The entire transactions of purchase/sale of securities/shares through derivatives and later on dealing with those shares/securities will determine whether an investment is made or stock-in-trade is procured.
It may be recalled that the Bank had issued the captioned Directions on July 23, 2012. In continuation, notifications amending the Non-Banking Financial (Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2007,
We have referred to the aforesaid note in detail for two reasons. Firstly, the note reveals that the Assessing Officer felt that the case required detailed scrutiny or monitoring, verification of entries, which were substantial in number. Detailed scrutiny of large number of entries by itself, on standalone basis, will not amount to complexity of accounts.
Notification No. 81/2012-CUSTOMS (N. T.), Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 748 (E), dated the 3rd August, 2001, namely:-
Excise Duty on Petrol Reduced and Diesel Hiked- Effective rate of excise duty on Petrol has been reduced from Rs. 6.35 to Rs.1.20 and on Diesel, hiked from ‘nil’ to Rs. 1.46.
Confirmation of demand under a category different than one proposed in the Show Cause Notice cannot be upheld. The Tribunal had, for the above proposition, relied up the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 383 (Bang. – CESTAT).
Even if a company which has good and solid financial foundation and also has capacity to pay, cannot avoid its obligation to pay and be allowed to neglect its financial obligations and when a company which is really financially sound and healthy does not make and neglects to make payment of the amount due and payable by it then the Court cannot fail in its duty to take note of such intentional neglect and Court cannot entertain and allow such stand or defence and, consequently, the court cannot deny the petitioner-creditor an order of winding up against the company which neglects, rather wilfully neglects, to discharge its financial obligation/debt.
It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant received the Order-in-Original on 30th December, 2009 and filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.1.2012. So also admittedly, there was a delay of more than two years in seeking appeal remedy before the learned first appellate authority.
MCA is pleased to announce that a refund process will be introduced by 16th September, 2012 for the unlinked incorrect NEFT payments. Revised refund e-Form along with instruction kit will be available on the MCA21 portal. Users are requested to avail this facility.
Ld. DR submitted that the case should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for compliance of Rule 46A(3) of the Rules and the AR contended that if we reach to the conclusion that the matter needs to be considered by the authorities
