Notification No. 77/2014-Income Tax S.0…………………………… (E) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.1942(E), dated the 19th August, 2011 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii)
Accordingly, in compliance with the aforementioned interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telengana, effect of Notification No.93 (RE-2013) dated 29.09.2014, in respect of the EXIM Code 1005-Maize (Corn) (1005 90 00 – other), is kept in abeyance until 17.12.2014.
Circular No. 181/7/2014-Service Tax Dated- 10th December, 2014 Sub: Audit of the Service Tax assessees by the officers of Service Tax and Central Excise Commissionerates Section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 deals with rule making powers of the Central Government in relation to service tax. Sub-section (2) of section 94, dealing with specific purposes […]
CIRCULAR NO : 17/2014 Circular contains the rates of deduction of income-tax from the payment of income chargeable under the head ‘Salaries’ during the financial year 2014-15 and explains certain related provisions of the Act and Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the Rules). Circular helps employer to correctly deduct TDS on
In the instant case, the Department preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that deemed exports and exports are not different.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476, an advance was given to the said assessee by the sister concern, which held 50% of the share holding in the assessee concern for mordenisation project.
Shri Rauf Bombaywala (the Appellant) preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai against Order-in-Original No. 01/2014-15 dated May 7, 2014 vide which penalty of Rs.1.17 crore was imposed on the Appellant.
In the instant case, Zim Laboratories Ltd.(the Appellant) filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai against the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (the Impugned Order). Accordingly, the Appellant was required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the tax/ penalty
Jubilant Organosys Ltd. (the Appellant) adjusted excess payment of Service tax paid in some months against tax payable in following months and contended that adjustment was valid. However, the Appellant also filed refund claims of the excess payment of Service tax for dealing with the situation if adjustment is not allowed.
