Scheme for Collection of Dues of (i) Central Board of Direct Taxes (ii) Central Board of Excise and Customs (iii) Departmentalised Ministries Account – Reporting and Accounting of March Transactions – Special Arrangements – Financial Year 2012-13
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 and Section 14 A of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 {FT(D&R) Act,1992} as amended in 2010, the Central Government hereby makes amendments to the list of specified goods, services and technologies, i.e. Special Chemicals, Organisms, Materials, Equipment and Technologies (SCOMET) that was notified vide Notification No.38 (RE-2010) /2009-2014 dated 31st March, 2011.
‘In the United States, these ‘fact-cases’ are likened to railroad-tickets: ‘valid for single journey only’. The Americans are not greatly enamoured (as we or the British are) about precedent, and every ten or fifteen years they appoint a body of very learned and wise lawyers, who go into the hundreds of cases reported in all the decisions across the United States and then come up with what is called a ‘restatement’ of the law on every possible topic. After the restatement, no case can be cited of a period prior to the restatement, and a large body of useless case law gets confined to the dustbin of legal history.’
It has been submitted by Mr. Banerji, learned senior counsel, that if the Company Court as well as the DRT can exercise jurisdiction in respect of the same auction or sale after adjudication by the DRT, there would be duality of exercise of jurisdiction which the RDB Act does not envisage. By way of an example, the learned senior counsel has submitted that there are some categories of persons who can go before the DRT challenging the sale
NC Notification No. 105/2013 – Income Tax Whereas by notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number S.O. 614 (E) dated 18th March, 2010, issued under sub-section (1) read with clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43
Department is trying to impose Central Excise Duty on removal of Capital Goods after being used or cleared as waste or scrap through Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, even when it is not fulfilling the basic condition of Manufacturing, which is unconstitutional.
We find that the findings of the Tribunal on the assessment was not on the ground of treating the claim as not bona fide. We find that the assessment on the consumption of bottles made on the ground of alleged non-existence of two firms was rejected by the Tribunal by rendering a finding that the suppliers were very much in existence. On the 2% addition made to the bottles sent direct to the factory without entering into the books of accounts and on the price difference,
The CIT adverted to the fact that the quantum appeal had been rejected by the CIT (A) and the ITAT. That in itself would not amount to a valid justification for imposition of a penalty. Before a penalty is imposed, the requirements of Section 271 must be established. Accordingly, it would have been open to the Court to set aside the impugned order in its entirety and to remand the proceedings back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.
Sec. 54F provides that capital gains on transfer of capital assets shall not be charged in cases of investment in residential house. The section pointedly says that such eligibility would be available if the assessee has, within the period prescribed, constructed, a residential house. For the purpose of that section, the residential house so constructed is referred to as new asset.
The Finance Bill 2013 has proposed to increase the base for taxation for transfer of agricultural land as defined under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. So far by virtue of the above provision, tax on transfer of agricultural land had been excluded from the ambit of capital gains tax except […]
