Taxpayers can now see tax credit available to them online (See 'Mixed Buzz');

Slush money in Swiss bank accounts: India not welcome on name-fishing trip, says Swiss Bankers Association;

100 nations, OECD meeting in Mexico to decide next steps against tax havens (See 'Mixed Buzz')

CJI says Judges can declare their assets on their own; raps Karnataka HC judge for undue publicity

India, South Africa keen to take bilateral trade to new high (See 'Mixed Buzz')

Civil Aviation Ministry orders probe into damage to IGI Terminal 1-D

Frozen accounts: RBI asks banks to give options to depositors on renewal period (See 'What's New')

I-T - expenses in excess of Rs 2500 in cash - AO disallows u/s 40A(3) - held, nothing wrong in Tribunal's decision giving categorical finding that in certain circumstances, genuine cash transactions are permissible: HC (See '2009-TIOL-422-HC-P&H-IT')

Govt rebuts propaganda by Reliance shareholders on KG D-6 (See 'Mixed Buzz')

Swine Flu: Global death toll peaks to 1800, says WHO (See 'Mixed Buzz')

TIOL COMMENTARY

rbi letter.pdf

Payment of interest on accounts frozen by UCBs;

FEMA CASE LAW

2009-TIOL-421-HC-MUM-FEMA.pdf + fema story.pdf

Mohan V Bhatiya Vs Special Director Of Enforcement (Dated: July 14, 2009)

FERA – Acquisition of foreign currency in violation of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(e) of FERA – Ample documentary and corroborative evidence to substantiate violations of FERA – Charge of re-opening proceedings on similar cause of action rejected as appellant himself was responsible for inordinate delay in conduct of proceedings – Charges in earlier show cause notices different from the charges raised in subsequent show cause notices, plea of double jeopardy not sustainable – Article 20(2) of the Constitution bars a second prosecution only where the accused has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence previously – To invoke Article 20(2) for double jeopardy, it is settled law that the proceedings of prosecution must be before a Court of law or a Judicial Tribunal, proceedings before an executive authority, discharging quasi judicial functions is neither prosecution nor penalty or fine imposed in such proceedings amounts to conviction/sentence – No substance in claim of appellant that merely because there was a lot of publicity about exoneration of appellant in an earlier proceeding he is falsely implicated in the subsequent proceedings.: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0781.pdf

Taxpayers can now see tax credit available to them online;

mbuzz0780.pdf

100 nations, OECD meeting in Mexico to decide next steps against tax havens;

mbuzz0779.pdf

NELP VIII: India successfully organises roadshow in Houston;

mbuzz0778.pdf

India, South Africa keen to take bilateral trade to new high;

mbuzz0777.pdf

Government rebuts propaganda on KG D-6;

mbuzz0776.pdf

Swine Flu: WHO reports 1800 deaths so far;

2009-TIOL-423-HC-MAD-IT.pdf + remand story.pdf

WCI Madras P Ltd Vs ACIT, Chennai (Dated: August 10, 2009)

No prejudice caused to the assessee by Remand Order of the Tribunal – it is only a remittal order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by giving an opportunity to the assessee to submit a proper reconciliation. The said remittal order could not cause any prejudice to the assessee and also the counsel appearing for the assessee was not able to bring to notice that the remittal order would cause great prejudice to the assessee. Further, no attempt was made by the assessee to establish before the Court that amount transferred to the profit and loss account was made after defraying the expenses incurred by it on behalf of its customers by producing materials.

In as much as there was difference between the receipt in TDS certificate and the amount credited in the Profit and Loss Account, the financial result of the assessee shows a distorted picture, which amounts to non-disclosure fully – re assessment correct - It is clear that there is a specific finding given by the Tribunal that there is no explanation for reconciliation of the difference between the receipt in TDS certificate and amount credited in Profit & Loss Account had been provided by the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that there were already materials available on record, is raised only for rejection. There is no disclosure of material before the Assessing Officer. All the authorities have come to the correct conclusion that there is an escapement of income. In as much as there was difference between the receipt in TDS certificate and the amount credited in the Profit and Loss Account, the financial result of the assessee shows a distorted picture, which amounts to non-disclosure fully, truly all materials facts, the plea of limitation regarding assessments years 1996-1997 to 1998-99 is also to be rejected. Therefore, the argument that re-opening of the assessment for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 was made beyond the period of four years, is rejected.: MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-422-HC-P-H-IT.pdf

CIT, Jalandhar Vs M/s G S Auto Industries Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 13, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 40A(3) - Assessee is into the business of manufacturing and trading of auto parts - AO finds certain expenses were incurred in excess of Rs 2500 in cash and disallows the same u/s 40A(3) - Tribunal deletes the addition - held, nothing wrong in Tribunal's decision giving categorical finding that in certain circumstances, genuine cash transactions are permissible - Revenue's appeal dismissed.: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1307-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Pneumatic Power Tools & Co Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: May 8, 2009)

ST - Stay/ dispensation of pre-deposit - Assessee directed by the Tribunal to pre-deposit 50% of demand - assessee goes to HC in writ - withdraw petition but gets some more time for pre-deposit - fails to comply with - pleads the hearing be postponed as it has gone to Supreme Court - held, assessee has been abusing process of law by adopting dilatory tactics - revenue's interest prejudiced - assesee also represented by multiple counsels - Did they all sign Vakalatnama? - Registery directed to submit a report.: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1305-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Vicas Corpn Vs CCE & CC, Rajkot (Dated: July 10, 2009)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee arranges loans for clients from financial institutions - Demand raised and penalty imposed under Sec 78 - held, since there was confusion during the relevant period about the taxability of this service, it is a fit case for invocation of Sec 80 - penalty under Sec 78 set aside.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1308-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + sec 11 story.pdf

CCE & CC, Aurangabad Vs Wockhardt Limited (Dated: July 3, 2009)

Section 11AC is not applicable where there is no finding of mens rea against the assessee – CESTAT.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1304-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Kanaiya Textiles Vs CCE, Surat-I (Dated: June 10, 2009)

Central Excise – 100% EOU – Allegation of clandestine removal of grey frabrics procured without payment of duty – Pre-deposit ordered.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-420-HC-MAD-COFEPOSA.pdf + cofeposa story.pdf

A Sairam Beevi Vs Secretary Government, Chennai (Dated: July 10, 2009)

COFEPOSA – Habeas Corpus Petition – Clandestine export of ketamine hydrochloride – Copy of Notification 67/2007 dated 27.12.2007 providing for obtaining NOC from Narcotics Commissioner for export of ketamine hydrochloride not given to detenu when the said item not included in the schedule to NDPS Act, vitiates detention under COFEPOSA – Presumption of detenu being released on bail when bail application still pending with Court vitiates detention order – Allegation of discrepancy in quantity of samples drawn at the place of seizure and quantity mentioned in chemical analysis report, quantity mentioned in analysis report pertains only to quantity used in analysis, not a ground to challenge detention – Even if valuation of seized goods randomly fixed, not a relied upon document to issue detention order, not a ground to challenge detention – Authorities directed to set free the petitioner.: MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1306-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Patil Atlantic Force Sunum Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Belgaum (Dated: March 26, 2009)

Customs – No provision for demand of duty on capital goods and raw materials put to use under Notification No. 13/81-Cus – Development Commissioner has given de-bonding order and duty payable only on depreciated value of capital goods on clearance from warehoused premises – 100% depreciation available as on date of debonding – Prima facie strong case in favour of assessees – Full waiver of pre-deposit ordered and stay granted.: BANGALORE CESTAT;