Regarding anti dumping duty on nylon filament yarn of specification ‘synthetic filament yarn including synthetic monofilament of less than 67 decitex, of nylon or other polyamides originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and People’s Republic of Korea.
Peoples Republic of China and Chinese Taipei, imposed vide notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue),No. 76/2005-Customs, dated the 25th July, 2005, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 503(E), dated the 25th July, 2005, and has requested for extension of anti-dumping duty, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act;
A Writ Petition was filed challenging the order dated 17.7.2008 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Janpath, New Delhi, (hereinafter `the Tribunal’), on various grounds with which this Court is not concerned. By that order, the Tribunal refused to dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty by the appellant and the concluding portion of that order is:
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-entry (8) of entry 107 of SCHEDULE C appended to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (Mah. IX of 2005), the Government of Maharashtra hereby, with effect from the 1st May 2010, amends the Government Notification, Finance Department, No .VAT 1505/C.R.233/ Taxation-1, dated the 23rd November 2005, as follows, namely :—
When a Chartered Accountant is performing a statutory audit, he is acting as an agency of the revenue department. Many times, we have seen that the dealers’/assessee’s assessment has been made on the basis of the auditors’ report. It is very well settled doctrine of the law that in any given case, one person can not be the solicitor for both the parties.
ITO vs. M/s Prasad Production (ITAT Chennai Special Bench). The assessee made a remittance to IMAX Canada towards technology transfer fee without deduction of tax at source. The AO took the view that the consideration was “fees for technical services” u/s 9 (1)(vii) and that tax ought to have been deducted at source as per Transmission Corporation 239 ITR 587 (SC). He accordingly held the assessee to be an “assessee-in-default” u/s 201 though the CIT(A) reversed the same.
Clarification on amendments to clause 41 of the Equity Listing Agreement.Securities and Exchange Board of India [SEBI] had, on 5 April 2010, directed Stock Exchanges to amend the Equity Listing Agreement [LA]. One of the amendments to Clause 41 of the LA relates to inter alia timelines for submission, disclosure and publication of quarterly and annual financial results. As per the amended Clause 41, listed entities shall disclose:
Service Tax on Healthcare Services is Introduced in the Finance Act 2010. Small write up is given below on the levy of service tax on healthcare services. Section 65(19b):- “business entity” includes an association of persons, body of individuals, company or firm but does not include an individual.
In a piquant situation, insurance regulator Irda on saturday rejected the market regulator Sebi’s ban on life insurance companies from raising funds through unit-linked insurance policies and asked them to do business as usual. Taking Sebi head on in the turf war over who would administer Ulip (unit-linked insurance products) scheme, Irda, in a surprise order, told the 14 affected life insurance companies that it has set aside the Sebi ban.
Against the backdrop of Sebi banning 14 life insurers from selling ULIPs, the insurers are likely to meet here on Monday to discuss their future course of action against the order. SEBI had, late yesterday night, banned 14 life insurance companies from selling ULIPs–insurance products that invest in equity–on the ground that they were akin to mutual funds and were launched without obtaining registration from it.
