Amid controversy over leakage of telephonic conversations involving top industrialists, corporate lobbyist Niira Radia and others, the Finance Ministry has asked the DoT to enquire into the conduct of telecom operators and identify individuals involved in it. DoT (Department of Telecom) will have to conduct a further enquiry to establish leakage of the telephonic intercepts in the end of telecom service providers, to identify actual individuals who are involved in this,” Finance Ministry said in a communication to Telecom Secretary R Chandrashekhar.
Finance Ministry will hold annual performance review of public sector banks here on April 26 to evaluate various aspects including non-performing assets and financial inclusion. The meeting will chaired by Financial Services Secretary S K Sharma instead of the usual practice of Finance Minister conducting bankers meet.
The identical questions of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244. This Court held that the transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity.
Himachal Pardesh High court in an important recent Judgment namely M/s Durga Dass Devki Nandan.V Income-tax Officer, Palampur decided on 11-03-2011 has held the circular No 739 dated 25-03-1996 of CBDT as invalid. The said circular is on the issue of availability of deduction to a partnership firm in relation to remuneration available to partners of a firm u/s 40(b)(v) of Income Tax Act 1961. The said circular stated that the deduction u/s 40(b)(v) will be available only if the remuneration to partners is authorized by the partnership deed by way of specification of amount of remuneration therein or by way of quantification of remuneration.
It is not in dispute that the assessees used the inputs and have exported the impugned goods and the refund is only in respect of input credit attributable to the inputs utilized in the exported goods. It is not necessary to prove one-to-one correlation of inputs with that of exported goods. The assessees were not in a position to utilize the credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods which were exported under bond and which were getting accumulated from time to time. In those circumstances, when once the appellate authority correctly applied Rule 5 and granted the refund.
