Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
We have thoroughly gone through the findings of the ld. first appellate authority on the issue in dispute and we are of the view that the findings of the ld. first appellate authority are not based on any material or evidence and the Molasses would not form part of the definition as provided in Explanation (b) to section 206C of the Act. Thus, the Explanation has wrongly been applied in the case of the assessee because the assessee is engaged in the extraction of sugar from sugar-cane and the sugar Molasses is produced as by-product. It is obtained when sugarcane juice is boiled to obtain sugar. Molasses is by-product arise during the processing of sugarcane. It is not wastage and scrap as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs.
NOTIFICATION NO. 52/2013-CUSTOMS (N.T.) Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto into Indian currency or vice versa shall, with effect from 3rd May, 2013 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, for the purpose of the said section, relating to imported and export goods.
In the recent past, it has been noticed by the Institute that some of the students submit their registration/examination application forms along with requisite fee with private agencies for onward transmission to the Institute and the forms so submitted either did not reach the Institute in time or they did not reach at all causing avoidable hardships to such students.
If a written complaint, alleging any definite charges of misbehaviour or incapacity to perform the functions of the office in respect of a Presiding Officer is received by the Central Government, it shall make a preliminary scrutiny of such complaint.
Notice of Amendments SHRI P.CHIDAMBARAM: 1. Page 2, line 31 for”194LC”, substitute “194I LC, 194LD”. 2. Page 6, after line 13, insert— 3A (New) – Substitution of reference of certain expression by other expression 3A. In the Income-tax Act, for the expression “the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973)”. wherever it occurs, the expression “the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999)” shall be substituted.
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including quashing of Ext.P2 circular. The main ground of challenge of the order is that the Securities and Exchange Board of India has no power to issue the notification. The circular is for the benefit of the investors. It ensures transparency or openness as distributors have been asked to disclose the commissions they are entitled to, under different competing schemes of various mutual funds so that the investor can make a considered choice. Conflict of interest is avoided or at least informed to the investor. Distributor is required to disclose commission, if any, payable to him by the mutual fund on the investment made by the investor. Thus the circular does not bar payment of commission by a mutual fund but mutual funds cannot charge upfront load.
The appellant has taken the stand, as already stated, that even though he was a whole time Director he was not conversant with the accounts and finance and was only dealing with the human resource management of the company, hence, he had no fraudulent intention to deceive the investors. We find it difficult to accept the contention. The appellant, admittedly, was a whole time Director of the company, as regards the preparation of the annual accounts, the balance-sheet and financial statement and laying of the same before the company at the Annual General Meeting and filing the same before the Registrar of the Companies as well as before SEBI, the Directors of the company have greater responsibility, especially when the company is a registered company. Directors of the companies, especially of the listed companies, have access to inside knowledge, such as, financial position of the company, dividend rates, annual accounts etc. Directors are expected to exercise the powers for the purposes for which they are conferred. Sometimes they may misuse their powers for their personal gain and makes false representations to the public for unlawful gain.
The Tribunal by its order dated 17 December 2010 restored the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the Tribunal by passing an order dated 27 December 2010 which states that it has been made under section 254. The Assessing Officer re-computed the loss at Rs.16.82 crores. In this view of the matter, once the Assessing Officer had given effect to the order of the Tribunal, his successor in office had no jurisdiction to pass a fresh order dated 27 December 2011.
Even otherwise, we are of the firm view that the insertion of words or assessable by amending Section 50C with effect from 01.10.2009 is neither a clarification nor an explanation to the already existing provision and it is only an inclusion of new class of transactions namely the transfers of properties without or before registration. Before introducing the said amendment, only the transfers of properties where the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority were subjected to Section 50C application. However after introduction of the words “or assessable” after the words “adopted or assessed”, such transfers where the value assessable by the stamp valuation authority are also brought into the ambit of Section 50C. Thus such introduction of new set of class of transfer would certainly have the prospective application only and not otherwise. Hence the assessee’s transfer admittedly made earlier to such amendment cannot be brought under Section 50C.
Directors of the Software Technology Parks of India have the authority of the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee and that all approvals granted by the STPI Directors are therefore deemed to be valid. The position is also clear from a letter dated 6.5.2009 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry wherein a distinction has been drawn between the provisions of section 10A and 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in which it has been clarified that a unit approved by the Director under the Software Technology Parks scheme will be allowed exemption only under Section 10A as a STPI unit and not under 10B as a 100% export oriented unit.
