Last aspect of the matter i.e., the argument as to why yet another Form was filed on 05.04.2004. The conduct of respondent no. 3 in this regard is explained by reference to ROC’s letter dated 26.03.2004, whereby they were advised to file a revised duplicate Form by an authorised person to rectify the objections. It is quite possible that having received the said communication, respondent no.3 filed yet another Form on 05.04.2004.
In the present case, we find that the assessing officer was clearly wrong in holding against the assessee by concluding that the assessee had not offered any explanation. This fact has been realized both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is clear that the assessee had offered an explanation.
The instant case relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Explanation in clause (a) to sub-section (10) of section 80-IB was brought in under Finance No.(2) Act of 2004, effective from 1-4-2005. Thus in the absence of any such requirement under section 80-IB(10), as it stood during relevant assessment year 2004-05, it is difficult to accept the case of the revenue that the claim for deduction has to be rejected on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the completion certificates.
Export of edible oils was initially prohibited for a period of one year with effect from 17.03.2008 vide Notification No. 85 dated 17.03.2008 which was extended from time to time. Vide Notification No. 24(RE-2012)/2009-14 dated 19th October 2012, prohibition on export of edible oil has been extended till further orders.
Notification No. 10/2013 – Income Tax SECTION 10(15), ITEM (h) OF SUB-CLAUSE (iv) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 – EXEMPTIONS – INTEREST ON BONDS/DEBENTURES – SPECIFIED COMPANIES AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE TAX-FREE, SECURED, REDEEMABLE, NON-CONVERTIBLE BONDS DURING F.Y. 2012-13 – AMENDMENT IN NOTIFICATION NO. SO 2685(E), DATED 6-11-2012, READ WITH CORRIGENDUM NO. SO 2717(E), DATED 15-11-2012 NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2013[F.NO.178/6/2013(ITA-I)]/SO 321(E), DATED 5-2-2013
CAS – 15 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARD ON SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION OVERHEADS The following is the COST ACCOUNTING STANDARD -15 (CAS-15) issued by the Council of The Institute of Cost Accountants of India on “SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION OVERHEADS”. In this standard, the standard portions have been set in bold italic type. These are to be read […]
The judgment in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. (supra) instructs that the court must be strict in assessing whether all the conditions laid down in Section 163(1)(i) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 carries the same provision in the successor statute) have all been complied with before the inference of the inability of the company to pay its debts based on the legal fiction therein is drawn. The judgment is the specific recognition, in the context of the identical provision in the predecessor statute as Section 434(1)(a) of the current Act, of the general principle that a deeming provision must be strictly construed and all conditions therein must have been adhered to before the legal fiction thereunder can be seen to operate.
Assessing Officer was carried away by the original return filed by the assessee, wherein originally the income admitted in the course of search was not returned by it. But the fact is that the assessee had filed a revised return before completing the assessment.
The assessing officer recorded reasons as required under section 148(2) and reopened the assessments for the earlier three years under section 147 of the Act and issued notices on 29.03.2004, 22.3.2005 and 14.7.2005 respectively. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer are identical for all the three years and are as under: –
The Finance Minister Shri P.Chidambaram exhorted the officers of Customs and Central Excise to make every effort to achieve the budgetary target for the collection of indirect taxes for the financial year 2012-13.
