100-days wake-up call for Goverance Reforms;

Govt to provide VPN broadband connectivity to 419 universities;

CJI favours separation of prosecution from investigation function for CBI;

It's time to move from compliance governance to business governance: ICWAI President;

RBI directs banks to keep customers' records for 10 years;

Mayawati's obsession with memorials comes under SC's fire; Apex Court tells UP Govt it could be playing with fire;

President appoints Justice Bipin Chandra Kandpal as Chief Justice of Uttrakhand High Court;

TIOL COMMENTARY

editorial.pdf

100-days wake-up call for Goverance Reforms;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0843.pdf

CJI favours separation of prosecution from investigation function for CBI

mbuzz0842.pdf

Govt to provide VPN broadband connectivity to 419 universities;

mbuzz0841.pdf

It's time to move from compliance governance to business governance: ICWAI President;

cbdtorder133_2009.pdf

CBDT modifies local transfer order of CITs posted in Mumbai;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-488-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

Rajesh Syal Vs CIT, Chandigarh (Dated: September 1, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 158BB(1)(d) - Search conducted at the business and residential premises of the assessee resulting in seizure of cash, FDRs and other documents - Assessee files return as per Section 44AD - Assessment  made in respect of undisclosed income - On appeal, the assessment affirmed except for deletion of some of the amounts, as indicated in the impugned order - Held, there is no inflexible rule in any of the judgments that mere fact that time for return had not expired was enough to hold that the income disclosed after search could not be treated as undisclosed - Such interpretation is not justified even on plain language of the statute. Thus, it is not possible to hold that finding of fact with regard to undisclosed income is perverse - Assessee's Appeal dismissed.: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ;

2009-TIOL-560-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: June 19, 2009)

Income tax – Section 132 & 158BC – Search was conducted – Certain papers found and seized – In the said documents seized, a working was made showing the opening balance, transactions receipts and payment and the closing balance payable to Managing Director – As per the statement recorded of the Managing Director of the assessee company, he was not aware of the transactions recorded in the said document seized and denied the transactions recorded in the said papers and stated that no addition based on this can be made as it is a piece of dump paper – Assessee filed its return of income for the block period u/s 158BC and declared a net loss of Rs.32,35,840/- considering some of the entries reflecting in these seized documents as per the working attached with the return of income. AO made addition for Rs. 1,22,47,029/- as undisclosed income based on the papers seized - Held,

++ that the documents were seized from the briefcase of Managing Director at his residence during the course of search operation u/s 132 of the Act and clearly show that the entries therein are concerning to family members of the directors, employees of the assessee company, projects under process, to a friends, to business associates, to certain entries on the receipt side clearly linking to the ongoing projects of the assessee and there is a live-link as to the transactions recorded in the said document and the assessee. The fact that no unaccounted cash was seized on the date of search is not relevant in determining the belonging of the document as it is not relevant in view of the clear provisions of section 132(4A) presuming the documents as to belong to the person in whose possession or control they are found in the course of search. Moreover, these documents were also adopted for preparing the block return, which shows that the documents belong to the assessee. The seized documents depict the affairs of the company and the figures of interest payments tallied with the column 'Interest on temporary loan' shown on the seized document and the assessee admitted that interests on temporary loans were paid by it and the principal amount in some cases also tallied with entries on seized document. Therefore, it can reasonably be held as belonging to the assessee.: DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1450-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + remand story.pdf

Sify Technologies Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated: June 4, 2009)

Service Tax – Rs. 1.86 Crore demanded as differential tax – Difference occurred due to errors in the returns - Commissioner had not attempted to verify and ascertain the correct figures. The reconciliation between the two sets of figures cited would have been possible only if the details like realization from exempted services, realization from export of services, realization from sales, realization towards VAT/Sales Tax etc. were removed from the details furnished on 18-10-2006. The Commissioner came to pass the impugned demand as the above exercise was avoided. The Commissioner found variations between the figures furnished along with the reply to the show-cause notice and those furnished in the ST-3 returns. However, the demand was raised ignoring one class of variations.

Matter remanded: the ends of justice require that the impugned order be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after allowing the appellants adequate opportunity for presenting their case. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1449-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Steel India Vs CCE & ST, Ranchi (Dated: August 12, 2009)

ST - Penalty - Assessee is registered with the Revenue as GTA service provider - demand and penalty confirmed - Commissioner(A) takes the view that the Revenue has no discretion to impose lesser penalty and confirms it - held, if there is any suppression or misrepresentation with intent to evade payment of tax, the ratio of SC decision in Dharmendra Textiles case will apply but since no such findings are given in this case, the issue is remanded:KOLKATA CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1448-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Narasus Exports Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: May 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - 100% EOU – goods cleared under notification 43/2001 CE(NT) for ultimate export – prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1447-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s DNH Spinners Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: April 24, 2009)

Central Excise – Concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 29/04-CE not eligible to manufacturer who has facility for manufacture of filaments of organic polymers – ‘Of' used in explanation to read as ‘made from' which is harmonious with principal clause of notification – No infirmity in impugned order denying concessional rate – When department has knowledge of availment of exemption benefit and there being no malafide intention, penalties set aside – Matter remanded to re-determine duty liability by treating sale value of texturized yarn as cum duty price : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-487-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + bg story.pdf

Transocean Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd Vs CC (Prevention) (Dated: August 13, 2009)

Customs – Penalty levied on crew member not recoverable from shipping company or its agent when illegal acts were committed by the crew without knowledge of shipping company or agent – Amount deposited in Court in lieu of extension of Bank guarantee to be refunded with interest : BOMBAY HIGH COURT ;