CIT vs. G. R. Shipping (Bombay High Court) :- The assessee, engaged in shipping business, owned a barge which was included in the block of assets. The barge met with an accident and sank on 6.3.2000 (AY 2000-01). As efforts to retrieve the barge were uneconomical, the barge was sold on as-is-where- is in May 2001 (AY 2002-03).
“It is my pleasure to be here today at the 88th annual function of ASSOCHAM. As a representative body of Indian industry and enterprise, ASSOCHAM has always been at the forefront of pursuing ideas that empower Indian entrepreneurs. It has contributed to building consensus on policy response to issues that impact growth of the economy.
Finance Minister has announced that the Government has identified seven critical areas on the Direct Taxes Code for further detailed examination. At an interactive session with representatives of trade and industry from all over the country, here today, Shri Pranab Mukherjee said that the areas identified after interactions with all stakeholders are: The concept of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) based on gross assets; Capital Gains Taxation in the case of non-residents;
We are of the firm opinion that the present writ petition is liable to succeed with costs. The reasons which have been recorded seeking reopening of the assessment, and as reproduced above show that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer which can be said to be the mind of a reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion, which has been arrived at in view of the reasons recorded.
All these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ”Act 1961′) by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. It provides for filing of an appeal in the form of a memorandum of appeal within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. It is an admitted position that all these appeals have been preferred beyond the period of limitation as provided under the aforesaid Section and the appellants have filed applications for extensi
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 :-
