In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further
The prohibition will not apply to export of Peanut Butter, ITC (HS) Code 15179020. [This already stands notified at Sl. No. 10 of the Table in Para 1 of Notification No. 31(RE-2012)/2009-14 dated 4th February, 2013].
In partial modification of the Institute’s Notification No. 13-CA(Exam)/M/2013 dated 19th December, 2012, it is notified for general information that in view of the Election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly, Group – 1, Paper 2, Strategic Financial Management of Final Examination and Group – 1, Paper – 2, Business Laws, Ethics and Communications of Intermediate
Prohibition on export of pulses has been extended by one more year; from 31.03.2013 to 31.03.2014. But, there are two exceptions to this. One is export of Kabuli Chana. Second is export of Organic Pulses and lentils; but with a ceiling of 10,000 MTs per annum and subject to certain conditions mentioned above.
Thus, we are of the view that although the cheque might have been duly obtained from its lawful owner i.e. the respondent-accused, it was used for unlawful reason as it appears to have been submitted for encashment on a date when it was not meant to be presented as in that event the respondent would have had no reason to ask for a loan from the complainant if he had the capacity to discharge the loan amount on the date when the cheque had been issued. In any event, it leaves the complainant’s case in the realm of grave doubt on which the case of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.
Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Ranka & Ranka [2012] 206 Taxman 322 wherein the Division Bench has considered Instruction No.3 and the National Litigation, Policy, had held as under: (i) Instruction No.3/11 is also applicable to the pending appeals. (ii) As the tax effect in the instant case is less than Rs.10 lakhs, the appeal stands dismissed on the ground of monetary limit, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, making it clear that the Department is at liberty to proceed against the assessee in future, if there any amount due from the assessee, on similar issue and if it is above the monetary limit prescribed.
In our considered view, in the light of the relationship between the assessee and her father-in-law, the Tribunal has rightly held that the genuineness of the transaction is not disputed, in which, the amount has been paid by the father-in-law for purchase of property and the source had also been disclosed during the assessment proceedings. If there was a genuine and bonafide transaction and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty.
The original assessment was made on 30-11-2006 under section 143(3). The Finance Act, 2008 inserted clause (h) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB retrospectively from 1-4-2001. The effect of this clause was to increase the book profit by the amount of deferred tax and the provision therefor. It is not in dispute that one of the reasons to believe as recorded by the respondent is that in view of the retrospective amendment, the deferred tax liability, for which a provision had been made in the accounts, was to be added back to the book profit.
In the present case, it was repeatedly emphasized that the assessee’s dividend income was confined to what it received from investment made in a sister concern, and that only one dividend warrant was received. These facts, in the opinion of this court, were material, and had been given weightage by the Tribunal in its impugned order. There is no dispute that the investment to the sister concern, was not questioned; even the Commissioner has not sought to undermine this aspect.
