Notification No. 88 (RE – 2010)/2009-2014, Export of 10,000 tons of non-basmati rice to Horn of Africa (Kenya, Somalia & Djibouti) from Central Pool Stock of FCI at economic cost has been permitted.
Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur and another (Supreme Court)- Government of Manipur has notified the exemption of certain organizations of the State Government from the purview of the said Act.This Court makes it clear that those notifications cannot apply retrospectively. Apart from that the same exemption does not cover allegations of corruption and human right violations.
It is known that proceedings under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 are always complicated. There will often be criticism that the jurisdiction of Company Law Board (CLB) under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 is being misused.
Lions Club of Calcutta Hastings Vs DIT (Exemption)- (ITAT Kolkata)- In the present case no show cause notice has been issued to the assessee. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this contention of the lad that the provisions contained in section 293C of the Act enables the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax to withdraw approval. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove are of the view that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in withdrawing approval once granted because the Legislature in all its wisdom has sought to omit this proviso to section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act and after omission of the said proviso, the approval once granted shall continue to be valid in perpetuity unless and until a show cause notice is issued by the concerned CIT showing his intention to withdraw already granted such approval.
Southern Metals & Alloys Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- The assessing authority had asked for details in respect of various creditors and in respect of the above stated trade creditors. The assessee had not furnished any particulars before the assessing authority. No confirmations were made by creditors also. On an examination of the records of the case, we find that even though the assessing authority had initiated the process of verifying the genuineness of the trade creditors, he has not brought that process to a logical end.
Notification No.124/2011 – Income Tax 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 2, “Comprehensive rehabilitation, medical & human resource development services for the blind and disabled” by Blind People’s Association, Jagdish Chowk, Surdas Marg, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad
R. K. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)- The matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act.
Notification No. 49/2011-ST., dated 30-12-2011 Section 65(105) (zzzp) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Transport of Goods by Rail Service – Exemption to transport of Goods by rail – Amendment in Notification No. 7/2010-ST, dated 27-2-2010 – Exemption extended till 1-4-2012
Udyog Bharati Vs ITO (Ahmedabad High Court)- In the first place it was not necessary for the appellant to file a cross-objection. As already noted, the assessee had raised an alternative contention of exemption under Section 11 of the Act before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in view of his opinion that the benefit of Section 10(23) of the Act is required to be granted, did not examine this alternative contention on merits. In that view of the matter, when the Revenue had carried the CIT(A)’s order before the Tribunal, it was open for the assessee to support the order on all grounds including those which may not have been accepted or examined by the CIT(A). For this purpose, cross-objection was not necessary. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal not entertaining such cross-objection on the ground of delay, to our mind, would not be fatal to the assessee’s contention. It is clarified that if the Revenue’s appeal before the Court is entertained further, it would be open for the assessee to support the orders in its favour on all grounds.
ACIT Vs. Kannappan Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai)-The Tribunal found that the expenditures were not incurred for setting up of any business or initiating an expansion programme. The expenditures were incurred as a measure of value addition and for competing in the market. There was no basic improvement in the fundamental character of product already manufactured and processed by the assessee. It was in the light of those findings, the Tribunal has held that the disputed expenditures were in fact revenue in nature.
