Pushpsons International Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The agreement to serve has not been placed on record and its terms have not been paraphrased in any submission. Further, it has not been shown that the understanding, if any, came to an end only when he became a partner and not when he left India. Factually, no service has been rendered to the assessee in the period of absence for education. Therefore, it is held that the disallowance of Rs. 36,000/- was rightly made.
CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel- The assessee running coaching classes followed mercantile system of accounting. Total fees for the entire course, which may be of two years duration was taken in advance at the time of admission of the students. For the A.Y. 1997-1998, the assessee claimed that the fees received in the relevant year were to be carried forward to the next assessment year as they related to the next financial year. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.
Ramalingam Charities Vs CIT, Salem (Madras High Court) – Tribunal considered the claim of the revenue as well as the assessee and pointed out that having regard to the fact that the Trust deed was not existing solely for the educational purposes and that the trust had engaged itself in other activities by running orphanages, Kalyana mandapam, money lending business, etc., it cannot be held that the Trust was one solely carrying on the activities of educational institutions. The Tribunal further pointed out that having regard to the fact that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 11(5) of the Act and had diverted the funds to its sister concern, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. Honourable HC also held that since the assessee has not satisfied the requirement under Section 11(5) to claim benefit under Section 12 of the Act so not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 and 12 for amount received as corpus fund.
CIT, Meerut v The District Excise Office (Allahabad High Court) – The argument of the learned senior standing counsel that Section 206C does not find place in any of its clauses of sub section (1) and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable ignores the clause referred to above in Sections 246 and/or 246A of the Act. The clause referred to above does not relate to any particular section of the Act. It will be attracted subject to fullfilment of its ingredients. It is in the nature of a residuary clause and gives a right to an assessee to challenge an order by way of appeal if he is so aggrieved subject to the condition that he denies his liability to be assessed under the Act.
Shayama Sanjay Shah v CIT (Gujrat High Court) – Though it is true that powers under section 273A of the Act are discretionary powers, it is equally true that powers conferred under a statute are required to be exercised in consonance with the provisions of the said statute. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the Commissioner instead of recording satisfaction or otherwise in respect of the grounds prescribed under section 273A of the Act, has rejected the petition on irrelevant grounds, firstly, on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for failure in filing the return of income belatedly, and secondly, on the ground that the petitioner had already paid the tax payable in consequence of the order of penalty, which ground in view of the provisions of section 273A of the Act should have, in fact, weighed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the Commissioner has not exercised discretion as required under section 273A of the Act and as such the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind to the relevant factors and as such cannot be sustained.
Government of India has, vide their letter F.No.7/4/2008-NS.II dated June 1, 2011(copy enclosed), decided that interest at PPF rates would be paid on those PPF (HUF) accounts, which had attained the maturity after May 13, 2005 but closed by the subscribers before December 07, 2010, subject to the conditions that the accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts without further subscriptions.
CIRCULAR NO. MIRSD/8/2011 Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, commencing from half year ended September 30, 2011, all CRAs shall report the following change(s) to SEBI while submitting the Action Taken Report in accordance with SEBI Circular No. SEBI/MIRSD/CRA/Cir-1/2010, dated January 6, 2010. a. Amalgamation, demerger, consolidation or any other kind of corporate restructuring falling within the scope of section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the corresponding provision of any other law for the time being in force; b. Change in Director, including managing director/whole-time director; c. Change in shareholding not resulting in change in control.
Through Notification No.57 of 09.06.2011, the cap on export of cotton in the current cotton year has been increased to 65 lakh bales from 55 lakh bales. For allocation of this additional quantity of 10 lakh bales, the above procedure has been prescribed.
In pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 2.4 of FTP, the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) hereby notifies the compilation known as HBP v.1, HBP v.2 and Schedule of DEPB rates. These compilations, as amended from time to time, shall remain in force until 31st March, 2014, except DEPB Scheme which shall continue to be operative till 30th September, 2011.
Union Finance Minister, Shri Pranab Mukherjee has stressed on the need to sustain and pursue the efforts currently underway to reform the international and national policy regimes for better managing the forces of globalisation, in serving the collective well-being of people. He was speaking after inaugurating the National Banking Conclave organised by ASSOCHAM on the theme ‘Challenges and opportunities in a Trillion Dollar Economy’, here today.
