The Central Bureau of Investigation has today filed a chargesheet against nine accused persons and three private companies in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi relating to the issuance of new Unified Access Services Licences and subsequent allocation of 2G Spectrum.
1. From January 1, 2012 only SHA-256 Hash Algorithm and 2048 bit RSA Key Digital Signature Certificates will be issued. 2. However, from 4th April 2011, Certifying Authorities should issue Digital Signature Certificates with SHA-256 Hash Algorithm & 2048 bit RSA Key, to any applicant who requests for the same. 3. All other Digital Signature Certificates issued during 4th April 2011 to 31st December 2011 will have a validity period of one year only. 4. All other stipulations made in the Interoperability Guidelines must be adhered to.
April 4, 2011- NOTIFICATION- In pursuance of Regulation 146 of the Cost and Works Accountants Regulations, 1959, the Council of ICWAI at its 267th meeting held on 25thFebruary, 2011 by virtue of power conferred therein has constituted the following Chapter of Cost Accountants: Pimpri–Chinchwad–Akurdi Chapter of Cost Accountants
Students intending to pursue ICWAI Courses, having their domicile outside India, for the purpose of employment or otherwise, shall be charged fees as per Annexure I. Henceforth, fees received from Foreign students, in INR (Indian Rupees), shall not be considered valid. This shall be made effective from the date of issuance of this circular.
INSTRUCTION NO. 4/2011 [F. NO. 279/MISC./M-20/2011-ITJ], DATED 9-3-2011 – Several instructions and directions have been issued by the CBDT from time to time emphasizing upon the need for timely filing of appeals/SLPs in the Supreme Court and proper conduct of litigation. However, a number of SLPs are being filed with inordinate delay. In the wake of repeated displeasure expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the present state of affairs, Ld. Attorney General for India has advised the Board to work towards a “Zero Delay Regime” in the matter of filing of appeals/SLPs.
Substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere technical violation. In this case, the respondents have made effort to obtain certified copy of the bill of entry which was also denied to them. Further it is not disputed that the goods have not suffered duty and they have not been used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that this issue has been already settled by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369 = (2010-IST-46-HC-MUM-ST wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that input service credit availed by the assessee on outdoor catering is available subject to that the assessee does not charge anything from the employees (in case the cost of food supplied to the worker forms part of the assessable value.) As there is no allegation ag
Intelligence suggested that M/s. V.K.Udyog Ltd. has imported LDPE/HDPE granules and PP granules without payment of duty under Duty Free Credit Entitlement Certificate and availing exemption under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus dated 01.04.2003 during 2009- 10 and 2010-11 and sold these materials in the market. As per the condition of the aforesaid notification the imported goods cannot be sold or transferred. Consequently, searches were undertaken on 22.03.2011 in the offices of the above firm and certain incriminating documents were seized. On preliminary investigation
CIT v Grewal Brothers – No doubt the firm and the partners may be separate entities for income tax and it may be permissible for a firm to give a contract to its partners and deduct tax from the payment made as per s 194C, but it has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether there was any separate subcontract or the firm merely acted as an agent as pleaded in the present case. The case of the assessee is that it was the partners who were executing the transportation contract by using their trucks and the payment from the companies was routed through the firm as an agent. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted this plea on facts. Once this plea was upheld, it cannot be held that there was a separate contract between the firm and the partners in which case the firm was required to deduct tax from the payment made to its partners under s 194C.
Notification No. 19/2011 – Income Tax – In the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 5C, – (a) the word “scientific”, wherever it occurs, shall be omitted; (b) in sub-rule (1) in clause (i) after the words, brackets and letters “clause (ii)”, the words, brackets and letters “or clause (iii)” shall be inserted. 3. For the rule 5D of the said rules, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:– “5D. Conditions subject to which approval is to be granted to a research association under clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35.–(1) The sole object of the applicant research association shall be to undertake scientific research or research in social science or statistical research as the case may be.
