The Assessing Officer had considered that a common shareholder ‘P’ has substantial shareholding of more than 10 per cent. While analyzing substantial interest, the Assessing Officer has only considered Explanation 3 with reference to a person having beneficial interest entitled to not less than 20 per cent of income of such concern so as to attract provisions of section 2(22)(e). However, the Assessing Officer has not examined definition given in section 2(32) with reference to company which has a substantial interest in company, wherein it was specifically mentioned of carrying not less than 20 per cent of voting power. Admittedly, ‘P’ has less than 20 per cent shareholding in both companies, i.e., assessee as well as ‘A’. Therefore, reasoning given by Assessing Officer of a common shareholding by ‘P’ does not hold good. Further, it is an admitted fact that assessee is not owning any share in ‘A’ and provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not apply unless assessee is a shareholder in the company. For both the reasons, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be upheld.
It has been specifically pleaded by the appellant that during the investigation period, i.e. in the year 2002, there was no software available for carrying out long or real time surveillance and it was not possible to carry out surveillance of thousands of transactions of all clients on a daily basis. It has also been pleaded by the appellant that the impugned trades in the scrip of the company were done on behalf of its clients and the intra day trading was the normal/usual pattern of the trading adopted by the said client. The appellant had not entered into any proprietory trades in the scrip.
The appellant has placed on record the authorization letter dated 15.3.2005 addressed by PBPL to Assistant /Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Varanasi authorising the appellant to manufacture biscuit on their behalf. Further perusal of the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between PBPL and the appellant would show that as per the job work contract the appellant were required to process and manufacture biscuit, carry out inspection, packing and delivery to various depot of PBPL located all over the country as directed by PBPL.
Provisions of the section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 will apply in full force in this case, as there is payment of entire amount of service tax liability and interest thereof before the issuance of show cause notice (SCN). In my view, it is a fit case wherein the proceedings initiated against the assessee for the imposition of penalties, under various sections needs to be set aside and I do so.
The ld. A.R. submits that penalties have been imposed because they did not pay in time the tax due. We find that there is no case for imposing penalty for an amount more than net tax liability. So the penalty under Section 78 is reduced to Rs. 18,889/-. Further, penalty under Section 76 is waived and also the appellant is given an opportunity to pay 25% of the penalty under Section 78 in 30 days of receipt of the order. If such payment is not made in such timeframe full penalty will be payable.
Corpus fund is the property of the Trust. The donors contributed the donations therefore could not form part of the income & expenditure account as prescribed by law. The development fees received later on was from students was to be identified by the assessee over and above the corpus funds when the students were made aware that they are contributing the amount apart from development fees, tuition fees, bus fees and other annual charges.
Circular NO. IMD/FII&C/18/2012, dated 20-7-2012 1. Vide SEBI circulars IMD/DF/14/2011 and IMD/FII&C/3/2012 dated August 09, 2011 and January 13, 2012, respectively, QFIs were allowed to invest in schemes of Indian mutual funds and Indian equity shares subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. Subsequently, vide SEBI circular IMD/FII&C/13/2012 dated June 07, 2012 the QFI framework has been revised.
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has introduced an online application that enables the user to compare coverages, exclusions etc. under non life insurance products currently being sold by different insurers in the market. The application currently lets users to browse through the different features of the products so as to enable them to decide that which products suits to them in the present scenario and in the future as their needs change over a period of time. In other words, this application has been developed with the objective of providing a mechanism for consumers/prospects to make informed decisions by comparing features of insurance products A user can access the information as follows. Please go to:
The RBI may do away with the regulatory forbearance regarding asset classification, provisioning and capital adequacy on restructuring of loan and advances in line with the international prudential measures. However, in view of the current domestic macroeconomic situation as also global situation, this measure could be considered say, after a period of two years. (Para 6.9)
The priority sectors are broadly taken as those sectors of the economy which, if not designated as priority sectors, may not get timely and adequate credit. Typically these are small value loans to farmers for agriculture and allied activities, micro and small enterprises, poor people for housing, students for education and other low income groups and weaker sections.
