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.
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.
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:
Notification No. 84 /2011 – Customs , Dated- 01st September, 2011 G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 21/2002-Customs, dated the 1st March, 2002, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 118(E) dated the 1st March, 2002, namely :-
CIT Vs Dinesh Megji Toprani (HUF) (Bombay High Court)- The assessee HUF had sold certain immovable properties and out of the sale proceeds received, purchased immovable properties and claimed benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the property was purchased in the name of the individuals namely Dr.Dinesh Megji Toprani and Mrs.Jyoti Dinesh Toprani and not in the name of the HUF and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ACIT Vs. Sumit P. Bhattacharya (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee was an employee of M/s Procter and Gamble India Ltd., which is a group company of Procter and Gamble of USA. The company had given appreciation rights to the assessee. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmender Textiles, 306 ITR 307, we find that CIT(A) as well as ITAT have not cancelled penalty on the ground of mens rea, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in this case is not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. Contrary to that, the case under consideration is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. Cited supra. In the light of above discussion, we hereby cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
CIT (DR)- XII, ITAT Vs. Simoni Gems (ITAT Mumbai) -In appeal assessee raised preliminary objection that the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued within the prescribed period of 12 months and AO accepted that the notice under 143(2) notice was not been issued in time. Accordingly, the Tribunal, relying on Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), dismissed the department’s appeal without going into the merits of the appeal.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether ITAT was justified in holding that dividend income earned by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 21,35,766/- from a Company called Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD. Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of Assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act?
Notification No. 47/2011 – Income Tax Section 90 of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Double Taxation Agreement – Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Singapore – Second Protocol amending said Agreement – NOTIFICATION NO. 47/2011 [F. NO. 500/139/2002-FTD-II], DATED 01-09-2011
At the outset. I would like to inform you categorically that for the present the scheme will not be applied to exporters. OSPCA will be implemented in a phased manner beginning only with importers who avail the Accredited Clients Programme (ACP). Other categories of importers would be covered in subsequent phases but even then, taking into account administrative costs of conducting OSPCA and the nature and size of the business It is not intended to cover all importers and the present Custom House Audit shall continue side-by-side with OSPCA I may add that OSPCA would require an effective Risk Management System (RMS) as an essential prerequisite, which is so far not even introduced on the export side.
