Notification No. 15/2011- Income Tax The Directorate of Income-tax (Expenditure Budget) will act as the Nodal Authority in respect of all Budget matters for the Grant No. 42 Direct Taxes and will perform all work related to the management of Expenditure Budget under this grant which inter alia, include: (i) to issue the Budget Circular as prescribed by Budget Division, Department of Economic Affairs; (ii) to examine the budget proposals received from the various constituent formations/units/under the grant. (iii) to consolidate the budget proposals received from the various constituents formations/units at each stage of the Budget exercise i.e. Budget Estimate (BE), Revised Estimate (RE) and Final Requirement (FR) and submit the same to FA (Finance) for further action;
Export Items: Existing description: Non-Alloy Steel Bars & Rods (including rounds, flats, hexagons, octagons, wire rods, cold twisted deformed bars, thermomechanically treated reinforcing bars etc.) Angles, shapes and sections (including beam, joists, channels, special profiles etc.), Plates/ Sheets / Strips/Wide coils, Blooms / Billets / Slabs/ Ingots……1000 kgs Modified description: Non-Alloy Steel Ingots/Blooms / Billets / Slabs…1000 kgs.
Circular No. 15 /2011-Customs – Representations have been received from some industry association on behalf of software dealers about difficulties being expressed in the assessment to customs duty of documents of title for IT software or documents that enable the transfer of the right to use such software at the time of its sale. It has been reported that there are frequent imports of such documents without any accompanying software. Such packages do not contain software but consist of paper licenses or PUK (Personal Unlocking Key, usually in the form of a scratch card of paper board or plastic) that are used to convey the right to use such IT software. The software in these cases could be freely downloadable or loaded by the OEM supplier under an arrangement with the software company as pre-loaded trial version of software on the computer system requiring the customer to purchase license or PUK after the trial period. Typically these licenses are used either to authorize additional uses against a sale of IT software that has already taken place in the past or to service transactions where the connected software is downloaded electronically by the customer. It has been pointed out that some of the field formations are insisting on the classification of such documents, even when imported without the packaged software, under CTH 8523 i.e. the heading applicable to IT software. It has also been represented that in certain cases the entire value of the license representing the right to use such IT software is sought to be loaded to the value of past imports of IT software by the importer.
the Central Government hereby delegates to the Regional Directors at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Noida and Ahemdabad, the powers and functions of the Central Government under the following provisions of the said Act, namely:- Section 22, Sub-sections (3),(4),(7) and clause (a) of sub-section (8) of section 224, Section 297 (1) Proviso, Section 394-A, Section 400, Second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 439 and sub-section (6) of the said section, Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 496, Clause (a) sub-section (1) of section 508, Sub-section (1) of section 551, Clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 555 and the proviso to clause (a) of subsection (9) of the said section, Provisos to sub-section (1) of section 610, and Section 627.
Petitioner was an employee in the 1st respondent – Organization M/s. HMT Ltd. Petitioner availed of a voluntary retirement scheme as on 31.3.2003 that was mooted by the employer and as a result he received an amount of Rs. 6,01,270/-. The employer at the time of paying this amount deducted a sum of Rs. 29,331/- at source under the provisions of Section 192 of the Act and an acknowledgment in Form 16-A was also issued to the petitioner evidencing the deduction of this amount from the amount paid to him and remitted the same to the credit of the Income Tax Department.
Right to privacy has been a subject matter and reiterated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and another versus Canara Bank and others (2005) 1 SCC 496. However, the said right is not an absolute right. Right to information is a part of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act balances right to privacy and right to information. It recognizes that both rights are important and require protection and in case of conflict between the two rights, the test of over-riding public interest is applied to decide whether information should be withheld or disclosed.
(1) Euthanasia – Right to die – Legality – In 1973, petitioner, staff nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEM hospital), was sexually assaulted and choked, leaving her blind, deaf, paralysed and in a vegetative state – In 1999, ‘X’ as petitioner’s next friend filed a petition for euthanasia submitting that petitioner should be allowed to die with dignity as there was not the slightest possibility of any improvement in her condition – Whether petition filed by the ‘X’ regarding euthanasia for the petitioner could be allowed?
Service – Preparation of judgments through third party – Removal from service – Legality (i) Whether High Court was justified in dispensing with enquiry while passing order recommending appellant’s removal (ii) Whether order of removal passed by Governor was within his jurisdiction Constitution – Whether High Court could invoke Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution while passing recommendation for removal of subordinate judge.
Pramod Agrawal, chartered accountant accused of swindling crores of public money, has been slapped with a tax demand of over Rs 100 crore. This is probably biggest ever demand from an assessee in the region. Not just that, the income tax department could slap another Rs 100 crore penalty on Agrawal for concealment of income.
The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases.
