Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/S. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills -Supreme Court- It is observed by the SC that We, may however, hasten to add that it is high time when the Central Board of Direct and Indirect Taxes comes out with a uniform policy, laying down strict parameters for the guidance of the field staff for deciding whether or not an appeal in a particular case is to be filed. We are constrained to observe that the existing guidelines are followed more in breach, resulting in avoidable allegations of malafides etc on the part of the officers concerned.
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue except for the AY 2004-05 for which the assessee Shri Hitesh S Doshi has filed cross objection against the respective orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04, 04-05 and 06-07.
F. No.A-22013/07/201 1-Ad.II Please refer to Board’s Order No.123/2011 dated 22.06.2011 vide which officers in the grade of Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise were transferred in AGT-201 1. In terms of the said Order, all the officers so transferred were to be relieved by their respective controlling officers by 27.06.2011 from their present charge to enable them to join their new place of posting. The Chief Commissioners/Directors General were also requested to send a compliance report by 01.07.2011.
J. K. Industries Limited Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. Thus, the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Union Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee said that inflation figures reported for the month of June 2011 continues to be matter of concern. The Finance Minister said that we are monitoring the price situation closely. He said that Government is working together with RBI to take appropriate steps to reduce inflation to more comfortable level. Shri Mukherjee was reacting to the figures of headline WPI inflation for the month of June, 2011 which were released today. The WPI inflation for the month of June 2011 stood at 9.44% as against 9.06% in May 2011 and 9.74% in April 2011.
July is the month of the year which provides us lots of rains after dry hot days, when freshness and life retunes to schools and college, when mangos are in plenty and there is happiness all around. July is also the month when one has to file his or her annual income tax returns for the previous year ended in March. 31st July is the last date to file tax returns for individuals and those whose accounts are not subject to any audit. The options available to assessee is to do it himself or to call on his chartered accountant who can file the tax returns by just asking for few informations and papers. Tax returns are however, now a days an easy job as returns can be filed with case and online.
There were judgments on section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 relying on technicalities even at the final stage. Now, in my opinion, technicalities are ignored and the substance is keenly noted in a petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. For example, there were many decisions on the issue of ‘consent’ under section 399 of the Act and there were judgments saying that disputed facts can not be decided by the Company Law Board and those require Trial. In the recent past, there were no such pronouncements.
This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated September, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No. 1449 (Cal)/2000 for the Assessment Year- 1997-98 and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal.
A bank is bound to inform the consumer well in advance before blocking his credit card, a district consumer forum has held while directing the ICICI bank to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to its client for not doing so and putting him in an embarrassing situation. A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench presided by V K Gupta held ICICI bank guilty of deficiency in service and also criticised the private bank for misbehaviour of its staff with the consumer.
Navelkar Estates Developers v CIT and ITO (Mumbai HC) The main contention of Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the reasons have not been furnished to the Petitioner/Assessee for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessee is not in a position to file objections to the issue on notice.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out to the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time so that the Assessee can file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
