The impugned circular issued by the Board came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court and it has struck down the circular holding that powers under section 119 would not empower the Board to issue clarification which would take away the exemption which has been granted by the statute. There was no reason to take a different view particularly when the decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and the SLP came to be dismissed
Notification No. 54/2012-Customs New Delhi, the 17th September, 2012 G.S.R. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in […]
CA Kamal Garg The Cabinet has vide PRESS RELEASE, DATED 14-9-2012, approved the proposal of the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion for amendment of the existing policy on Foreign Direct Investment in Single-Brand Product Retail Trading. Vide Press Note 1 (2012 Series) dated 10-1-2012, Government had permitted FDI, up to 100%, in single brand product […]
On the basis of an assessment of the current macroeconomic situation, it has been decided to: reduce the cash reserve ratio (CRR) of scheduled banks by 25 basis points from 4.75 per cent to 4.50 per cent of their net demand and time liabilities (NDTL) effective the fortnight beginning September 22, 2012. Consequently, around ` 170 billion of primary liquidity will be injected into the banking system; and
ombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. 178 Taxman 135 Bombay held that in such situations the presumption would be that interest free funds were used for the purpose of giving interest free advances.
Unlike Chapter XIV-B which provided for a special procedure for assessment of search cases, section 153A which provides for an assessment in case of search, and was introduced by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-6-2003, does not provide that a search assessment has to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to the evidence found.
As we are witnessing the major changes in the Service Tax Rules/Acts recently. Under Reverse Charge Mechanism the service recipient is liable to pay the service tax instead of service provider. However in certain cases both service provider and service recipient has been made liable to pay service tax. The service receiver has to register himself under service tax and service receiver cannot claim general exemption limit of 10 Lakh rupees.
Now coming to the issue in question about the head of taxability, the provisions of Section 28(va) have been narrated above. Except from raising general argument about colourable device, lower authorities have not disputed the arguments of the assessee about applicability of Section 28(va),
This Note relates to the significance of the recent judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs Industrial Fin. Corpn. of India [2012] 346 ITR 11 (Guj), which deals with the interpretation of the provisions of section 281 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), relating to Certain transfers to be void. As per aforesaid judgement, section 281 of the Act,
Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses by taking a stand that the financial year is over. Such action of the opposite parties as rightly apprehended by the petitioner would lead to unnecessary complication and unavoidable and inappropriate proceedings. Had the certificate been given in time as was done in the previous year there would not have been any necessity for making any deduction of tax by some of the principals from the payments made to the petitioner and the ultimate consequence, because of Departmental inaction, the Assessee-petitioner has to again go through the process of seeking refund in its assessment.
