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%.
Download Preface to CAAS , Download CAAS 101, Download CAAS 102
Land in question was declared surplus land under the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976 which was having depressing effect on the value of the asset, the valuation had to be made on the basis of assumption that the purchaser would be able to enjoy the property as the holder, but with restrictions and prohibitions contained in the ULC Act and in such case value of the property or land would be reduced.
It has now been decided to allow QFIs [hereinafter defined as per the revised definition in terms of para 2 (v) below] to purchase on repatriation basis debt securities subject to the following terms and conditions : (i) Eligible instruments and eligible transactions – QFIs shall be permitted to invest through SEBI registered Qualified Depository Participants (QDPs) (defined as per the extant SEBI regulations) in eligible corporate debt instruments, viz. listed Non-Convertible Debentures(NCDs), listed bonds of Indian companies, listed units of Mutual Fund debt Schemes and “to be listed” corporate bonds (hereinafter referred to as ‘eligible debt securities’) directly from the issuer or through a registered stock broker on a recognized stock exchange in India.
Kindly make a reference to para 2(v) of our circular IDMC. PDRS. No. PDS.1/03.64.00/2000-01 dated October 6, 2000 on the captioned subject wherein it has been stated that services of brokers should not be used for sale of securities allotted in primary issues on the same day. 2. The guidelines have since been reviewed and it has been decided that services of brokers can also be availed for carrying out such sale contracts.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1/162 Taxman 465, has considered the period of limitation for the purpose of section 263 in a case where a series of orders were passed by the assessing authority in the case of that assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the period of limitation commenced from the date of the original assessment order, in which the issues sought to be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, have been discussed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the subsequent orders passed by the lower authorities on different dates cannot be relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax for reckoning the period of limitation. It is, therefore, necessary to see that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the date of that order is to be considered in which the disputed issues have been considered by the lower authorities, at the latest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the period of limitation begins from the original assessment in respect of those items.
