NC Notification No. 89/2011 – Income Tax [F.NO.V-27015/3/2011-SO(NAT.COM]/S.O.1868(E), DATED 11-8-2011- Whereas by Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number S.O. 4396(E), dated 12th November, 2008, issued under clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government had notified at serial number 2, “Farmers Rehabilitation Project (providing education to 1,00,000 farmers children and assistance to 5000 self help groups of women and counselling and medical help)” by Mata Amritanandamayi Math, Amritapuri PO, Kollam District, Kerala- 6900525, as an eligible project or scheme for a period of three years beginning with financial year 2008-09;
NC Notification No. 88/2011 – Income Tax [F.NO.V-27015/3/2011-SO(NAT.COM]/S.O.1867(E), DATED 11-8-2011 -Whereas by Notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number S.O. 1111(E), dated the 8th August, 2005, issued under sub-section (1) read with clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government had notified at serial number 4, “Comprehensive Rehabilitation of leprosy patients and leprosy affected families” by The Leprosy Mission Trust India, CNI Bhavan, 16 Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi – 110001, as an eligible project or scheme for a period of three years beginning with financial year 2005-2006 and which extended further vide Notification number S.O.2393(E), dated 3rd October, 2008 for a further period of three years beginning with the financial year 2008-09;
In our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT in the order impugned have considered the material on record and if there is some evidence on the basis of which the primary and appellate authorities have based their conclusions, then the fact that better evidence ought to have been marshalled by the assessee and absence of the substantive evidence of invoices, was not considered, would not constitute a substantial question of law warranting consideration by this Court under Section 35G of the Act, in an appeal.
CIT Vs M/s SRF Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- Whether while computing the dis-allowance u/s 37(3), each trip of the employee will be considered separately and no set off will be allowed for the amount of deficit in the next trip by the same employee in the same year – Whether while computing book profits u/s 115J, the difference in the amount of depreciation on the revalued amount or the original cost is to be added back and the amount of revaluation reserve should be either credited in the profit and loss account or should be excluded from the depreciation claimed.- Revenue’s appeal allowed.
M/s M Narayanan & Bros Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)- In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P.R. Metrani Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Sumer Ville Investments (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the notional interest on interest-free deposit from tenants is to be considered while determining the correct ALV u/s 23(1)(a)
Sanjay S. Shah Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The fact that the assessee got credit of TDS u/s 154 proceedings in fact goes against the assessee. When the assessee received TDS in respect of some FDRs, and not in respect of other FDRs as claimed by him, he should have obtained the duplicate certificates and should have filed them with the return of income showing total interest received by him. Instead, he chose not to show the interest income to the extent of Rs.2,11,172/-.
Expressing concern over rising cheque bouncing cases, a Delhi court has sentenced a businessman to six months in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 3 lakh on him, saying no leniency is called for in such cases. Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja jailed Delhi-based cloth merchant Ravinder Kumar, rejecting his plea for release on probation after payment of fine, saying that cheque bouncing cases consume a lot of time of the court.
The Minister of State in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs Shri R.P.N. Singh today informed the Rajya Sabha that the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises have issued comprehensive guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) in April 2010. In these guidelines, CPSEs have to create mandatorily through a Board Resolution, a CSR budget as a specified percentage of net profit of the previous year, Expenditure range for CSR in a Financial year 3-5% of the net profit of previous year in case of CPSEs having profit less than Rs.100 crores; 2-3% (subject to minimum of Rs. 3 crores) in case the profit ranges from 100 crores to Rs.500 crores and 0.5-2% in case of CPSEs having a net profit of more than Rs.500 crores in the previous year. CSR guidelines for CPSEs further provide that loss making companies are not required to earmark specific funding for CSR activities. So far comparable directions have not been issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
The Reserve Bank of India today released the August issue of its Monthly RBI Bulletin. The August Bulletin carries four special articles: Developments in India’s Balance of Payments during Fourth Quarter (January-March) of 2010-11 India’s External Debt as at end-March 2011 Inflation Expectations Survey of Households: June 2011 (Round 24) Quarterly Industrial Outlook Survey: April-June 2011 (Round 54).
