Vide Order No 119 of 2011 dated 14.7.2011 the CBDT has transferred and posted Commissioners / Directors of Income-tax with immediate effect. Download the Order
Provided further that approval of Central Government is not required for a subsidiary of a listed company, if — i. the Remuneration Committee and Board of Directors of the holding company give their consent for the amount of such remuneration of the applicant and for the said amount to be deemed remuneration by the holding company for the purpose of section 198 of the Companies Act, 1956 and; ii. a special resolution has been passed at the general meeting of the company for payment of remuneration of the applicant and; iii the remuneration of the applicant is deemed to be remuneration paid by holding company and; iv. all members of the subsidiary are bodies corporate.
Transstory (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- The taxpayer was to pay royalty for only seven years and in respect of certain specified product, the royalty payable by the two group companies in China was for 20 years and it was based on sales of all the products. The only basis of adjustment made by the TPO is variation in rates of royalty paid by the taxpayer vis-a-vis the two group companies in China.
Notification No. 60/2011-Customs Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column (2) of the Table annexed hereto when imported into India from Bangladesh from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), subject to the following conditions, namely:– the importer produces evidence to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that such goods have, in fact, been locally produced in Bangladesh and are imported into India through the land route from Balat or Kalaichar land customs station for sale in Balat or Kalaichar border haats;
General Circular No.47/2011 I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s General Circular No. 08/2011 dated 25.03.2011 on the subject cited above and to state that the nominee director on behalf of Public Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions and banks on the board of companies should also be treated in the same manner as provided in the para 2 of the said Circular.
Pursuant to this amendment, no approval of Central Government will be required by the listed companies and their subsidiary companies, which are not having profits or having inadequate profits for payment of remunerations exceeding Rs. 4 lakh p.m., if the managerial person:- (a) is not having any direct or indirect interest in the capital of the company or its holding company or through any other statutory structures at any time during last two years before or on the date of appointment and
In this regard, it may be stated that sub-section (1C) was inserted in section 139 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), vide the Finance Act, 2011, with effect from 1.6.2011. For the sake of ready reference, the aforesaid sub-section (1C) is reproduced as follows: (1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any class or classes of persons
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7A of the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (Mah. XVI of 1975), the Commissioner of Profession Tax, Maharashtra State hereby provides with effect from 1st August 2011.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO, to allow the deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act in respect of the profit of Hyderabad Unit without appreciating the fact that the branch has not carried out any manufacturing activity.
CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Limited (High Court of Gujarat) – The law is settled – if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.
