Import of marble will be subject to the conditions laid down in Policy Circular No.12 (RE-08)/2004-2009 date 27.06.2008, Policy Circular No.13 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 30.6.2008, Policy Circular No.20(RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 16.07.2008, Policy Circular No.25 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 08.08.2008 and Policy Circular No. 28 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 20.08.2008.
Department of Power has raised an issue that as per existing provisions in chapter 8 of Foreign Trade Policy, deemed export benefits to Mega Power Projects are available where either power procurement has been tied up though ICB procedure or if ICB procedure has been followed at Engineering and procurement contract (EPC) stage.
The quantity of import allowed under Para III of the aforementioned Circular is raised from 1.1 lakh MT to 1.4 lakh MT for the year 2008-09. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
Whenever a ban/restriction is imposed on export of any product, export obligation period in respect of EPCG authorizations already issued prior to imposition of ban/restriction of such export products, would stand automatically extended for a period equivalent to the duration of ban/restriction, without any composition fee and exporter would not be required to fulfill average E.O. as well, for the ban/restriction period.
R. B. K. Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss arising therefrom cannot be treated as a speculation loss.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)
CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court) – Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability.
CIT vs. Dodsal Ltd (Bombay High Court) – It is not possible to accept the submission of the Revenue that once the AO comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of the mandate of Section 158BFA(1), then the penalty has to be mandatory imposed. The terminology of section 158BFA makes it clear that the AO has a discretion in the matter of levy of penalty.
In Goetze v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) the Supreme Court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction by way of a letter filed before the AO without filing a revised return. However, this judgement is limited to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return and does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal to entertain the claim by way of an additional ground. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.
