IN a remarkably interesting ruling, involving the IT giant Infosys Technologies, the Apex Court has held that every benefit received by a person is not taxable as income unless the Legislature makes the same taxable. For period prior to 2000, there were no provisions in the Income Tax Act to tax ESOPs. As regards the TDS, it noted that ESOPs were not taxable during the lock-in period as the value of non-transferable shares (perquisite) was not ascertainable. As regards the Clause (iiia) of Sec 17 the SC held that it was not clarificatory as argued by the Revenue and very much prospective if one goes by the wordings used in the Clause and the explanatory memorandum of the Finance Act, 1999.
With respect to Focus Product Scheme/High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme, it is clarified that Para 4 above shall again apply, as the item which has been restricted / prohibited for exports is obviously ineligible, as the same would no longer remain a Focus Product/High-Tech Product for the purpose of boosting export through grant of benefits (even if the export product is appearing under Appendix 37D/37E of HBP v1).
To conduct the post-audit of the Brand Rates fixed by the Central Excise field formations and carry out physical verification of selected cases independently or with the help of the Central Excise formations. To conduct the post-audit of the select cases of duty free imports allowed under various export promotion schemes in the Customs/Central Excise formations.
: IT is not only the Ministry of Commerce which is struggling to sculpt a perfect substitute for the most popular exports incentive scheme of DEPB, even the Income Tax Department has been breaking its head against multiple possibilities as to how to treat the value of DEPB. And the very same question came before the Tribunal in a recent case. The merchant exporter had computed its Sec 80HHC benefits by taking into consideration the DEPB income whereas the A.O. did not consider DEPB income as eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Let’ take a quick stroll through the various arguments and the recent judicial pronouncements which enabled the Tribunal to form a concrete opinion on this contentious issue.
the process of review under Section 35E of the Act could be resorted to for challenging the refund sanction orders passed pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund sanction orders of the original authority were only consequential to the order of the appellate authority and any process of review should have been thought of against the appellate order rather than against the consequential orders of the original authority. The appellate authority’s order (which treated the refund claims as not time-barred) became final and binding on the Department in the absence of review and, consequently, it was not open to the Department to demand duty from the party on the ground of erroneous refund.
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 rule 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 hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 89/2002-Customs, dated the 3rd September, 2002, published in the Gazette of India Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R.615 (E), dated the 3rd September 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective for a period of five years (unless revoked, superseded or amended earlier) form the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette of India.
In exercise of powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes the following amendments in Handbook of Procedures.
Notification No. 4-Income Tax It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Lokmanya Medical Research Centre, Pune has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), with effect from 1-4-2006 in the category of ‘other
Notification No. 3-Income Tax 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), the Central Government hereby frames the following scheme for Industrial Parks, namely:- Short title, commencement and application.- (1) This Scheme may be called the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008.
