Since grant of registration is a condition precedent for grant of exemption under section 11 and in this case, there is no registration granted under section 12AA in favour of the assessee, no relief or exemption can be granted to the assessee under section 11.
According to section 271A, if the assessee fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by section 44AA and the Rules in any previous year, penalty is leviable. Section 44AA(2)(i) and (ii) provides that every person carrying on business shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as may enable the AO to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
imply On reading of Rule 10(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is clear that a manufacturer of final product shall be entitled to transfer of the unutilized cenvat credit to the transferred factory provided he shifts his factory at another site and also fulfills the requirement of Rule 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) a view has been taken that modvat credit can be taken on LSHS used in the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from duty. Although this decision was rendered in the context of availing modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they existed prior to the promulgation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 the principle of law laid down is general and not specific to the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Suggestions on Draft Rule 11UA of Income-tax Rules, 1962 Accepted: I am happy to inform you that our suggestions have found favour with the Government, which we had submitted in response to the CBDT’s request on the draft Rule 11UA for determination of fair market value for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) of Income-tax Act, 1961.
Require Document for Audit 1. Annexure I Questionnaire. 2. Annexure II List of addtional documents. 3. Annexure III FDSS. 4. Annexure IV Reconciliation. 5. Annexure V Cenvat Account Rule 9
Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s. 33AC on the amount of insurance claim at Rs. 1,29,09,141/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has reduced the repair charges on account of insurance claim receivable during the year
It has been brought to our notice that the present practice of issuing account payee cheques to the refund claimants is cumbersome and it also entails lot of paperwork, including return of cheques due to incomplete address and other clerical errors, leading to considerable delay in realisation of the refund! rebate amounts by the claimants.
Having interpreted the effect of the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, we are satisfied, that not only the requisition but also the advertisement for direct recruitment was issued by the SSC in the recruitment year in which direct recruit vacancies had arisen.
In this case, the AO had not only stated that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court as it was rendered earlier, but has taken liberty of criticizing the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal granted depreciation ‘even though the ITAT was aware that such custom duty was not payable by a subsequent notification by the Govt. of India in 1987.’ He ought not to have done so.
