It is not denied by the Revenue that U. Mohanrao was the Chairman and Managing Director of some of the companies which got merged with the assessee company. The said U. Mohanrao had access to all information starting from manufacturing process, knowhow to the clientele and the products, including the pricing of the products.
The current e-filing website is being revamped to a new e-filing website with additional services. The current web services will remain closed with effect from 3rd November to 8th November, 2012. The web services will resume from 9th November, 2012. the press release is given below.
Establishment of Connectivity with both depositories NSDL and CDSL – Companies eligible for shifting from Trade for Trade Settlement (TFTS) to normal Rolling Settlement.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of search IVPs of the face value of Rs. 16.20 lacs were found and seized from Locker No. 49 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jalandhar. The assessee surrendered income of Rs. 16.20 lacs to cover unexplained investment in IVPs. Such income was also disclosed in the return filed for block assessment. These IVPs can be encashed only on maturity.
In our view, therefore, once the conditions of further proviso of section 194C(3) are satisfied, the liability of the payee to deduct tax at source would cease. The requirement of such payee to furnish details to the income tax authority in the prescribed form within prescribed time would arise later and any infraction in such a requirement would not make the requirement of deduction at source applicable under sub-section (2) of section 1 94C of the Act.
As per proviso attached to the sub-rule (5) of Rule 11AA of the Rules, it is a statutory requirement that no order of rejection of application u/s 80G(5) of the Act shall be passed without giving the institution, trust or fund an opportunity of being heard.
We have found that the procedure laid down under Section 29 of SFC Act has been followed by the Corporations. The independent valuer submitted his report on 17.09.2010 and the off-set price of the unit was fixed after getting it valued by an independent valuer. It was based upon the valuation report that the off-set price of the unit was fixed at Rs.1,77,45,000/- on 17.09.2010.
It is evident from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee was unable to produce confirmations and reconciliations at the time of assessment proceedings and since the details was produced before the CIT(A), the CIT(A), called for the remand report.
Refund has been denied to the appellant on the ground that refund of Cenvat credit had been claimed in respect of input services received by the appellant after the period of export and hence cannot be considered as input services used for the purpose of exported service during the period in question. This is a fact on record that these input services were received after the period of export and this fact is not challenged by the appellants. I find that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has examined admissibility of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in case of Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2012 (278) ELT 50 (Kar.)and the Hon’ble High Court in para 7 of its judgment has held as under:-
Carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset is generated in the course of business but it is generated due to environmental concerns. Credit for reducing carbon emission or greenhouse effect can be transferred to another party in need of reduction of carbon emission. It does not increase profit in any manner and does not need any expenses. It is a nature of entitlement to reduce carbon emission, however, there is no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get this entitlement. Carbon credit is not in the nature of profit or in the nature of income.
