Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Notification No. 55 /2011 – Customs In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 21/2002-Customs, dated the 1st March, 2002, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 118(E) dated the 1st March, 2002, namely :-
High Court held that the scope of powers of the Dispute Resolution Panel (the DRP) under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is restricted to dealing with only those issues in respect of which variations are proposed as per the draft assessment order and not beyond.
Circular No. 948/09/2011-CX It has been brought to the notice of the Board that doubts have arisen on whether the benefit of proportionate Cenvat credit as clarified by Circular 845/03/2006-CX dated 1.02.2007 would be available to textile items of heading 5508, 5509, 5510, 5511, 5512, 5513 and 5514 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise tariff Act since a reference to these headings was omitted in Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9th July, 2004 vide notification No.11/2009-CE dated 7th July,2009.
Mitsui & Co India Pvt Ltd v Addl CIT (ITAT Delhi) – Directors of the assessee were entitled to use the vehicles for their personal use in accordance with the terms and conditions on which they were appointed and the perquisites given to the directors formed part of their ‘remuneration’ under the Explanation to section 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of determining their remuneration under section 309 of that Act. Once such remuneration was fixed as provided in section 309 it was not possible to state that the assessee incurred the expenditure for the personal use of the directors. Even if there was any personal use by the directors that was as per the terms and conditions of service and, in so far as the assessee was concerned, it was business expenditure and no part of the expenditure could be disallowed.
I note with satisfaction, indeed some pride, that the celebration of the Statistics Day in the Reserve Bank is much more than an annual calendar event. We are deeply conscious of the fact that our policy calibration, be it monetary policy, regulatory actions or decisions in pursuit of financial stability, is improved by the quality of data at our command and our ability to analyze and interpret that data. The decisions that we in the Reserve Bank make have a profound impact on the macroeconomy, and errors can be costly. Our policy judgement should therefore be based not only on state of the art skills in data analysis and interpretation but also on an intellectual value system of ruthlessly honest validation and peer review.
Ram Jethmalani vs. UOI (Supreme Court) – SC held that That the names of those individuals with bank accounts in Liechtenstein, as revealed by Germany, with respect of whom investigations have been concluded, either partially or wholly, and show cause notices issued and proceedings initiated may be disclosed; and That the Special Investigation Team, constituted pursuant to the orders of today by this Court, shall take over the matter of investigation of the individuals whose names have been disclosed by Germany as having accounts in banks in Liechtenstein, and expeditiously conduct the same. The Special Investigation Team shall review the concluded matters also in this regard to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not, and on coming to the conclusion that there is a need for further investigation shall proceed further in the matter. After conclusion of such investigations by the Special Investigation Team, the Respondents may disclose the names with regard to whom show cause notices have been issued and proceedings initiated.
A Committee to Review Implementation of Informal Sector Pension was constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri G N Bajpai former Chairman, SEBI, LIC and also member of PFRDA NPS Trust. The Committee has submitted its report on 1st July, 2011. The report is accessible on http://pfrda.org.in/indexmain.asp?linkid=180. Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority( PFRDA) is inviting public comments and stakeholder’s views, before finalizing policy initiatives that require action as per recommendations of the Committee.
Please refer to paragraph 112 of the Monetary Policy Statement 2011-12 (extract enclosed) wherein it has been indicated that banks’ investments in liquid schemes of mutual funds have grown manifold. The liquid schemes continue to rely heavily on institutional investors such as commercial banks whose redemption requirements are likely to be large and simultaneous; on the other hand, they are large lenders in the over-night markets such as collateralised borrowing and lending obligation (CBLO) and market repo, where banks are large borrowers.
These rules may be called the Companies Director Identification Number (Third Amendment) Rules, 2011. They shall come into three with effect from 9th July, 2011. Director Identification Number (DIN) means an identification number which the Central Government may allot to any individual, intending to be appointed as director or to any existing directors of a company, for the purpose of his Identification as such and includes Designated Partnership Identification Number (DPIN) issued under section 7 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and rules made thereunder.
CIT vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Even if there is no period of limitation prescribed u/s153 (3)(ii) to give effect to s. 263 orders, the AO is required to pass the order within a ‘reasonable period’. Non-specification of period of limitation does not mean that the AO can wait for indefinite period before passing the consequential order. On facts, the period of 3 years & 8 months that had elapsed since the passing of the s. 263 order was ‘certainly much beyond the reasonable period that can be allowed to the AO to pass the consequential order’. As the s. 263 order was rightly held to be infructuous, the effect order passed thereafter is not valid.
