The Japanese, with their fierce sense of commitment and loyalty to the organisation they are associated with, were ironically blasé about insider trading as typified by the general response to the law brought in 1988 in Japan to tackle the menace — what is wrong in being smart? Equally ironical is the assiduity with which insiders are pursued in the US. A journalist was hauled over the coals there for making a fast buck out of the information she garnered during the course of analysis of a company.
When agreements are entered into for purchase of property, rights are created in favour of the parties to the agreement. Failure to honour the agreement can lead to breach of contract and claims for damages or specific performance. Quite often, such breach of contract ultimately results in a compromise settlement of the dispute and monies are paid as quits. Will the receipt of such compensation for breach result in tax consequences?
THE jinxed tax that is Service Tax on GTA , is haunting the tax administration, courts and the hapless assessees for more than a decade. While the net collection from this tax would be less than peanut, the amount of litigation it has generated, must have cost the nation heavily – the Government should seriously consider doing away with this tax or maybe levying a flat 2% without credit.
ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – The grounds relating to levy of interest u/s. 234B has not been considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) . However, we are inclined to hold that levy of such interest is to be mandatorily levied in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the section, which the AO is directed to levy. The agitation with respect to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is premature and is dismissed as rightly not considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well.
TILL a few months back, it used to be a rare event in which the Delhi High Court used to impose costs on the Income Tax Department. And this is what perhaps encouraged the Revenue to keep filing appeals indiscriminately and virtually in all cases. But such a cosy run has evidently run out of luck now. So much exasperated is the High Court over the Department’s thick-skinned approach to curb frivolous appeals that it can now be seen imposing costs in most of the cases. And it happened even in this case where the issue revolves around allowance of bad debts and stock damages. While computing book profits u/s 115JA, the AO added back the provisions of doubtful debts and stock damages as he felt that such provisions cannot be categorised as ascertained liabilities in advance.
Even a conjoint reading of Section 36(1)(iii) as existing prior to the proviso thereto and Section 43(1) explanation 8 clearly shows that any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the acquisition of an asset cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure. The capital might have been borrowed by an assessee for the purpose of business. However, once it is admitted that a part thereof was used by the assessee for the purpose of acquisition of an asset, which is not in the form of replacement or modernization the interest component thereon upto the date it is first put to use has to be dealt with in terms of provisions of Section 43 (1) explanation 8 as otherwise cost of the asset shown in the balance sheet will not depict its true picture. This is in conformity with law and the accounting principles.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the notification No.1/2008-CE dated the 18th January, 2008 vide which amendments have been carried out in notification Nos. 49 and 50/2003-CE, both dated 10.06.2003. Attention is also invited towards the amendment carried out in rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 vide notification No.3/2008-CE(N.T.) dated the 18th January, 2008 in this regard.
for quarterly return for production and removal of goods under exemption notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 49/2003-Central Excise, dated the 10th June, 2003 vide number G.S.R. 471(E), published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, section 3, sub-section (i), vide notification No. 4/2002-Central Excise (N.T.), vide number G.S.R. 143(E), dated the 1st March, 2002, and were last amended vide notification No. 36/2007-Central Excise (N.T.) vide number G.S.R.597(E), published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, section 3.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nandeshwari Packaging (Cestat Ahemdabad)- Show cause notice issued on 9-7-2004 is barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the same stands issued after the period of six months from the date of search and even after completion of the investigations.
