In continuation of the Ministry’s General Circular Nos: 16/2012 dated 06.07.2012 and 34/2012 dated 25.10.2012 on the subject cited above, it is stated that the time limit to file the financial statements in the XBRL mode without any additional fee/penalty has been extended up to 15th January 2013 or within 30 days from the date of AGM of the company, whichever is later.
The company cannot demonstrate that it had, contemporaneously or otherwise, complained of the goods supplied by the petitioner not adhering to any of the specifications stipulated in the purchase orders. Even the company’s grievance as to the size of the goods is not tenable since the purchase orders specified the size to be 0-1 mm.
The fact situation in respect of the necessity for having the issue of software expenditure examined to ascertain whether it is capital or revenue in nature in the case of Amway India Enterprises (supra) is similar to that of the present case of the assessee. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision in the case of Amway India Enterprises (supra), hold that since the examination of whether software expenditure incurred is
Please refer to paragraphs 106 and 107 (extract enclosed) of the Second Quarter Review of Monetary Policy 2012-13 announced on October 30, 2012, proposing to accord general permission to banks for issue of co-branded debit and rupee denominated pre-paid instruments, subject to certain conditions, in order to obviate the need for banks to approach the Reserve Bank for every co-branding arrangement.
Issue of rupee denominated pre-paid payment instruments is subject to the stipulations contained in the Notification on the Issuance and Operation of Pre-paid Payment Instruments in India (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2009 by Department of Payment and Settlement Systems (DPSS) of the Reserve Bank of India, under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007
Held that the provision of Section 50-C enabling the revenue to treat the value declared by an assessee for payment of stamp duty, ipso facto, cannot be a legitimate ground for concluding that there was undervaluation, in the acquisition of immovable property. If Parliamentary intention was to enable such a finding, a provision akin to Section 50-C would have been included in the statute book, to assess income on the basis of a similar fiction in the case of the assessee who acquires such an asset.
It is understood that sometimes the customers opening joint accounts with or without ‘Either or Survivor ‘ mandate, are dissuaded from exercising the nomination facility. It is clarified that nomination facility is available for joint deposit accounts also. Banks are, therefore, advised to ensure that their branches offer nomination facility to all deposit accounts including joint accounts opened by the customers.
(i) making a false or misleading statement, or (ii) concealing or omitting material facts of the scheme, or (iii) concealing the associated risk factors of the scheme, or (iv) not taking reasonable care to ensure suitability of the scheme to the buyer.
No doubt the provisions of section 153 requires that assessment order shall not be passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. This is applicable to this case. There is no requirement that service must be effected before the expiry date but there must be evidences to show that assessment order was indeed passed before the limitation.
Section 170 of the Income Tax Act deals with succession to business, otherwise than on death. On a reading of Section 43(6)(c), Explanation 2 to the Section and Section 170 along with the fourth proviso to Section 32(1), we have no hesitation in agreeing with the assessee’s case that when the assessee transferred its B Unit to the 100% subsidiary company,
