Join our webinar on Faceless Tax Assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn concepts, challenges, and solutions from expert CA Hari Agarwal, FCA.
Notice of dismissal was issued on 29-2-2012 to show cause as to the reason why appeal of the appellant should not be dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.
In absence of any particular format prescribed under the respective notifications, the department insisting for declaration on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is un-sustainable in law. In these circumstances the declarations filed by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed Cenvat credit on puts or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003 S.T., dated 20-6-2003 should have been accepted by the department in extending the benefit of Notification Nos. 32/2003- S.T. and 1/2006-S.T. In view of the above findings, we do not see any merit in the impugned orders passed by the ld. Commissioner. Consequently the order is set aside and the Appeals are allowed.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14, as amended from time to time, Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes following amendments in Public Notice No. 59(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 30.06.2011 read with Public Notice No. 10 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 11.07.2012.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraphs 2.1, 2.4 and 2.29 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14, the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby allocates a total quantity of 8,587 MTs(raw value) of raw cane sugar (at 98 degree Pol), out of non-levy(free sale) quota for export under tariff rate quota(TRQ) to USA for the US fiscal year 2013 (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013). This export will be through M/s. Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd, New Delhi.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Securities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board hereby makes the following regulations to further amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992.
The present consolidation subsumes and supersedes all Press Notes ‘Press Releases’ Clarifications’ Circulars issued by DIPP, which were in force as on April 4, 2013 and reflects the FDI Policy as on April 5 2013. This Circular accordingly will take effect from April 5, 2013. Reference to any statute or legislation made in this Circular shall include modifications, amendments or re-enactments thereof.
The interim order makes a mention about the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 5.1.2004 in Ajay Gandhi v. B. Singh [2004] 134 Taxman 537 providing for a Collegium comprising the President, ITAT and two Senior Most Vice Presidents. A reference has also been made to a D.O letter dated 2.11.2012 (Annexure-4)from former officiating President, ITAT Sri G.E. Veerabhadrappa.. presently Senior Most Vice-President, ITAT to Sri Karwa (R-2 and 3), who has taken over as officiating President, ITAT w.e.f. 1.9.2012.
Supreme Court in the case of P. R. Prabhakar v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 548 where the order of the Special Bench cited (supra) stands approved. It was clarified that the amendment made to clause (baa) of the Explanation below Section 80HHC which defines “profits of the business” in such a manner as to exclude receipts like interest, commission etc. which did not have an element of turnover, was introduced prospectively by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 w.e.f. the assessment year 1992-93 and the amendment did not operate retrospectively.
Board had issued directions that the appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds Rs.2 lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals U/s 260A or Reference U/s 256(2). The aforesaid circular is binding on all the authorities under the Board including the appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The Board had taken this decision in continuation to earlier directions issued by the Board on 28.10.1992 where the monitory limit was Rs. 50,000/-. Now in view of the changed circumstances, as directed by the Board by instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that the appeal or reference below Rs. 2 lakhs, could not have been filed. The instructions of the Board are binding to all the authorities working under the Board including the appellant. This appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully covered by the instructions issued by the Board on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have been filed . The aforesaid position has been clarified by two Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Chand Goyal and Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co. (supra).
Electro Galvanized sheets and Galvanized sheets/strips,”, read “Electro Galvanized sheets and Galvaneeled sheets/strips
