did not have a specific licence as per the above amended provision for getting release of the goods in question and, hence, he requested the appellants to release the goods after fixing fine and penalty. That being so, he cannot compel the authorities to order immediate release of the goods. When the requisition of the respondent, dated 23.08.2007, was under consideration by the appellants, the respondent, without waiting for the outcome thereof, immediately rushed to this Court and obtained the order in his favour, thereby curtailing the statutory powers of the authorities, which attitude of the respondent cannot be appreciated. It was not the case of the respondent that his request was rejected by the authorities. It is also seen that there was a variation in the value of the goods declared by the respondent and the value appraised by the Chartered Engineer of the Department. When such discrepancies exist, the authorities can have a breathing time and cannot be hastened to act swiftly on the request made by the respondent.

“Writ of Mandamus" lies on the principle "request and denial" ; which means, there should be a request by an individual and subsequent denial by the statutory authorities. In the present case, only one element, namely, "request" exists and the other, namely, "denial" absents. To put it differently, a request was made by the respondent and the same was under consideration by the appellants, but, there was no denial or rejection of the said request by the appellants. So, when the said request made by the respondent was under consideration by the authorities, it was unfair for the respondent to approach the writ court. At the same time, it was also not the case of the respondent that there was an inordinate delay in considering his request by the appellants.

The absence of reasons has rendered the order of the learned single Judge unsustainable. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On a plainest consideration, the learned single Judge ought to have set forth his reasons, howsoever brief, in his order, indicative of an application of his mind, all the more when his order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-235-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd Vs CC (Dated: November 24, 2008)

Customs – confiscation of “Run out leak testing gauge” – there was a bonafide mistake in not including Run Out Leak Testing Gauge in the bill of entry by the appellant and there was no malafide intention on their part so as to warrant confiscation and penalty – Sec 111 (l), 111(m) and 111(o) / Sec 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.:CHENNAI CESTAT;