Join our free webinar on July 4th at 4:00 PM to gain insights into the dematerialization of securities and recent amendments. Register now for key updates.
Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.
Notification No.36 /2012-ADD, New Delhi, dated the 16th July, 2012 Whereas in the matter of imports of ‘Grinding Media Balls’ (excluding Forged Grinding Media Balls, hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), classified under Chapter 73 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in, or exported from, Thailand and People’s Republic of (China PR) (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries) and imported into India, the designated authority in its final findings vide notification No. 14/34/2010-DGAD, dated the 22nd May, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated 22nd May, 2012, had come to the conclusion that –
It is not necessary that all the services provided by the GoI should be tax exempt. The point is that one should be extra cautious while reading statutory provisions and more particularly the ST. An attempt has been made in this analysis to show how various prepositions viz. ‘to’, ‘by’ etc. plays an important role with respect to ST payable for services provided ‘by’ and ‘to’ the GoI.
There was no fresh tangible material before the Assessing Officer to reach a reasonable belief that the income liable to tax has escaped assessment. The order passed originally on 29th March 2005 under Section 143(3) of the said Act was passed after the respondent had made adhoc claim for expenditure at 30% of the professional receipts in the revised return of income which was later withdrawn. In fact the reasons for reopening the assessment for the year 2002-03 itself records that the the claim of 30% adhoc expenses was withdrawn when the respondent assessee was asked to substantiate the claim.
Claim for deduction under Section 80IB cannot be denied in this year based on the findings given by the Assessing Officer or by the virtue of surrender of claim before the Assessing Officer. It is a duty casts upon the Assessing Officer or to the appellate court to see that if a deduction or a claim for exemption is statutory allowable, then the same has to be allowed, if the assessee fulfils the prescribed conditions required under the statute.
In the instant case, the property in question is residential house, which has not been let out or used for the purpose other than residential. Therefore, even though the assessee did not stay in the house so long, this house is exclusively for residential purpose. Therefore, the conditions as enumerated in the third proviso to rule 3 are satisfied.
It is an undisputed position that duty and penalty are arrears of the company. It was the company that was the person engaged in manufacture of goods and registered as manufacturer under section 6 of the said Act and therefore obliged to pay excise duty. Further under the Act and the Rules, the person liable to pay duty is the person who manufactures the goods in terms of rule 7 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as now existing. Therefore the obligation to pay duty is on the company.
1. SEBI has received representation from various portfolio managers seeking clarification regarding investment in short term liquid Mutual Funds by portfolio managers. 2. It is hereby clarified that pending investment of funds, any short term deployment of funds in liquid Mutual Funds for the purpose of cash management shall be maintained on the lines as specified by the SEBI circular no. IMD/DoF-I/PMS/Cir-4/2009 dated June 23, 2009.
In this case, the right to receive the brokerage and commission always remained outside India and what was received by the assessee in his Indian bank account is a subsequent remittance of funds from foreign accounts to Indian accounts. As far as the assessee is concerned, the right to receive the income did not arise in India.
1. That part of the enhancement of lease rent, which is attributable to Mehta Charitable Trust surrendering its right to purchase khair wood in favour of the assessee company constitutes revenue expenditure. 2. That part of the enhancement of lease rent, which is attributable to improvement and modernization of plant and machinery carried out by the Trust in the year 1989-90, constitutes revenue expenditure. 3. The enhancement in lease rent, if any, which is attributable to normal appreciation, if any, in line with the lease rentals prevailing in the market constitutes revenue expenditure.
Yet another issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the capital gain tax, in this case, would be leviable at the normal rate of 20% or at the rate of 10%. Admittedly, capital gain tax at the rate of 10% was payable only in case of ‘listed securities’. Since, these shares had been transferred to the applicants in the public offer, by 5.1.2006 before they were actually listed on the stock exchanges on 6.1.2006, they were not ‘listed securities’ at the time of sale by the appellant and consequently, the transaction would not be eligible for payment of capital gain tax at the lower rate of 10%.
