Follow Us :

Archive: 01 September 2011

Posts in 01 September 2011

Free Live Webinar: Dematerialization of Securities and Recent Amendments

July 2, 2024 2040 Views 0 comment Print

Join our free webinar on July 4th at 4:00 PM to gain insights into the dematerialization of securities and recent amendments. Register now for key updates.

Free Webinar: Analysis of 10 Recent Income Tax Judgments in Favour of Assessee

July 1, 2024 4008 Views 0 comment Print

Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.

Marketability is essential criteria for charging excise duty and product must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges – SC

September 1, 2011 2107 Views 0 comment Print

Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut- II Vs. M/s. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- We have a recent decision of this Court in the case of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 601. This Court in the said decision has very carefully considered almost all the previous decisions of this Court on the issue of the levy/payment of Excise Duty Valuation on articles manufactured by the assessee company therein. After referring to practically all the decisions on the issue this Court in the aforesaid case held that the consistent view of this Court is that the marketability is an essential criteria for charging duty and that the test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges.

Helium Gas purchased in bulk, processed and sold in cylinders – liable to excise duty – Supreme Court

September 1, 2011 675 Views 0 comment Print

Air Liquid North India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)- Relabelling would not mean mere fixing of another label. When the appellant was selling different cylinders with different marking or different certificates to its different customers, we can say that the appellant was virtually giving different marks or different labels to different cylinders having different quality and quantity of gas. It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose. Thus, the treatment given by the appellant to the gas sold by it would make a different commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing activity.

Comments invited on draft ‘Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011’ and draft ‘Shipping Bill (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011

September 1, 2011 943 Views 0 comment Print

`Self-Assessment’ has been introduced in Customs vide Finance Act, 2011. Further, it has been made mandatory for importers and exporters to file declarations electronically. These changes necessitated a re-look at the extant regulations / forms. Accordingly, draft ‘Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011’ and draft ‘Shipping Bill (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011’ have been prepared by CBEC and are attached herewith as Annexure – ‘X’ & ‘Y’ respectively.

ITAT lay down principles on ‘splitting of turnkey contracts’, role of PE and taxability of profits from offshore supply

September 1, 2011 2776 Views 0 comment Print

Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation)- It is held that the turnkey contract is not divisible and therefore, the offshore supply and offshore services can be attributed to the Indian permanent establishment; as the project office was opened for coordination and execution of project, the same is held to be a fixed place PE.

Circular specifying monetary limit for appeal filing should not be applied ipso facto, when the matter has a cascading effect – SC

September 1, 2011 1094 Views 0 comment Print

CIT Vs Surya Herbal Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters.

If work undertaken by petitioner is ‘works contract’ which is defined under Section 2(55) of the VAT Act, 2005, it cannot be said that the respondents have imposed any tax without authority of law

September 1, 2011 1631 Views 0 comment Print

Asso tech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand- Petitioner’s case is that he is not constructing the dwelling units on behalf of anyone else and the same is undertaken by the petitioner on his own behalf.

Six Year after Income Tax Official jailed for taking bribe

September 1, 2011 1530 Views 0 comment Print

Six years after a senior income tax assistant was caught accepting a bribe of Rs 500, a special CBI court on Wednesday sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Vijay Karekar was arrested by the CBI on October 17, 2005, on charges of accepting the bribe from a person, an income tax assessee, for clearing his tax refund order.

Cost Accounting Standard Board invites comments on Exposure Draft Guidance Note-Cost Accounting Standards(CAS-4)

September 1, 2011 718 Views 0 comment Print

The Cost Accounting Standards Board Secretariat has prepared a revised Guidance Note on CAS-4. It has been decided to expose the same for the public comments. The proposed Exposure Draft may be modified in light of comments received before being issued in the final form.

Annual quota for import of marble from Bhutan increased to 5,882 MTs

September 1, 2011 418 Views 0 comment Print

NOTIFICATION No. 69 (RE-2010)/2009-14 The annual quota for import of marble from Bhutan will now be 5,882 MTs. Previously it was 1847 MTs.

Constitution of new Dispute Resolution Panel at Mumbai – ORDER NO. 7/FT&TR/2011

September 1, 2011 703 Views 0 comment Print

ORDER NO. 7/FT&TR/2011 [F.NO.500/15/2011-FT&TR-I], DATED 1-9-2011 In partial modification of Order No. 6/FT&TR/2011, dated 24-8-2011 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Board hereby reconstitutes the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax/Directors of Income-tax as Members of DRP-II, Mumbai, who shall perform such duties in addition to their regular duties with immediate effect and until further order:

Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031