Join our free webinar on July 4th at 4:00 PM to gain insights into the dematerialization of securities and recent amendments. Register now for key updates.
Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) and also read with Para 1.3 and Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, the Central Government hereby makes amendments to Notification No.93(RE-2007)/2004-2009 dated 1st April, 2008 read with Notification No. 37 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 3rd September, 2008.
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. 104/2008-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 1st September, 2008 (S.O. 2144 (E) dated 1st September, 2008).
The goods for which the claim has been made are meant for utilization / production of goods/services of the EOU/EHTP/STP unit and will be utilized only in our factory and we shall not divert or dispose off the material procured without obtaining prior permission of the concerned Development Commissioner.
Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective.
ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court)- Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified,
ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (i) The exchange rate gain difference pertaining to exports is an integral part of the exports and export turnover and cannot be treated as income from other sources. (ii) However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deduction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.
It has been observed that there has been lack of clarity in the field formations administering service tax as regards the applicability of service tax levy on units located in Special Economic Zones. This lack of clarity has resulted in certain problems especially with respect to service tax administration.
