Notification No. 28/ 2012 – Customs In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.69/2011-Customs dated the 29th July, 2011 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 593 (E), dated the 29th July, 2011, namely:-
G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.69/2011-Customs dated the 29th July, 2011 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 593 (E), dated the 29th July, 2011, namely:-
To avail exemption under section 11(1)(d) in respect of Voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust/institution, identity of donor(s) must be established- If identity of donors not established, there is no question of the donations having been received with such a direction since such a direction could be validly given by the donor only at the time of giving the donation.
CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Amendment in the clause (a) of section 251(1) has been made so as to provide that the Commissioner (Appeals) may not set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment with a view to help bringing an early finalization of the assessment, it cannot be assumed that the Commissioner (Appeals) is divested of the power to annul the assessment and then to pass appropriate consequential order. In the instant case, the factual aspect has been that the order as passed by the Assessing Officer which was subject of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), was not an original order of assessment but was an order of assessment passed after remand by the Tribunal. The directions in remand order having not been complied with, the course as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be said to be de hors the powers available to him under the statute.
Assessee is engaged in processing of unusable gas cylinders, though there is nothing to indicate that the gas cylinders are completely ‘broken’; in fact, none of the processes stated to have be undertaken address the same. However, as apparent, it is only where the processing leads to a commercially new product that it can be said that manufacture has taken place.
In the case of ACIT vs. Bony Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench that in the absence of any material or evidence to show that the commission is being paid as dividend to the shareholders the disallowance u/s 36 (1)(ii) was not permissible. The Companies Act, 1956 contains the limitation and restrictions in the matter of payment of dividend and such obligation of the company either to pay or not to pay dividend cannot be assumed. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that had this commission not paid would have necessarily being paid as dividend to the shareholders.
Ordinarily, it is not incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to adjourn the case again when a last opportunity had already been granted to the Counsel for assessee, however, there may be number of circumstances where adjournment becomes necessary, in the interest of justice.
Sri Marcel Martins Vs M. Printer & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) SEVERAL MEMBERS OF FAMILY PROVIDING CONSIDERATION TO CONVERT LEASE PROPERTY INTO FREEOLD BUT REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY HELD ON THE NAME OF ONE PERSON’S NAME-WHETHER CONSIDERED AS BENAMI PROPERTY? BRIEF FACTS: Ms. SM was a tenant (Lessee) of a residential house owned by Municipal […]
The appellant/assessee is a distributor of mutual fund units and receives commission from mutual fund companies or asset management companies. The commission received by the appellants from the said companies stand taxed by the authorities below on the ground that they have provided Business auxiliary services to the mutual fund company. The appellant/assessee submits that it is recipient of such services, which is liable to pay service tax in terms of rule2(1)(d)(vi) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Please refer to our Circular UBD.BPD.(PCB). Cir. No.47/13.05.000/2010-11 dated May 11, 2011, on the above subject, advising UCBs that their exposure to housing, real estate and commercial real estate loans should be limited to 10 percent of their total assets which could be exceeded by an additional 5 percent of total assets for housing loans to individuals upto ` 15 lakh.
