Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchvati Motors (P) Ltd. in ITA No.292 of 2008, dated 3.05.2011 has held that in a case where no objection regarding valid service was taken before the completion of assessment, provisions of sec. 292BB will be applicable to all pending assessments as on 1.04.2008. Since the provisions of sec. 292BB(1) are applicable for Assessment Year in question as the proceedings were pending as on that date and the assessee had not raised any objection during the course of assessment proceedings and had participated in the assessment proceedings, the assessment cannot be annulled on the ground that valid notice u/s 143(2) was not served on the assessee. Accordingly in our considered opinion as held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Panchvati Motors (P) Ltd. (supra), assessment cannot be annulled.
With respect to assessment framed u/s 143(3) dated 30.11.2010, addition of Rs.1,32,52040/- was made, against which the assessee filed appeal and CIT(A) deleted such addition vide order dated 31.5.2011 against which the department filed appeal and Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) vide order dated 25.10.2011 in I.T.A No.3641/Del.2011 for assessment year 2008-09. Meanwhile, Assessing Officer passed another order u/s 154/143(3) on 3.2.2011 making the same addition, against which assessee filed appeal and CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition while following his earlier order dated 31.5.2011.
The order of Sh. K.S.Mohi basically implements the resolution of DDCA dated 1.3.2007 and on which aspect I have already commented above that there is absolutely no resolution whatsoever dated 1.3.2007 and if even there is such a resolution, the same will be an illegal resolution because the same amounts to an amendment of the Memorandum of Association or Rules without prior sanction/approval of the Central Government as required under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, the license granted to the DDCA and as duly incorporated in Clause 4(vii) of the Memorandum of Association.Therefore, the order dated 12.4.2007 cannot bind the appellants/plaintiffs either on principle of res judicata or because there is no resolution dated 1.3.2007 of DDCA on which the order was passed, or on the ground even if there is a resolution dated 1.3.2007, the said resolution would be an illegal resolution in the absence of any prior sanction or approval from the Central Government.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested an Assistant Commissioner, a Superintendent and an Inspector, all of Central Excise (Service Tax Department), Akurdi, Pune in a bribery case. A case was registered against the Superintendent and an Inspector, both of Central Excise (Service Tax), Akurdi, Pune on an alleged demand of bribery from the complainant for not levying service tax on his multi-purpose Hall.
The Amended Protocol between India and Switzerland amending the existing Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between the two countries came into force on 7th October, 2011. In 219 cases, undisclosed income of Rs. 565 crore has been detected and tax of Rs.181 crore realized so far.
Notification No. 182012-Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962 namely:- 1. (1) These rules may be called the Income-tax (6th Amendment) Rules, 2012.
CP No 18/07 stands disposed off in the above terms. All CAs stand disposed off. All interim orders stand vacated. No order as to cost. The B.O New Delhi, Bench to send a copy of this order to R-10 & R-11 at their new address at 207-Gaur Green Avenue, Abhay Khand-II, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P.
In the case of JB Greaves (supra), which is the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, it has been held that the subject – matter of appeal before the Tribunal would be the grounds raised by the appellant before it. Rule 11 provides that the appellant shall not except by the leave of Tribunal, be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal.
May kindly refer to the subject cited above. As you are aware that the establishments covered under the EPF and MP Act, 1952 are required to remit provident fund contribution on monthly basis in respect of all the eligible employees. However, till 31.03.2012 (Before introduction of ECR) the contributions were reflected in the member’s account only after receiving details of subscription in Annual Returns i.e. 3A and 6A. At times, these returns were not submitted by the employers of the closed establishments although the PF office was in receipt of contributions by way of monthly remittances or recovery of the amount in default. The compliance measures initiated against such establishments to procure the returns, many a times did not yield result due to non-traceability of either the employers or the records. This finally results in non-payment of PF accumulations to the members.
Gross open positions of the bank across all contracts (both futures and options contracts) not to exceed 15% of the total open interest or USD 100 million whichever is lower.
