Notification No. 55/2012-Income Tax Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961)(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E), dated the 30th March, 1999 for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March 2002 and vide number S.O.354(E) dated the 31st day of March, 2006;
In the case under consideration, the assessee placed before the ld. CIT(A), certain additional evidence and admittedly, the said documents were not submitted before the AO. The powers of the CIT(A) in terms of rule 46A to admit fresh evidence, entail an element of discretion which is required to be exercised in a judicious manner.
Section 41(1) is a deeming fiction and seeks to tax receipts or benefit which may not strictly be ‘income’, the burden to prove that a particular benefit or receipt falls within the four corners of the provisions of section 41(1) lies upon the revenue.
In Divi’s Laboratories Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that commission paid to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and that hence, no disallowance can be made.
Definition of Infrastructure Lending’ in terms of which the definition of ‘infrastructure lending for the purpose of financing of infrastructure by the banks and Financial Institutions’ has been harmonized with that of the Master List of Infrastructure sub-sectors’ notified by the Government of India on March 27, 2012. It has been decided to harmonise the definition of infrastructure lending for NBFCs with that of banks.
An application for grant of benefit under this scheme shall be filed in ANF 3F (this ANF 3F will be notified subsequently) to RA concerned. For the purpose of the scheme, export performance shall not be allowed to be transferred from any other IEC holder. Since the benefit is admissible on realisation basis, applications can be filed after 1st April 2013. Last date for filing application will be as per para 3.11.9 of HBP v1 and late cut provisions of para 9.3 of HBP v1 2009-14 will be applicable.
The difference between a write off of a debt as irrecoverable and a provision against the same on account of or for it being bad and doubtful for recovery, is not technical but factual and, further, real and not imaginary.This is more so in view of the express provision of law by way of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii), brought on statute by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01-04-1989.
Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme -Objective (a) The objective of the Scheme is to incentivize incremental exports. Entitlement (b) An IEC holder would be entitled for a duty credit scrip @ 2% on the incremental growth (achieved by the IEC holder) during the period 01.01.2013 to 31.3.2013 compared to the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.3.2012 on the FOB value of exports. Incremental growth shall be in respect of each exporter (IEC holder) without any scope for combining the exports for Group Company.
Recently, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT [2012] 79 DTR (Trib) 315 (Mum), has rendered a very significant judgement relating to disallowance under section 14A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
It is the oft-repeated submission of the counsel that the COD applications are liable to be allowed on the sole ground of pendency of their writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. No judicial authority has been cited before us in support of the plea. We are of the view that the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants who were conscious of the statutory remedy cannot per se constitute a valid ground for condonation of the deliberate delay of over seven years. The appellants have not stated any other valid reason.
