In so far as the specific instances of the abuse of agreement in question are concerned, it is obvious that there has been a settlement between the original complainant and the respondents. Because the complainant does not have any more complaint/grievance of any boycott or the compulsory undertakings which he is to give under the authority of either FMC or FDC so that question will clearly be foreign to the present enquiry.
Bare perusal of provision shows that the sine qua non for resorting to s. 260A is the satisfaction of the Court that the appeal involves more/additional substantial question of law other than the one on which appeal was admitted for hearing. The scheme of the Act is quite clear. Decisions on factual issues are within the domain of authorities and should be sorted out before the matter reaches the High Court in appeal.
The Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer Com (P.) Ltd. (supra) had held that if the related party transaction exceeded 15% of the total sales/revenue, the same cannot be taken as a comparable. Following the Coordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in the case cited supra, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude, after due verification, those comparables from the list with the related party transactions or controlled transactions in excess of 15% of the total revenue for the financial year 2006-07.
The ground raised by the Revenue relates to exclusion of foreign currency expenses not related to onsite software development from the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A and 80HHE of the Act. The case of the assessee is that foreign expenditure which has been incurred on on-site software development activity should not be excluded from the export turnover.
Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act authorizes the A.O. or the CIT (A) to levy penalty in case of concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation 1 to A sec.271(1)(c) of the Act specifies as to when the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation so offered is found to be false or the explanation is not proved and when the explanation is not bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment of income.
Looking to the legislative intent it is not possible to say that the risk covered by insurance service received shall not enjoy Cenvat credit of service tax paid on such service. No doubt, the insurance service may be indirectly connected to the manufacturing or other activity but that may be in relation to manufacture or various other business activities enumerated in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The short issue for consideration is whether the appellants could have paid tax on an exempted services and claimed refund under Notification No. 17/2009 which allows refund of tax paid on services used in or in relation to the export of goods. The learned appellate authority has held that when a service is exempted, the appellant cannot pay the taxes and thereafter claim refund of the same on the ground that it is in connection with export purposes.
Please refer to SEBI circular Nos. SEBI/DNPD/Cir- 32/2007 dated September 11, 2007 and CIR/MRD/DP/15/2010 dated April 28, 2010 permitting FIIs to offer, as collateral, cash and foreign sovereign securities with AAA rating in F&O segment and cash, foreign sovereign securities with AAA rating and government securities in cash segment.
Further it is clarified that fee payable for forms on/till 16-01-2013 will remain payable along with additional fee and relaxation of any additional fee will be considered for forms on or after 17-01-2013
In partial modification of the Institute’s Notification No.13-CA (EXAM)/CPT/ June/2013 dated 2nd January, 2013, it is notified for general information that the last date of receipt of duly filled Common Proficiency Test application forms, through online or otherwise, shall be 25th April, 2013, instead of 24th April 2013 (a gazetted holiday) as announced earlier.
