The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Siddharth Salarpuria, first of all took us to the accounts of the company from where he stated that the share capital of the company as on 31.03.2007 was at Rs. 5,56,43,400/- and reserve and surplus at Rs. 21,61,28,161/- and this year’s profit i.e. net profit as per P&L Account before making provisions for taxation is Rs. 3,50,51,698/- and if we reduce prior period adjustment of Rs. 5,10,339/-,
The allowance of any expenditure arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the ALP. However, in the instant case the assessee has not claimed the expenditure of Rs. 7,42,20,575/- during the impugned assessment year and has itself disallowed the same while computing its taxable income. Therefore, we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 92 are not applicable.
The trading members shall ensure that all such associated persons who are approved users or sales personnel as on the date of this notification obtain certification by passing EDCE within two years from the date of this notification
The authority of Court to direct investigation was elaborately considered by us in our earlier decision when we ultimately permitted the Central Government to carry on investigation. The decisions in the case of Sreeman Chunder Dey (supra), Vinay Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Ushacomm India (P.) Ltd. (supra) were considered by us in the earlier decision rendered in the former appeal referred to above.
It is the case of the accused that he has preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, Madras and by order dated 27.03.1987, the appeal was allowed, whereunder, the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hubli Division on 16.12.1986 was challenged and the same was set aside. The learned Magistrate has further observed that once the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, has allowed the appeal, there was no need to file the criminal case charging them that they are evading Central Excise Tax. Ex.D.1 is the order produced by the accused in Appeal No. 32/1987 and Ex.D.2 is the order passed in Appeal No. 65/1987. Learned Magistrate has held that the petitioners would not have been liable to pay any duty and therefore the complainant should have known that no case is liable to be filed against them. Learned Magistrate has ultimately observed that false proceedings have been initiated against the accused.
In this case penalty proceedings have been initiated by ld. CIT(A) pursuant to enhancement of income made by him vide his order dated 17.07.2012. The appeal against this order has been filed before the Tribunal on 4th October, 2012 which is in fact the first appeal of the assessee against the enhancement of income by ld. CIT(A). As the appellate proceedings are already on, we are not going into the merits of the case.
In one view of the matter there was, in the circumstances of this case, an implied agreement under which the cheques were accepted unconditionally as payment and on another view, even if the cheques were taken conditionally, the cheques not having been dishonoured but having been cashed, the payment related back to the dates of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a Deputy Director of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence; a Superintendent of Customs and a representative of a Kolkata-based private firm in an alleged bribery case.
Export of Pharmaceutical Grade Sugar [(i) Sucrose IP/BP/EP/USP/JP and (ii) Sucrose AR & LR] and Specialty Sugar [(i) Sugar cubes (ii) Sugar sachets (white & brown) (iii) Castor sugar (iv) Demerara sugar (v) Light brown sugar (vi) Icing sugar (vii) Fondant icing sugar (viii) Kathali sugar (ix) Candy sugar (x) Rainbow sugar (xi) Pearl sugar and (xii) Trimoline (invert sugar)] would not be subject to registration requirement.
On going through the order passed by the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal passed the order, after marshalling at the facts considering the submissions made before it and applying its mind to the decisions cited before it. There is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal of the nature as envisaged under section 254(2). Permitting the assessee to raise the same issues over again in the guise of rectification will amount to recalling the appellate order in its entirety and rehearing it afresh, which is not within the scope and ambit of section 254(2).
