CBEC promotes 136 DCs as Joint Commissioners and issues posting order;

CBEC amends customs exchange rate for Swedish Kroner;

CBI raids on AICTE top officials - sustained probe finds more investments;

Guidelines for filing PIL- SC need not consult Govt, Law Ministry;

New regional body to protect human rights in South-East Asia: UN Official;

Vepa Kamesam Panel report on revamp of Serious Fraud Investigation Office is under active consideration: Salman Khurshid

Industrial production registers 6.5% growth in June as against 5.1% last fiscal

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 23 july.pdf

Customs – Adjudicators Appointed;

cobweb.pdf

CBEC to dedicate first Taxation Museum to Nation this Saturday; Can CBDT also afford one?;

RBI CIRCULAR

rbi09cir005.pdf

Issue of Indian Depository Receipts (IDRs);

rbi09cir004.pdf

Exim Bank's Line of Credit of USD 25 million to the Government of the Republic of Sudan;

RBI NOTIFICATION

rbi_notification.pdf

Cash Withdrawal at Point-of-Sale (POS);

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0682.pdf

CBI raids on AICTE top officials - sustained probe finds more investments;

mbuzz0681.pdf

Guidelines for filing PIL- SC need not consult Govt, Law Ministry;

mbuzz0680.pdf

New regional body to protect human rights in South-East Asia: UN Official;

2009-TIOL-86-SC-IT.pdf + sc new story.pdf

CIT, Madurai Vs M/s Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd (Dated: July 21, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 31 vs Sec 37 - assessee is a textile manufacturer - incurs expenditure on replacement of machineries - claims the same as revenue expenditure deductible u/s 37 - AO disallows on the ground that each machine in a spinning mill is independent of each other and their products are also different from others and are thus not integrally connected - treats the same as capital in nature and disallows deductions - CIT(A), Tribunal and HC agree with the assessee's plea and reject Revenue's appeal - held, each machine in a spinning mill should be treated independently as such and not as a mere part of an entire composite machinery of the spinning mill. It can at best be considered part of an integrated manufacture process employed in a textile mill. Thus the expenditure incurred for reaping long-term and enduring benefits by replacing the independent machine can only be a capital expenditure.

The Bench also went on to hold that such expenditure cannot be treated as 'current repairs' u/s 31 as the right test for determining it is whether the expenditure is incurred to `preserve and maintain' an already existing asset and not to bring a new asset into existence or to obtain a new advantage.: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2009-TIOL-359-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s Damodar Mangalji (Dated: June 16, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 80HHC and Sec 263 - Assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of processed ore - AO allows deductions for truck lease income, machinery lease income and service charges u/s 80HHC - CIT invokes Sec 263 and treats such incomes as not part of business receipts eligible for benefits - Tribunal agrees with the AO - held, Tribunal cannot dismiss Revenue's appeal by merely relying on one Divisiaon Bench decision of this HC without going into the question raised by the CIT u/s 263 - matter remanded for looking into possible nexus between these incomes and exports business of the assessee after giving an opportunity to the assessee - Revenue's appeal allowed.: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-475-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s U K Paints (India) Ltd (Dated: June 6, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee company, using mercantile system of accounting, did not included interest accrued on inter corporate deposits - AO made addition to assessee's income holding that assessee was following accrual system - CIT(A) allowed assessee's appeal admitting additional evidences—Held, as per one of the conditions laid down in Rule 46A, the assessee is entitled to submit additional evidence if proper opportunity is not given by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings - Held, case where the interest free funds are available with the assessee which are sufficient to cover interest free loans advanced by the assessee, then disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) is not justified - Revenue's appeal partly allowed.: DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-474-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ITO, Mumbai Vs Maratha Mandir Co-Operative Bank Ltd (Dated: March 16, 2009)

Income Tax—Assessee, a co-operative bank, declared nil income in IT return—AO processed the return u/s 143(1) disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)—CIT(A) held in favor of the assessee—Held, in the case of co-operative society, if the gross total income includes any income referred to in Sec 80P(2), the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sums specified in sub-section (2) itself in computing the total income of the assessee—Held, word 'attributable' is used in section 80P in respect of banking business and the Assessing Officer has wrongly quoted the language of section 80P(2)(a) to give an impression as if the income qualifying exemption must be derived from the banking business—Held, the interest earned by the assessee in respect of advance rent of the premises utilized for the purpose of business is attributable to the banking business of the assessee—Revenue's appeal dismissed.: MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-473-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Centurion Investment & International Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: May 15, 2009)

Income Tax—Assessee, an investment company, recorded certain entries in its books regarding sale and purchase of shares—AO, on the basis of the statement given by one Mr. Satish Chandra, held that the transaction was not a genuine and party had no creditworthiness and it was a mere benami firm which is used to provide accommodation entries—CIT(A) upheld the AO's order—Held, assessee had not been allowed the cross examination of the party whose statement has been used against him in making the assessment and the addition is thus in violation of principles of natural justice—Held, an addition made on the basis of a statement not tested by cross examination is invalid and it is vitiated, but the invalidity is not, however, of such a nature, which goes to the root of the proceedings—Held, AO can be directed to proceed further to the examine the matter afresh on the basis of cross examined statement—Assessee's appeal allowed for statistical reasons. :DELHI ITAT;

CBEC Order 160_2009.pdf

CBEC promotes 136 DCs as Joint Commissioners and issues posting order;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1106-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Classic Promoters And Developers Vs CCE, Mangalore (Dated: March 16, 2009)

Service Tax – Commercial or Industrial Construction service and Construction of Complex service provided by appellants – Part of tax demand deposited with interest – Pre-deposit of balance amount of tax and penalties waived in view of Board's Circular dated January 29, 2009.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1105-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Chandra Shipping & Training Services Vs CCE & CC, Visakhapatnam (Dated: February 18, 2009)

Service Tax – Typographical errors apparent on record – ROM allowed.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1104-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Worldspace India Private Limited Vs CST, Bangalore (Dated: March 20, 2009)

Service Tax – When service recipient is located outside India then services would be regarded as exports – Amount paid towards dispute on Broadcasting service accepted and balance amount of pre-deposit waived and stay granted.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CIRCULAR

excircular893.pdf

Procedure for direct supply by intermediate supplier to the port for export for export by ultimate supplier;

excircular892.pdf

Export of non-excisable goods under self-sealing and self-certification;

CASE LAW

2009-TIOL-1109-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + excise story.pdf

CCE, Delhi-III Vs M/s Grand Prints Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 15, 2009)

Central Excise – Committee of Commissioners – Law as comprised under Section 35B(2) nowhere requires a detailed order to be passed expressing formation of opinion about the need to file an appeal – Circulation of file with relevant papers among Committee members and assent thereto by members, sufficient to conclude that opinion was formed by Committee, no meeting required

Authorization to file appeal – Proper reading of entire noting as a whole in relevant file obviously reveals that those notings relate to the issue of filing of appeals against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) – Respondents having not filed any reply to the applications filed by revenue and merely arguing that there was no case to form opinion about the need to file appeals in the face of records clearly revealing the contrary, are of no substance – Expression "CCE-Delhi-III" has been recorded subsequent to recording of the formation opinion to file the appeals in the noting, which indicates that the officer named with description as above was the officer authorized to file the appeals – Miscellaneous applications allowed

Application for early hearing rejected as no case made out for early hearing.: DELHI CESTAT ;

2009-TIOL-1108-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s GMR Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: January 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Credit not deniable on MS plates, Channels, Angles, Welding electrodes used for manufacture/fabrication of storage tanks in the factory.: BANGLORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1107-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation – goods cleared to Regional Sales Offices (RSOs) and sold to Govt departments at a price higher than the dealer price – demand of duty on the excess amount charged is upheld – extra amount realized to be treated as cum-duty.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt09_101.pdf

CBEC amends customs exchange rate for Swedish Kroner;

CASE LAW

2009-TIOL-1110-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + cus story.pdf

M/s Aspa Auto Lamps Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: February 10, 2009)

Customs – Import of automotive lamps assessable for CVD based on Notification No. 2/2006-CE read with Notification 11/2006-CE – Impugned order upheld.: BANGALORE CESTAT;