The beneficiary status holder (Manufacturer Exporter or Merchant Exporter) can utilize full value of duty credit scrip issued to him for his ‘own use’. Beneficiary may decide to make any possible resultant product for utilizing the imports permitted under the Scheme, when imported for ‘own use’. Job-Workers can be used for conversion of imports permitted under the scheme into any possible resultant products.
The beneficiary status holder (Manufacturer Exporter or Merchant Exporter) can utilize full value of duty credit scrip issued to him for his ‘own use’. Beneficiary may decide to make any possible resultant product for utilizing the imports permitted under the Scheme, when imported for ‘own use’. Job-Workers can be used for conversion of imports permitted under the scheme into any possible resultant products.
For DFCE for Status Holders Scheme, EXIM policy (RE2003), in the Statement of Export for Eligible Exports as at Sr. No. vi of CA certificate annexed to Appendix 17D, the Column Heading ‘Let Export Date’ is modified to read as ‘Date of Exports as per Para 9.12.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 and Paragraph 1.1 of the Handbook of Procedures (Vol.1), the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes the following amendments in the Handbook of Procedures, Vol.2, 2004-2009, as amended from time to time.
The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,vide Notification No.36/2001 – Customs (N.T.), dated, the 3rd August, 2001 (S.O.748 (E), dated, the 3rd August, 2001) and was last amended vide Notification No. 6/2008-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 5th February, 2008 (S.O. 237 (E) dated 5th February, 2008).
1. Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High Court) – (i) The Chairman of the Settlement Commission has the power to constitute a Special Bench and he is not required to give reasons or produce the material in support thereof. (ii) It is not as if the moment an application is made and there is compliance of the requirements of Section 245-D that the Commission is bound to entertain the application and allow it. The Commission has then to consider whether the application is invalid under Section 245-D(2C). The Settlement Commission can treat the application as invalid meaning thereby non – est if the Applicant has not made a true and full disclosure and further must disclose how the income has been derived. If on the material it arrives at a conclusion even prima facie that there was no true and full disclosure it has then the right to declare the application as invalid.
Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Agricultural income Assessment years 1988-89 and 1990-91- Whether sale proceeds of plants raised in nursery on land belonging to assessee constitutes income from agriculture – Held, yes . Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut v. Green Gold Tree Farmers (P.) Ltd.
All tax deductors / collectors are required to file the TDS/TCS returns in Form No.24Q (for salaries), Form No.26Q (for payments other than salaries) or Form No.27EQ (for TCS). These forms require details of all tax deductions with name and permanent account number (PAN) of parties from whom tax was deducted. It had earlier been decided that Form No.24Q with less than 90% of PAN data and Form No.26Q & Form No.27EQ with less than 70% of PAN data will not be accepted for the quarter ending on 30.09.2007 and thereafter.
CIT v. Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. In case where the present employer did not include salary paid by the previous employer u/s 192(2), because previous employer did not provide the details of disbursement, issue arose whether such present employer is liable for penal interest. It was held by HC that the liability of the present employer is limited only to the extent of details furnished by the employee with reference to his previous employment. In other words the present employer’s obligation of TDS will be restricted to the disbursements made by himself and also on the income earned in a previous employment if such details are furnished to him by the employee.
Interest paid on borrowings made for purchase of capital assets “not put to use” in the concerned financial year is eligible for income tax deductions, the Supreme Court has ruled. The apex court said that all that was required is that the capital borrowed must be for the purpose of business for which interest was also paid. A bench of Justices S H Kapadia and B Sudershan Reddy passed the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by the Income Tax department. The department had filed the appeal after the appellate tribunal and the Gujarat High Court had held that the assessee company M/s Core Health Limited was not entitled to deductions under Section 36(1) and (III) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
