The Government has increased the current limit of Foreign Institutional Investors (Fll) investment in Government Securities by US $ 5 billion raising the cap to US $ 10 billion and the incremental limit of US $ 5 billion be invested in securities wit
The Reserve Bank of India has, today, placed on its website “A Profile of Banks 2009-10”. The publication, “A Profile of Banks 2009-10”,the sixth volume in the series, provides a bank-wise and bank group-wise information on important performance in
The Cabinet today approved the proposal for introducing the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in Parliament. The Bill proposes to constitute a statutory authority to be called the National Identification Authority of India and lay down the powers and functions of the Authority, the framework for issuing UID numbers (aadhaar numbers), major penalties and other related matters through an Act of Parliament.
The assessee, a hotel, incurred expenditure on acquiring licenses and permissions from various government bodies. This was classified as “goodwill” in the books and depreciation was claimed on the ground that it was an “intangible asset” u/s 32(1)(ii). The AO allowed the claim. The CIT passed an order u/s 263 in which he took the view that the AO had not applied his mind to the issue and that the order was “erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. The CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh order. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal: (i) The CIT had not recorded any finding to show how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Merely because the AO had not examined whether the approvals / registrations etc. amounted to intangible assets and had not applied his mind to the examination and verification of the allowability of depreciation on intangible assets did not mean that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was not the case of the CIT that depreciation was not allowable on such items ofintangible assets; (ii) An authority exercising revisional power cannot direct the lower authority to complete the assessment in particular manner. UOI vs. Tata Engineering AIR 1998 SC 287 followed; (iii) On merits, approvals/registrations etc amount to “intangible assets” and entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1) (ii).
Today, in the present scenario also, the poor exporter is still facing enormous difficulty in getting refund orders as stated in the lines above. There is no radical change has taken place even after the change of total scheme by the Government. The refund claims are the Right of the exporters but the department is rejecting these claims on various grounds which are of trivial importance.
In case of disputes where the Reserve Bank of India is an involved party, the dispute shall be referred to the Central Government which may authorise an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary for settlement of the dispute and the decision of such officer shall be final and binding on all parties.
Please note that the due date of filing of I-T returns for corporate taxpayers is 30th September, 2010 for AY 2010-11. In case you have not already E-filed your I-T return, please do so immediately without waiting till the last minute. The following are the important points to be noted: 2. Amendment to Rule 12 – Making Digital Signature Mandatory for Companies- Vide notification dated 9th July 2010 amending Rule 12, the CBDT has made it mandatory all Companies filing ITR-6 to digitally sign the I-T return for AY 2010-11.
Challenge in this batch of appeals filed by the revenue under Section 35(L)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”) is to the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone (for short “the Tribunal”), inter alia, holding that the duty of Central Excise on shrimps and shrimp seeds produced and removed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the assessee”), a 100% Export Oriented Unit (for short “EOU”), in the Domestic Tariff Area (for short “DTA”) without the approval of the Development Commissioner, would be payable under Section 3(1) of the Act and not under the proviso appended thereto.
The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicles, entered into dealership agreements with their dealers. The agreement provided for servicing and warranty including free service. The dealers margin covered pre-delivery inspection and three after sales services. The issue, therefore, was whether such pre-delivery inspection and after- sale-service charges are to be included in the assessable value of the goods for determining the duty liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944 („the Act?).
Appointment of Statutory Central Auditors (SCAs) in Public Sector Banks :- Government of India vide their letter D.O..No.1/1 4/2004-BOA dated August 31, 2010 have advised that we may forward a list of eligible audit firms containing the names of firm
