However, the above procedure at 2. I and II, regarding testing of Textiles and Textile Articles for presence of Azo Dyes, will not be applicable for imports originating from the countries as listed in Appendix-2X, where the use of Azo Dyes in Textiles and Textile Articles is banned.
Whereas, the designated authority, vide notification No. 15/29/2013-DGAD, dated the 31st December, 2013, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1 dated the 31st December, 2013, had initiated a review in the matter of
Notification No. 85/2015-Customs (N.T.) (ix) Kathuwas and Mandhan Village, District Alwar- Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods
The Appendix–2X is being introduced in the Appendix and Ayat Niryat Forms of FTP 2015 -20 listing the countries where from import of Textiles and Textile Articles is exempted from testing of samples for presence of Azo Dyes.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Seagull Threads (India) Ltd., it has been held by Goa High Court that it is not permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum.
In the case CCE V/s Nazareth Alloys (High Court of Bombay at Goa), it has been held that by following the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Dharmendra Textile Processors’ in case provisions of law provides for mandatory penalty, then revenue need not establish mens rea.
MCA introduces new form for filing of consolidated financial statements vide notification no. G.S.R. 680(E). [F.NO.1/19/2013-CL-V-PART] Dated- 04th September 2015 View / Download Notification
Circular No. 15 of 2015 – Vide circular No. 13 of 2015 dated 6th July, 2015 CBDT provided clarifications to 32 queries related to Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets. Subsequently, further queries have been received from the public about the tax compliance provisions under Chapter VI of the Act. The Board has considered the same and the following clarifications are issued.-
Sanjeev Mittal Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) The assessee was a medical practitioner with professional income and income from capital gains as returned income. The A.O. contended the income from capital gains to be the income from business or profession as he noticed that the professional receipts
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Shri Isharbhai Chotabhai Patel Vs. CIT that ld. Commissioner not justified in interfering in the discretion exercised by the AO without any plausible reason. The estimated opinion formed by the AO can only be interfered
