No. LAD-NRO/GN/2012-13/24/2623. – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board has established its Local Office at Indore under the administrative control of its Western Regional Office at Ahmedabad.
In the instant case, the assessee has purchased the property jointly with her husband. She has invested the money in rural bonds jointly with her husband. It is nobody’s case that her husband contributed any portion of the consideration for acquisition of the property as well as bonds. The source for acquisition of the property and the bonds is the sale consideration. It is not in dispute. Once the sale consideration is utilized for the purpose mentioned under sections 54 and 54EC, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of those provision.
C form is a form for the concessional rate of CST on the inter-state sale of goods and is issued by purchasing dealer in one State to the selling dealer in another State for the inter-state sales transactions done during the period of three months i.e a quarter.
Article 7 of DTAA requires a non-resident US enterprise to have a permanent establishment in India for being taxed in India, otherwise it is not taxable in any view of the said treaty, even it received any remuneration in connection with any matter provided in Section 44BB of the Act. In the judgment referred to above,
Notification No.49 /2012-Customs (ADD), Whereas, the designated authority, vide its notification No. 15/28/2010-DGAD, dated the 2nd September, 2011 published in Part I, Section I of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated the 2nd September, 2011, had initiated a sunset review in the matter of continuation of anti-dumping on imports of Sodium Hydroxide commonly known as Caustic Soda,
A plain reading of Section 281B of the Act clearly spells out that the Assessing Officer is empowered to pass order for provisional attachment to protect the interests of the revenue in certain cases during the pendency of any proceeding for the assessment of any income or for the assessment or reassessment of any income which has escaped assessment.
Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption.
Corrupt public servant deserves no sympathy and ruling out any leniency towards public servant who has been found guilty by the trial court, also made it clear that each of the criminal case is required to be decided with reference to the individual facts of each case.
As per the Assessing Officer, the petitioner should be treated as an agent of Mr. Ivo Perica. For the salary income that Mr. Ivo Perica received for the work done in India having not paid tax, such tax could be recovered from the petitioner. For some strange reason, however, when the impugned notice was issued, the petitioner was described as an agent of M/s. A Monforts Textilmachinen Gmbh and Co. i.e. the foreign company.
In the present case, we find that the Assessment Order does not give effect to the amount seized in the calculation of tax payable at the end of the Assessment Year in question. Further, there is no Demand Notice and there is no basis for claiming interest on advance tax due on 15th September, 15th December and 15th March. On account of this vagueness, leaving the question of law open, the civil appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
