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.
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.
The Commissioner’s Order-in-Appeal dated 27.05.2008 reflects that he accepted that the efficiency of the employees of an organization would be dependent on various factors, one such being the provision of a housing colony. He further conceded that these facilities would contribute to the enhancement of the productivity of the organization. Having stated so, the appellate authority surprisingly took the view that maintenance of the residential colony by the respondent Company was only an obligatory activity owing to situational exigencies and was not connected either directly or indirectly to the manufacture of its final products.
Dr.Henk Bleker, Minister for Agriculture and Foreign Trade, Kingdom of Netherlands along with his delegation, had a meeting with Shri R.P.N.Singh, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs here in New Delhi today. Mr.Bob Hiensch, Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to India, and Shri Naved Masood, Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs were present, along with others.
Notification No.L-3(2)/Regln:Gen.,(Amdt.)/2011/CCI, dated 8-11-2011- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 64 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Competition Commission of India hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, namely:—
ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta (Chattisgarh High Court) – The Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (supra) observed that after issuing a notice under Section 148, the income which has initially formed a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, but as a matter of fact has not escaped assessment. The AO cannot proceed to assess some other income independently, however, it was observed that it is open for the AO to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 and proceed thereafter. The High Court of Delhi in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra), has taken the similar view.
The Government of India has reviewed the extant policy on FDI and decided as under: (i) FDI, up to 100%, under the automatic route, would continue to be permitted for greenfield investments in the pharmaceuticals sector. (ii) FDI, up to 100%, would be permitted for brownfield investments (i.e. investments in existing companies), in the pharmaceuticals sector, under the Government approval route.
DEPB on export of Cotton yarn including Melange yarn and Cotton which was withdrawn earlier has been restored by the above mentioned Public Notices. During that period as DEPB was not available on export of Cotton yarn including Melange yarn, the exporters have made their exports under Free Shipping Bills.
Message exchange between DGFT and Customs is operational only in respect of Advance Authorization (on and after 01.04.2009), Export Promotion Capital Goods (on and after 01.04.2009), Duty Free Import Authorization (on and after 13.10.2011) and DEPB (which is on EDI mode for almost 6 years). Only these authorizations are therefore available for ‘on-line’ verification.
Attention is invited to para 4.28 (ii) of HBP v.1 regarding regularization of bona fide default by the authorization holders. In case of any shortfall in value, authorization holder is required to deposit an amount equal to 1% shortfall in FOB value in Indian Rupee. Clarification has been sought on the exchange rate applicable for determination of shortfall in Export Obligation.
Interest earned on fixed deposits have an immediate nexus with the export business would be treated as income from business and interest earned on fixed deposits which does not have an immediate nexus with the export business, it would be treated as income from other sources. The court opined that when the interest was earned […]
Fashion Television India Pvt Ltd v/s fTV BVI (Delhi High Court) – The Court lays down important principle that an interim relief to enforce a negative covenant under a contract would be refused if the same would render a party to a contract idle unless it continues to perform the positive obligations under the contract. It was held that mere existence of a negative covenant is enough to persuade a court to grant an interim injunction to enforce it. Under Section 14 (1) (c) SRA a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced.
