Learn to manage GST invoices easily with the new IMS. Join our webinar on 24th Nov to improve ITC claims and error reduction. Register now!
Attention is invited to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Civil Appeal No. 432/2008 in the case of MRPL regarding valuation of SKO (PDS) and LPG (domestic) for the period 01.07.2000 onward. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has dismissed the department’s civil appeal observing that the issue involved was covered by CBEC Circular No. 563/59/2000-CX. dated 21.12.2000.
Reference is invited to the Board’s instructions issued vide F.No. 8/6/67-Cus.III dated 05.11.1977 on the above-mentioned subject. These instructions provide that various documents such as Bills of Entry, postal imports of certain categories, refund claims of certain categories, drawback shipping bills of certain categories etc., pertaining to various minor ports and foreign post offices should be sent for audit to major Customs Houses like Mumbai, Cochin etc.
For the purposes of this notification, rate of exchange applicable for the purposes of calculation of such anti-dumping duty shall be the rate which is specified in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), issued from time to time, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the relevant date for the determination of the rate of exchange shall be the date of presentation of the bill of entry under section 46 of the said Customs Act.
Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Minimum alternate tax – Assessment year 2000-01 – Assessee had created a reserve in assessment year 1986-87 by enhancing value of assets – Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1.53 crores from said reserve and credited it to profit and loss account – In assessment year 2000-01 assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs. 1.53 crores from book profit for calculating adjusted book profit under section 115JA – Assessing Officer allowed assessee’s claim
The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term “Written Down Value” reads as under :-
Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Export oriented undertaking – Assessment year 2003-04 – Assessee-company was engaged in business of contract research and in providing of laboratory facility to its parent company in USA – It had claimed exemption under section 10B – Assessing Officer observed that assessee was not manufacturing or exporting anything, as it was simply providing services of laboratory
Each of the sub-sections to section 41 deal with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another; the depreciation recovered on sale of the capital asset was includible in the total income as balancing charge only under section 41(2); that concept was foreign to the scheme of section 41(1).
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal – Powers of – Assessment year 1996-97 -Whether though Tribunal is not akin to a Court but functions discharged by it are similar to a Court, and, hence, in addition to its expressed statutory powers it has got inherent power to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice – Held, yes –
