In respect of EOUs which are operating under self-bonding procedure, attestation of ARE-3 shall be done by the office-in-charge for claim of deemed export benefit, on the basis of verification and warehousing by the EOU/STP/EHTP/BTP itself. However, in case of receipt of goods without following ARE-3, the procedure as prescribed above shall be followed.
B.V.V. Paper Industries Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [(2008) 145 Comp. Cas 815 (Mad]) The Petitioner Company became side and a reference was filed before the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) u/s. 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) for declaring the company a sick company and also for effecting […]
On a reference to the Board for Industrial and financial Reconstruction (BIFR) by the company, a scheme of rehabilitation was sanctioned and the management of the company was taken over under the directions of the Board. The scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction failed to reflect the dues of the Petitioners.
The Appellant filed a Civil Suit upon refusal by the Second Respondent Company to register shares transferred by the First Respondent in the name of the Appellant on the ground that the signature of the transferor did not tally with the signature in the company records. The transferor did not contest the suit and the trial court passed a decree in favour of the Appellants.
The Appellant, a State level institution incorporated for the purpose of development of industries in the State, was an equity shareholder in the Third Respondent Company. The company was referred to the Board For Industrial Reconstruction (BIFR) for the purpose of framing a scheme for rehabilitation. The Board approved the draft revival scheme and circulated the scheme seeking suggestions and objections of the shareholders including the Appellant.
Originally the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, namely, B had started a proprietary concern. His son constituted six private limited companies and registered them under the Companies Act, 1956, and all the shareholders of these companies being the heirs of the late B, the companies were family concerns. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 started defendants Nos. 7 to 12 companies out of the funds of the original concern.
Circular No. 109/03/2009, dated 23-2-2009 -A query had been raised by the field formation as to whether the activity of screening of film supplied by a film distributor would fall under any of the taxable services and accordingly, whether the theatre owners are required to pay service tax on amount received by them from distributors. Divergent views have been expressed on this issue. One view is that the activity of screening of films supplied by a film distributor falls under the taxable service category of “renting of immovable property”; while an alternative view is that such activity falls under the category of ‘Business Support Service’.
The Income Tax Department has slapped a bill of Rs50 crore on leading private telecom company Bharti Airtel for “non-payment of taxes on interest paid on loans taken by it” and allegedly furnishing wrong information to the tax department. Bharti has contested the claim, but has also paid more than Rs40 crore to the department, […]
The Supreme Court last week ruled that the buyer of assets of a company in liquidation had no liability to clear the arrears of property tax, setting aside the judgment of the high court in the case, Champdany Industries Ltd vs The Official Liquidator. In this case, Wool-Combers of India Limited went in liquidation. The […]
Representations have been received by the Board pointing out divergent practices being followed by field formations with regard to levy of service tax on maintenance and repair of roads
