DDIT(E)-II Vs. M/s. Rock Church Ministries (ITAT Hyderabad ) The purpose of section 13(1)(c) is to deprive a religious or charitable trust from exemption if it is found that its income is used or applied, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of the specified persons. Section 13(1)(c) carves out a general exception wherein the provisions of sections 11 and 12 will not operate on account of user or application of any income of the trust for any direct or indirect benefit of the any specified persons. It is an undisputed fact that the rent paid of Rs. 9,500 is not excessive even as per the old provisions of municipal. The assessee paid the rent as per the old municipal taxes. The present rental value would be much more than the rent paid by the assessee for the property having a building of 4000 sq. Ft. on a land admeasuring 15,000 sq. ft. that too in a prime locality in the city of Hyderabad. The market rent i.e., Rs. 80,000 per month as estimated by the Government Valuer is much more to the rent paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer could not establish that the rent paid by the assessee is excessive and the rental value estimated by the Government valuer is incorrect. The contention of the Revenue that there is variation in the name in the municipal records and I.T. records is also baseless as the name in the municipal records is in abbreviated form.
Prohibition on export of milk powders(including skimmed milk powder, whole milk powder, dairy whitener and infant milk foods), Casein and Casein products – Non-application of transitional arrangement under para 1.5 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14- Notification No 25 (RE-2010)/2009-2014.
Appellant engaged in providing service of manpower supply – appellant defaulted in payment of service tax amounting to Rs.22.30 lakhs even though the amount of service tax had been collected from the customers – amount of Rs.20.37 lakhs paid during investigation – demand confirmed along with penalty and interest – Commissioner(A) order to make a pre-deposit of Rs.7.5 lakhs is not unreasonable as it covers approximately 25% towards penalty and full amount of service tax without taking into account the interest liability – appellant directed to pay the pre-deposit within six weeks and report compliance to Commr(A) who will decide case on merits: CESTAT
Transitional arrangements under para 1.5 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14 shall not be applicable on export of milk powders(including skimmed milk powder, whole milk powder, dairy whitener and infant milk foods), Casein and Casein products under Notification No 23(RE – 2010)/2009-2014 dated 18th February, 2011.
Notification No.12/ 2011-Customs- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment, in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.39/96-Customs, dated the 23rd July, 1996, G.S.R. 291(E), dated the 23rd July, 1996, namely:-
Your kind attention is invited to the Circular No.27/2010-Customs, dated 13.08.2010 regarding procedure on refund of 4% CVD (SAD). The above Circular provides the facility of manual filing of Bill of Entry for utilizing the amount of re-credited 4% CVD (SAD) refunds for payment of duty in case of re-credited DEPB / Reward Scheme scrips upto 30.12.2010. However several representations have been received from trade and industry to extend the time upto 30th June, 2011 for using re-credited 4% CVD (SAD) amount in DEPB as they have not been able to utilize the re-credited DEPB / Reward Scheme scrips within the stipulated time.
Circular No. 10 /2011- Customs – Attention is invited to Board’s Circular No 41/2007-Customs dated 29-10-2007 on the above subject. In the said Circular, it was provided that the right holders may furnish a General Bond without security to the Commissioner of Customs prior to the grant of registration, undertaking to execute consignment specific Bonds with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs at the port of interdiction within three days from the date of interdiction of any allegedly infringing goods. This arrangement was prescribed considering the fact that at the time of registration but prior to importation, it may be difficult to ascertain and fix the Bond amount corresponding to the value of suspected infringing goods that are to be imported. Further, this would lock in right holders’ money in the form of security.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 76 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.208/1977-Customs, dated the 1st October, 1977, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), dated the 1st October, 1977, namely:-
Notification No. 11/2011 – Income Tax Income-tax : Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Deductions – Profits and gains from industrial infrastructure undertakings, etc. – Notified undertaking. NOTIFICATION NO. 11/2011 [F.NO. 178/55/2008 (ITA-I)], DATED 24-2-2011. WHEREAS the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes) vide number S.O. 51(E), dated the 8th January, 2008 and amended vide number S.O. 1605(E), dated 2nd July, 2008;
The assessee is, admittedly, neither a `primary agricultural credit society’ nor a `primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank’. As such, it is not covered by the exceptions to s. 80P(4), as provided by the said sub-section itself, denying deduction u/s. 80P to all cooperative banks. The Legislature in its wisdom restricted the exemption, which extends to the whole of the specified incomes, i.e., of cooperatives societies undertaking specified activities, w.e.f. 1/4/2007 to the said two primary units, where the assessee is a cooperative bank. The assessee in the instant case being an apex cooperative society lending money to such primary units functioning within the State of Kerala, he denied the assessee its claim for deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i).
