Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto into Indian currency or vice versa shall, with effect from 5th October, 2012 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, for the purpose of the said section, relating to imported and export goods. Notification No.91/2012-Customs (N.T.)
Vide Order No. 186 dated 04.10.2012 the CBDT has ordered the transfers & postings of several officers in the grade of Commissioners/ Directors of Income-tax with immediate effect.
SEBI has decided to introduce an additional mechanism for investors to submit application forms in public issues using the stock broker network of Stock Exchanges, who may not be syndicate members in an issue.This mechanism can be used to submit ASBA as well as non-ASBA applications by investors.
The Ministry issued General Circular No.30/2012 Dated 28.09.2012, In order to ensure smooth filing and to avoid last minute rush, the due date of filing of e-forms 23AC(Non-XBRL) and 23ACA (Non XBRL) as per new schedule VI is extended in following manner without any additional fee :-
In compliance of the provisions contained in Finance Bill 2012 and subsequent notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, the Service Tax in case of transportation of parcel traffic (leased or non-leased parcel traffic) by rail, which was exempted upto 30th September 2012, would now be levied on total freight charges with effect from 1st October 2012.
The case of Chatterjee Petrochem (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. [2011] 110 SCL 107 is clearly distinguishable as in that case when the company was in dire need of funds the Chatterjee Group had failed to keep its promise of providing funds as it obtained a loan raising the debt equity ratio of the company. These circumstances were taken into consideration for reduction of Chatterjee group into a minority. In the present case firstly the enforcement of MOU dated 18/05/2007 is not in consideration in the present order and secondly the facts borne out from the record clearly show that raising of authorised share capital was not on account of raising immediate funds for the completion of the hotel/resort project but was mainly for reducing the shareholding of the Petitioner to an abject minority.
While considering/deciding the stay application under the said Act, the authority must (i) briefly state the case of the party; (ii) consider whether the party has made out a case for unconditional stay; (iii) the financial difficulty if pleaded be considered and (iv) in case the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that by granting of stay the assessee is likely to defeat the claim of the department then brief reasons for the same be indicated.
Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)( c ) .
The assessee’s quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court. If the assessee succeeds in the quantum proceedings, it would not even be necessary to consider the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings and so no prejudice has been caused to the department qua the penalty proceedings.
When Clause 11 of the instruction No.3/11 dated 09.02.2011 issued by the Board, specifically says that it will be applicable to the cases filed on or after 9.2.2011, the courts holding that it is applicable to the pending cases is against the provision under Section 268A of the Act, Public Interest and the Public Policy.
