In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following regulations, further to amend the
On going through the records, we find that the issues that were raised were not discussed and dealt with by the High Court except for saying that the case is not a fit case to be interfered with. According to us, this is not a proper disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order and remit back the matter for fresh disposal de novo in accordance with law.
The TPO has to work out the ALP of the international transaction by applying the methods recognized under the Act. He is not competent to hold that the expenditure in question has not been incurred by the assessee or that the assessee has not derived any benefits for the payment made by the assessee and consequently, he cannot consider the ALP as NIL.
U/s 9(1)(vi)(c) royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident is deemed to arise in India where the royalty is payable in respect of any right etc utilised for the purposes of a business carried on by such person in India or for the purposes of earning any income from any source in India. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is a deeming provision and the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the payer has a business/ source of income in India. What is important for Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is not whether the right to property is used “in” or “for the purpose of” a business, but to determine whether such business is “carried on by such person in India”;
During the assessment year 2006-07 in question in the provisions laid down u/s 32(i)(iia) there was specific condition alongwith installation of new plant or machinery after 31st March, 2005 that the new plant or machinery must also be acquired after 31st March, 2005.
After the search and the statement recorded under section 132(4), the assessee, on being issued with notice under section 153A did not file any return. The notice under section 153A was issued on 20-7-2006. It was only when assessment proceedings were taken up for consideration, did the assessee, by letter dated 14-8-2007, request that its return, filed on 31-10-2005,
Even if it is assumed that the assessee continued to remain the owner of the property throughout the year, the other condition of section 32, that the property should have been used for the purpose of the assessee’s business has not been satisfied. There is no proof that the director resided in the property and it was only a claim made by the assessee in the course of the arguments.
In the present case, the impugned reasons behind the notice dated 28.03.2012, which we have extracted above, does not even carry a whisper that there has been a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Even the order rejecting the objections does not indicate as to what material fact has not been disclosed by the assessee.
World’s lowest paid workers: Indian cleaners get just £64 after 40 YEARS of scrubbing toilets without a day off (and they’ve never had a pay rise!) For more than 40 years they’ve toiled away, meticulously scrubbing and cleaning toilets in southern India However, astonishingly, two dedicated cleaners in India have only £64 EACH to show […]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4053-4061 of 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) Nos 19124-19132 of 2010] in the case of Sunil Kohli and others vs. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.04.2012 has held that those who had passed the examination under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 not have to again appear for examination under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004 (CHALR 2004).
