The Principal notification No.114/2004-CUSTOMS, dated the 21st December, 2004, was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 823 (E), dated the 21st December, 2004.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) and also read with Para 1.3 and Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, the Central Government hereby amends, with immediate effect, Notification No.60 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 20th November, 2008 read with Notification No.33 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 19th August, 2008.
Notification No. 128/2009-Customs In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), read with rules 13, 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 62/2009-Customs, dated the 15th June, 2009, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 418(E), dated the 15th June, 2009, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be levied with effect from the date of imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty i.e. the 15th June, 2009.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. As far as the addition of Rs. 3,30,000 is concerned, it has been held that during the proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 250 of the Act, the assessee furnished a confirmation certificate from M/s Axis Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Faridabad along with PAN number. On asking of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has confirmed that the said liability is still outstanding. In spite of that material, the Assessing Officer made the addition of the amount on the basis that this liability has ceased to exist and the same is not payable by the assessee, and treated the said liability as income by invoking provision of Section 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), whil
Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has issued a Statement on October 16, 2009 on risks arising from the deficiencies in AML/CFT regime of Uzbekistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Sao Tome and Principe on the subject (copy enclosed). All NBFCs and RNBCs are accordingly advised to take into account risks arising from the deficiencies in AML/CFT regime of Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Sao Tome and Principe.
It is well established position that Articles of a Company are constituent document and are binding on the Company and its Directors. As aforesaid, the intention of Article 57 is that the share capital of the Company remains within the close knit group and nothing more. On the plain language of the said provision and the intent behind it, the regime of Article 57 has no application to transfer of shares between member to member of the Company interest. There is force in the argument of the Respondents that from the contemporaneous situation, it would appear that all cap
In the case of Mayawati v. CIT [2009] 222 CTR 117 (Delhi), it is nowhere mentioned that for drawing the presumption u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, there is necessity of acknowledgment due.
Due to recent ruling of Karnataka High Court order, all overseas payments will now be subject to withholding tax, whether or not the income is taxable. Not only is this in dramatic contrast to previous High Court decisions, it’s also a judgment that will lead to higher cost of business, increased uncertainty and maybe even more litigation—at least for a while.
You are aware that the provisions of section 29(8) and section 85 of MVAT Act, 2002 related to levy of penalty for non filing of returns within prescribed time limit were amended with effect from 1st July 2009. The amended provision provides for imposition of mandatory penalty to the defaulting dealer. The provision of section 29(8) attracts if the dealer fails to file the return as per the periodicity prescribed in the rule 17(4) of the MVAT rules. The penalty shall be levied immediately if dealer fails to file return within the time prescribed under rule 17(4).
