S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby imposes the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Cochin, to exercise the powers and discharge the duties as adjudicating authority over the powers and duties exercisable by – (i) the Additional/Joint Commissioner of C
The Conference of the Chief Commissioners and Directors General of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax will be held in New Delhi tomorrow. The Union Finance Minister, Shri P. Chidambaram will inaugurate the Conference and also interact with the tax officials in the open house discussions.
Assessee put forth his claim for exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act with respect to three different incomes, namely, (1) interest from SSNNL bonds, (2) interest from GIPCL bonds, and (3) capital gain from sale of shares by GPEC. Such claim was supported by the notes forming part of the return of income. It is not as if the Assessing Officer did not notice these claims.
Even if the assessee as well as the authorities below agree that the internal comparables are sufficient for the TP study in the present case, that does not justify the legal compulsion of examining the external comparables as well. An agreement, arrived at on the basis of incorrect premises between the contending parties, does not determine the legality or otherwise of the course of action opted by them. The course of action must be determined strictly on the basis of the words of the statute and not by the consensus of the contending parties.
S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby imposes the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, to exercise the powers and discharge the duties as adjudicating authority over the powers and duties exercisable by –
By looking at the aims and objectives of the assessee’s-society it was apparent that one of the objectives was construction of suitable memorials in the memory of war heroes but the other objects to be taken up the assessee-society by way of setting up educational institutions, arranging seminars, holding meetings/conferences and to organize lecture exhibition etc.,
No material whatsoever was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the payment of Rs. 1,20,00,000 was for the assessee not to engage in any business. Even so, the Assessing Officer opined that the compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000 was not a capital receipt liable to capital gains, but was a business receipt falling under “business income” and that rather, the “compensation” was for not carrying out any activity in relation to the business of the Company, which was taxable under section 28(va).
Notification No. 76/2012-Customs (N.T.) Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 40/2012-Customs (N.T.), dated the 2nd May, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 993 (E), dated the 2nd May, 2012, namely:-
In the present case, it is an admitted position where the appellant had not furnished the return within time allotted to him under sub sections (1) and (2) and therefore, his case clearly falls within the provision of section 139 (4). Section 139 (5) merely stipulates that it is applicable to any person who has furnished the return under sub sections (1) or (2). In the present case, therefore, if the appellant had filed the return in time, and thereafter had filed a rectified return, he could be permitted to do so under the said provision. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the Legislature in its wisdom had intended to give the benefits of filing a revised return only to those persons who fall within the four corners of section 139 sub sections (1) and (2) of the said Act. If the legislature had intended to also give the same benefits to an assessee who had not furnished the return within time, it would have said so in sub clause (5). The very fact that sub clause 4 is not referred to in sub clause (5) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature.
Admittedly, vehicles have been taken under a finance lease arrangement and not under operational lease, Article 2.2 of the agreement entered into by assessee with LPIN provides for arrangement for the registration & insurance of the vehicles and inter alia, stipulates that vehicles shall be insured and registered in the name of the client, i.e., the assessee as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
