therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) read with rules 18 and 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government, after considering the aforesaid final findings of the designated authority, hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 100/2006-Customs, dated the 29th September, 2006, published in the Gazette of India vide number G.S.R. 603 (E), dated the 29th September, 2006, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) read with rules 18 and 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government, after considering the aforesaid final findings of the designated authority, hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 122/2002-Customs, dated the 31st October, 2002, published in the Gazette of India vide number G.S.R.746 (E), dated the 31st October, 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
The allocation of duty credit scrips by RA, CLA, New Delhi, under Para 3.8.6 of FTP (RE2007), shall be done proportionate to the eligible claims of individual applications, vis-à-vis the total eligible claims of all the status holders put together, received for each half year (Apr-Sep 2007 / Oct-Mar 2008) period, in such a way that the total benefits granted for all status holders put together does not exceed the limit prescribed for each half year in Para 3.8.6 of FTP (RE2007). Accordingly if the total eligible claim of all the status holders put together is, say, Rs 200 Cr, each applicant status holder would be granted one-fourth of the claim an applicant is eligible for.
Notification No. 6-Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vii) of clause ( 15) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby specifies the bond with the following particulars for the purpose of the said sub-clause
INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2008, DATED 9-1-2008 Your attention is drawn to the guidelines for selection of cases under scrutiny for the F. Y. 2007-08 under which claim of refund of Rs. 5 lakhs or above is one of the criteria for compulsory scrutiny. Such cases were to be selected for scrutiny by CASS in all the networked stations and manually in non-networked stations.
While a co-operative society is treated under the Income-tax Act, 1961, as an assessee for extending certain concessions in computing taxable income, the income of a co-operative society is not exempt in its entirety. The Act has classified co-operative societies on the basis of various activities carried out by them.
The Institute has been receiving complaints from members of the Institute, proprietary concerns and firms of Chartered Accountants alleging that they have come across audit reports, balance sheets, certificates etc. of different entities submitted by the said entities/someone with Banks, Financial Institutions, Income-Tax Department, etc. wherein they find that their signatures, seal/stamp have been forged and /or such documents have been prepared on their forged letterhead etc. The members of the Institute, proprietary concerns and firms of chartered Accountants have been requesting the Institute to take necessary legal action in such matters.
It was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to show in the reasons recorded by him that any income escaped assessment due to error or omission on the part of the assessee in not disclosing all material facts relevant for assessment of this year. The assessment order does not show any error or omission on the part of the assessee in disclosing all material facts. So the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the re-assessment.
The Supreme Court will decide whether recovery of government dues, including income tax and excise, should get priority over liabilities of banks and other creditors while dividing the assets of a sick company. Tax authorities have moved the apex court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court which held that excise dues cannot get priority over liabilities of secured or unsecured creditors, banks and financial institutions.
In a move that will bring cheers to tax payers, Supreme Court has ruled that those aggrieved by a blatantly erroneous or prejudiced order by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can take the matter back to the Tribunal and get the error rectified. The apex court issued such an order in a case involving Honda Siel.
