The development and progress of any society depend on the systems it follows. Divergence and disparities in the conduct of the individuals tend to distract the aim of the society. However, when a set of standards and procedures is put in place, people behave in an orderly manner which in turn promotes cohesion and cohabitation.
The High Court of Patna has reaffirmed the legal position that State Governments are not competent to levy VAT on MRP in the case of M/s. Mapra Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle, Patna.
While concluding my previous article on CSR – Interplay between Companies Act, 2013 and Income Tax Act, 1961, I have mentioned that the CSR policy should be formulated by the CSR Committee in such a manner as to require CSR expenditure to be incurred on such activities as laid down in Schedule VII that are also eligible for deduction under sections 30 to 36 of the IT Act
Notification No. 41/2015-Central Excise Central Government 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 the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 12/2012-Central Excise, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R.163(E), dated the 17th March, 2012, namely: –
With the introduction of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 and the advent of negative list-based comprehensive taxation of services in 2012, it becomes necessary that the guidelines for detailed scrutiny of returns needed a revision. In this background, the CBEC vide Circular 185/4/2015-Service Tax dated 30th June, 2015 has outlined the manner of detailed manual scrutiny of ST-3 returns to be effective from 01.08.2015.
Notification No. 46/2015-Customs Central Government 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 the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 12/2012-Customs, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R.185(E), dated the 17th March, 2012, namely:-
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) (CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS) Notification No. 93/2015-Customs (N.T.), Dated: September 17, 2015 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in super session of the notification of the Central Board of Excise & Customs […]
This has reference to Paragraph 1(i) of the SEBI Circular numbered CIR/ISD/01/2015 dated May 11, 2015 whereby the formats for disclosure under Regulation 7 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (“the Regulations”) were provided for.
In case of Prabhat Chandra S Jain Vs. ACIT Pune bench of ITAT have held that where it is not established that name PC Jain of Mumbai written in the said document was in fact the assessee before us and in the absence of any evidence having been found to establish that the assessee
G.S.R. 701(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), the Central Government hereby prescribes the mandatory threshold of the aggregate value of Foreign Exchange, Foreign Security or any immovable property, situated outside India as not less than rupees one crore.
