It gives me great pleasure to deliver the inaugural address at the International Conference on “Economic Policies for Emerging Economies” organized jointly by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy. The initiative by Prof Kausik Basu last year of bringing together economists, policy makers, industry captains and other stakeholders to deliberate on topical economic issues has now grown into a week-long “Delhi Economics Conclave”. I understand that this is the plenary day of the Conclave, which is a collaborative effort with seminars being hosted by the Delhi School of Economics, Confederation of Indian Industry and Indian Statistical Institute.
n exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14, the following amendments are made in the Handbook of Procedure, Vol. II (as stated in paragraph 1.1 of Vol.I).
In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 110/2010-Customs, dated the 19th October, 2010 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 846 (E), dated the 19th October, 2010,- for the words and letters ‘Woongjin Chemicals co Ltd’ wherever it occurs, read ‘Woongjin Chemical Co Ltd. ‘
Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) -Assessing Officer was of the opinion that no part of the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. In fact, after the audit party brought the relevant aspects to the notice of the AO, she held correspondence with the assessee. Taking into account the assessee’s explanation regarding non-requirement of TDS collection and ultimately accepted the explanation concluding that in view of the Board’s circular, tax was not required to be deducted at source. No income had therefore escaped assessment. Despite such opinion of the Assessing Officer, when ultimately the impugned notice came to be issued the only conclusion we can reach is that the Assessing Officer had acted at the behest of and on the insistence of the audit party.
NOTIFICATION No. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/30/37715, dated 14-12-2011 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board hereby makes the following Regulations to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Debenture Trustees) Regulations, 1993, namely:- 1. These Regulations may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Debenture Trustees) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2011.
Essar Investments Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – On the identical facts the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 & 2000-2002 vide para 23 of the order dated 9.7.2008 has held that the assessee had advanced the loans to the group concerns for its business purpose, in such a case, interest on such advances cannot be disallowed. The similar view has been followed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 5083 & 5642/M/2007 for AYs 2000-2001 & 2003-2004 dated 11.12.2009.
Bypass Properties Private Ltd., Kolkata Vs. ITO (ITAT kolkata)- As per the alteration of security deposit clause dated 10.11.2006 which was placed at page 67 of the paper book it is observed that the lessee shall keep in deposit and advance which is the lessors a sum of Rs. 21 crores by interest free deposit . Then it was further stated in the said alteration that the amount of security deposit shall not refundable during the continuance of the lease period. Subsequently the lease period has been extended from 21 years to 62 years on 26.03.2007 which was placed at page 66 of the paper book.
Sujata Rajendra Nikalje Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – We find force in the alternate contention of the assesee. Admittedly, the assessee was in custody from 25th December, 2005 till 17th September, 2007 during which the assessment for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 were framed. Although the assessee was given opportunity during remand proceedings, we find merit in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that due to her depressed mental state of affairs for being behind bars for above 2 years, the assessee was not in a position to substantiate her case and, therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues for both the assessment years to the file of the A.O. for denovo assessment. The A.O. shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee for both the assessment years are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
D.C.I.T., Central Circle-XIX Vs. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- All the impugned entries were analysed by the assessee company in detail and the entry to entry correlation with the cash workings filed by the applicants before the Honourable Settlement Commission were submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities. The entries of disclosed nature were also correlated with the regular books of account of the concerned persons and copies of relevant extracts of the regular accounts were filed with the A.O. As such, the ownership of the undisclosed entries by the concerned applicants and due reflection of disclosed entries in regular books of account were categorically established.
ACIT Vs. M/s Reliance Land Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee proved that interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. (7% interest on Rs. 538 crores) amounting to Rs. 2,78,58,082/- has been received from Swan Consultants (P) Ltd. on account of loan advanced to them. Further, the loan was taken on 28.4.2006 and given also on 28.4.2006. Similarly, interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. amounting to Rs. 5,60,54,795/- on account of loan of Rs. 300 crores @ 11% interest taken on 29.1.2007 has been given to Swan Consultants P. Ltd. on the same day on which equal amount of interest has been received from them.
