President elevates Chief Justices of Rajasthan and Orissa HCs to Supreme Court;

SFIO wants RBI to direct banks to issue balance confirmation certificate to auditors to avoid fraud;

Urgent human rights probe required in Lanka, says UN;

Air India-Indian Airlines merger blues! (See 'Ice Cube.pdf' in 'Common Basket')

H1N1 infections climb to 2500; Pause in dealth: UN;

Pakistan fast emerging as a Jihadi State: USA;

BSF arrests 19 B'deshis & seizes drugs and smuggled goods worth Rs 35 lakh

TIOL COMMENTARY

top story.pdf

Will Obama's tax cuts leave Bangalore 'Bangalored'?

icecube.pdf

Air India-Indian Airlines merger blues!

CASE LAWS + ANALYSIS

2009-TIOL-61-SC-MISC.pdf + top story.pdf

Jai Bhagwan Oil & Flour Mills Vs UoI (Dated: May 4, 2009)

What is contained in reference works/technical Journals, or well known in trade/industrial circles, need not be established by independent ` evidence' : Oil cake is not a waste to be thrown away, but a valuable product with a distinct name, character, use and marketability. There can be no doubt that the oil cake was a finished goods eligible for transport subsidy: When considering whether the `finished goods' is a marketable product, distinct and different from the raw material from which it is produced, the fact that the finished goods is the main product, or is a parallel main product or is a by- product of the manufacturing process, may not make any difference. The question to be considered is whether oil cake can be said to be a `finished goods' produced by an industrial unit in accordance with its manufacturing programme approved by the state government.:SUPREME COURT;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0460.pdf

H1N1 infections climb to 2500; Pause in dealth: UN;

mbuzz0459.pdf

Urgent human rights probe required in Lanka;

mbuzz0458.pdf

President elevates Chief Justice of Rajasthan and Orissa to Supreme Court;

2009-TIOL-285-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Komarla Hatcheries Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: January 28, 2009)

Income Tax - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO initiates penalty for three additions made for discrepancy in amount shown in the balance sheet which the assessee offered it to be added back to the income, the capital subsidy and the  depreciation  of the motor car which was claims as commercial vehicle - Held, as per section 271(1B) introduced by Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989 there is deemed satisfaction in respect of all the three additions made by the AO. The assessee has not offered any explanation in respect of the amount where discrepancy found. Therefore, penalty in respect of this addition is leviable. As per the provisions of the Act it was not necessary for the assessee to have reduced the subsidy from the WDV of the assets. The assessee has given explanation and has been able to substantiate that explanation and the explanation filed is bona fide. All the material facts relating to the computation of income has been mentioned in the tax audit report, hence penalty is not leviable in respect of addition on the issue of capital subsidy. The assessee has claimed depreciation on motor car as per the understanding of the law by him and has filed all the details therefore it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. Hence penalty is also not leviable - Assessee's Appeal partly allowed. :BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-284-ITAT-HYD.pdf

Godam Nagesh Vs ITO, Adilabad (Dated: December 26, 2008)

I-T - Sec 10(17) - Assessee is an MLA - salary and allowances - held, allowances are taxable except a sum of Rs 2000/- per month: HYDERABAD ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-731-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Siddhi Motors Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: April 8, 2009)

Service tax - Penalty - Assessee provides business auxiliary service - fails to pay tax for lack of data - demand with penalty - assessee pays for demand with interest but contests against penalty - assessee pleads since correct data was not obtained from the parent company related to commission they could not pay tax - held, since the assessee could get correct data for TDS payments, it could have done so even for service tax - no justification to interfere with Commissioner (A) order confirming the penalty - Assessee's appeal dismissed :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-733-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s TI Diamond Chain Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: March 26, 2009)

Central Excise – Duty paid under Protest – Refund – Unjust enrichment - The appellant has explained with their pricelist and stock transfer notes, that the sale price represented the value on which they had paid the excise duty under protest and the items of expenditure such as freight and discount. This freight was for transport from depots to dealers and discount allowed; both were not includible in the value for assessment of duty. Further, Chartered Accountants' certificate certified that the impugned claim relates to excise duty paid by the appellants without recovering the same from its customers and accounted in its financial records as excise duty recoverable account. Hence, refund allowed along with interest. ( Para 5)

Interest – Section 11BB - The authorities should have examined the records furnished and intimated the further documents and records required to examine the admissibility of the claim instead of seeking information piecemeal over a period of a year. The Revenue has no case that the appellants had withheld any information sought from them and delayed settlement of the claim. Hence, interest is payable as per Section 11BB from the date of filing the refund claim. ( Para 9.1):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-732-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Chandigarh Vs M/s Nabha Steels Limited (Dated: February 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Clear evidence of dealer clearing goods to one consignee and issuing invoices to another consignee – Description, quantity and transport details in invoices matching with octroi slips in all cases cannot be coincidence – Demand and penalties upheld:DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08not105.pdf

Export of non-basmati rice to African countries - Deadline fixed for STC;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-730-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CC, Mumbai Vs M/s BE Office Automation Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 26, 2009)

Whether doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to a claim for refund of redemption fine or penalty – Commissioner(A) holding in the negative – Matter arguable - Stay application of Revenue allowed by Tribunal. :CHENNAI CESTAT;