The Central Board of Direct Taxes has vide Notification No. 41/2015 dated 15.04.2015 in cases of categories of ‘persons’ specified therein, has introduced Electronic Verification Code (‘EVC’) as one of the modes for validation of return of income which are filed electronically on or after 01.04.2015.
All such manufactures are required to get registered themselves under the Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rule 2002. All such manufactures are directed to declare the stock of the inputs and finished goods separately, as on 17thJuly, 2015, (in duplicate) to the Jurisdictional Range Office on or before 24/07/2015.
The losses occurring to an assessee due to dacoity, theft or embezzlement, etc., may be claimed as deductible while making the income chargeable to income-tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession under section 28. The loss by theft is not covered by section 10(2) (xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922
Ministry of Railways decides to modify Tatkal ticket rules for the convenience of passengers Under the proposed modifications, some existing anomalies are being corrected for the benefit of the passengers Under the modification, it is proposed to remove the condition of providing photocopy of identity card or indicating its number at the time of purchase […]
The Government remains committed to roll out the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from April 1, 2016. Currently a Central GST Law and a model legislation for the States were being drafted to levy GST on intra-state supplies; on inter-state supplies and levy of GST on imports.
In the case of M/s ONS Creations Private Limited Vs. ITO, it was held by ITAT Delhi that if additional evidence can not be produced before AO for a reasonable cause by assessee, the CIT (A) must admit the additional evidences and assessee must be given an afresh opportunity of being heard.
In the case of Ms. Meena Rani Vs. ACIT, It was held by ITAT Delhi that If no satisfaction note has been recorded in the records of the searched persons but in the records of the assessee, assessment cannot be done U/s 153C
In the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that While classifying a product for excise purpose Primary use of the product will prevails over the incidental ones. It further held that merely because a particular embossed hologram is self adhesive, therefore in all cases, it will attract entry 39 related to self adhesive is not correct. While classifying what is to be seen is whether the self adhesive part of the product is of primary use or the printed matter is of primary use. It cannot be that invariably in all cases, the moment a hologram is self adhesive it will fall within entry 39.
The Supreme Court in the case CIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC), has held, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that furnishing of bank guarantee cannot be equated with actual payment.
In the case of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by SC that a process that is only adding some value to the inputs does not necessarily amounts to manufacture. After processing of the inputs, a new and different article emerges having a distinct name, character or
