NC Notification No. 70/2011 – Income Tax Whereas by Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Number S.O.267(E), dated the 23rd March, 2000, issued under clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government had notified at serial Number 8, “Rural Development Projects at 30 Villages of Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra” by Srinivasan Services Trust, Jayalakshmi Estates, 8, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600006, as an eligible project or scheme for a period of three years beginning with assessment year 2000-01, which was extended further vide Notification Number S.O. 1116(E), dated the 24th October, 2002 for a period of three years beginning with assessment year 2003-04 and which was extended further vide Notification Number S.O.509(E), dated the 4th April, 2006 for a period of three years beginning with financial year 2005-2006, which was extended further vide Notification Number S.O.242(E), dated 21st January, 2009 for a period of three years beginning with the financial year 2008-09
NC Notification No. 59/2011 – Income Tax Whereas by Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Number S.O. 2370(E), dated 3rd October, 2008, issued under clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government had notified at serial Number 13, New home-(Childrens’ Home) by Reaching Hand, 60/2, 1st Floor, Nehru Road, Kammanahalli Extension, St. Thomas Town Post, Bangalore 560 084, as an eligible project or scheme for a period of three years beginning with financial year 2008-09;
NC Notification No. 65/2011 – Income Tax WHEREAS by Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Number S.O. 2370(E), dated 3rd October, 2008, issued under clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government had notified at serial Number 6, (a) Disha Special School and Therapy Centre, (b) Disha Autism Centre, and (c) Community based rehabilitation programme by Disha Charitable Trust, 319, Race Course Towers, Gotri Road, Vadodara 390 007, Gujarat, as an eligible project or scheme for a period of three years beginning with financial year 2008-09;
NC Notification No. 50/2011 – Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare, hereby notifies the institutions approved by the said National Committee, mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, and approves the eligible projects or schemes specified to be carried on by the said institutions and the estimated cost thereof as mentioned in column (3) of the said Table, and also specifies in the column (4) of the Table the maximum amount of such cost which may be allowed as deduction under the said section 35AC for the period of approval,
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has proposed vide notification dated 06.06.2011 that all public companies and their subsidiaries convert share certificates and bonds into an electronic (demat) form. The Companies (Dematerialization of Certificates) Rules, 2011, are proposed to come into force from October 1. All new issuances will also have to be in demat form. MCA has also proposed to make this mandatory for all existing paper certificates by September 30.
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Master Construction Co. (Supreme Court) – If a contractor alleges that he had signed a ‘no-claim’ certificate on the work done by him was under fraud, duress or undue influence, he must show evidence before the dispute is sent for arbitration. A bald allegation of duress will not do, the Supreme Court has stated in the judgment, Union of India vs Master Construction Company. In such cases the Chief Justice/his designate must look into this aspect to find out at least, prima facie, whether or not the dispute is bona fide and genuine.
Merck Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Provisions of sec. 94 are very much clear and it cannot be said that there is any ambiguity in the provisions and therefore, appellant should not have claimed the aforesaid loss knowing fully well that the provisions of sec. 94 are applicable to such transactions. Appellant has adjusted the aforesaid loss against the profit on sale of short term capital gains which is illegal. Appellant being a reputed company, advised by reputed and learned counsels for the past many years cannot be said to be not aware of the said provisions of the Act. For the above reasons, appellant’s submissions on this issue are rejected and it is held that AO is right in levying penalty u/s 271(1) and holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
M/s Kone Elevator India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Madras High Court) – As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the taxable amount has escaped assessment, two conditions were required to be satisfied on the basis of the materials placed before him. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of the first condition alone is suffice. In other words if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that certain income assessable to tax has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. Hence, we are not able to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
ITO v Gujarat Information Technology Fund (ITAT Ahemdabad) Interest income earned on bank deposit is exempt u/s 10(23FB) and there is no decision of SEBI that there is any violation of SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulation 1996 and, therefore, the AO cannot hold that there was such violation. The AO is duty bound to enquire whether the assessee trust is registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and has been granted a certificate of registration by SEBI under SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 and not beyond that.
Explore the verdict in Hidelbergcement India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) on reassessment validity and foreign exchange gain dispute. Legal insights here.
