It has been decided that in all the Corporate cases selected for scrutiny as per the guidelines contained in the Action Plan document 2008-09 which have returned income of Rs.5 crore or more and where provisions of FBT apply, assessment order shall also be passed under section 115WE after scrutiny of all such cases.
CIT vs. Gold Coin Health – The recommendations of the Wanchoo Committee and the CBDT Circular make it clear that the amendment to Expl. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) was to make explicit what was otherwise implicit i.e. that penalty can be imposed even in a case where the assessment results in a loss.
Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Where the department sought condonation of delay of several months in filing appeals in several matters and explained the reasons for the delay in a casual and negligent manner and without giving even the basic details,
State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) -Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable.
Import authorizations for a restricted item if so directed by the competent authority, shall be issued for import through one of the sea ports or air ports orICDs or LCS, as per the option indicated, in writing, by the applicant. Authorization holder shall register the same at the port specified in the authorization and thereafter all imports against said authorization shall be made only through that port, unless the authorization holder obtains permission from customs authority concerned to import through any other specified port.
In exercise of powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, as amended, the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes the following correction in the Public Notice No.27 (RE-2005)/2004-09, dated 14th July, 2005, read with Public Notice No.14 (RE-2006)/2004-09 dated 30th May, 2006 and Public Notice No.91 (RE-2007)/2004-09 dated 11th December, 2007.
The concerned licensing authorities of DGFT shall call back all authorizations for import of rough marble blocks/slabs issued under Policy Circular No.12 dated 27.6.2008 and under Policy Circular No.13 dated 30.6.2008 and indicate the port of registration on these licences, as per the option exercised by the license holder.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 25/2005-Central Excise (N.T), dated the 13th May,2005 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R.305(E), namely.
The principal notification No. 147/2003-Customs, dated the 7th October, 2003, was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i) vide number GSR 793(E), dated the 7th October, 2003 and was last amended vide notification No. 50/2008-Customs, dated the 21st April, 2008 and was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i) vide number GSR 296(E), dated the 21st April, 2008.
Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax
