Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal The government of the day seems to be on the back foot as it has failed check inflation on a continuous basis, fuel prices have risen beyond imagination in past two years and it is not able to concentrate on reforms, given the political developments and host of corruption scandals which have […]
Reference has been received from the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Coimbatore, wherein, a clarification has been requested for uniformity in assessment as regards levy of service tax on telephone services rendered by M/s BSNL through Village Panchayat Telephone (VPT) with local call facility, after M/s BSNL have become a public sector unit
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No. 22 of 1992) read with Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, the Central Government amends Notification No. 73(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 09.09.2011 with immediate effect as follows.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) read with rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995,
Whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/21/2010-DGAD, dated the 9 th August, 2010, published in Part I, Section 1 of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated the 9 th August, 2010, had initiated review, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and in pursuance of rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995
Whereas, in the matter of import of Morpholine (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under sub-heading 29333917 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as
Leela Bhagwansing Advani Vs Union of India (Mumbai High Court)- Argument of the petitioners is that under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation was payable to the petitioners immediately after the Award dated 30th May 1995.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Rajesh Kumar Drolia- (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is earning job work charges as well as repairs and maintenance, which are included in job work charges, no doubt it is established that there is commercial connection between profits earned on account of repairs and maintenance and the industrial undertaking but for that source of profit is not directly from industrial undertaking. The business of industrial undertaking had directly to yield that profit to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act.
PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Section 22 of the Act makes “income from house property” as chargeable to income tax. After excluding such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income tax.
CIT Vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- During the Assessment Year 2000-01, in which the issue arises, the assessee had returned Rs. 144 Crores receivable from Non-Performing Assets in accordance with the guidelines by reversing its income accounted for and offered for tax in earlier years.
