Notification No. 70/2015 – Income Tax 126. Computation of period of stay in India in certain cases. – (1). For the purposes of clause (1) of section 6, in case of an individual, being a citizen of India and a member of the crew of a ship, the period or periods of stay in India shall, in respect of an eligible voyage, not include the period computed in accordance with sub-rule (2).
Notification No. 69/2015 – Income Tax Dated- 17th August, 2015Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 359, dated 30-3-1988 Principal Directors General), Principal Chief Commissioners, Directors General of Income-tax (Investigation), Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (Central), Director General of Income-tax (I and CI) and Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) shall be subordinate to the Central Board of Direct Taxes;
Notification No. 41/2015-Customs (ADD)Whereas, in the matter of ‘Diketopyrrolo Pyrrole Pigment Red 254 (DPP Red 254)’ (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under heading 3204 or 3206 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Act), originating in, or exported from the People’s Republic of China
No.F.7(400)/Policy/VAT/2011/PF/565-79 Dated: 17/8/2015 collection of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due under the Act or Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 from the dealers registered or liable to be registered under the Act, casual traders, contractees (TAN holders) and any other person in e-payment mode only,
CIRCULAR No. 14/2015 Sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Sec 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) prescribes that income of any university or other educational institutions, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, shall be exempt from tax if such entities are approved by the prescribed authorities.
In the case of Akansha Ranju Pilani vs. Income Tax officer, (ITAT Mumbai) has held that Only the expenditure/outgoings specified under the relevant head of income and, further, subject to the conditions specified in respect thereof, stand to be allowed in computing the income under that head of income.
In the case of The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd. it was held that invoking Section 11A is not mandatory for recovering the wrong refund granted.
In the case of M/s. Kailash Vahan Udyog Ltd. Vs. DCIT Pune Bench of ITAT have held that according to the provisions of section 115JB Explanation 1 Clause (iii) while computing book profit, the amount of loss brought forward (before depreciation) or unabsorbed depreciation
Karnataka High Court held In the case of M/s Kothari Metals vs. ITO that in this case it is clear that the assessee was not provided reasons for re-opening and also the statement recorded by the AO was not available to the assessee.
In the case of INTAS pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT have held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating material found in search conducted after finalization of regular assessments is not sustainable.
