Representations have been received from trade as well as the field formations regarding the applicable rate of additional duty of customs (CVD) on Fertilizers when imported into India. Doubts have arisen in view of the fact that in Notification No. 12/2012-Customs, dated 17-03-2012, except for Serial Number 200(ii) [where the CVD rate of 1% is mentioned in column (5)] the entry in this column for all other Serial Nos. is
Notification No. 36/2012-Income Tax In the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereafter referred to as the principal rules), – (a) after rule 10E, the following rule shall be inserted, namely.- Advance Pricing Agreement Scheme- 10F. Meaning of expressions used in matters in respect of advance pricing agreement.—For the purposes of this rule and rules 10G to 10-I,-
The vehicles imported under this scheme shall be registered either as a tourist vehicle or shall have an appropriate registration specific to a particular state enabling the vehicle to be used for tourist purpose. A copy of the Registration certificate should be submitted to the concerned Licensing Authority as a confirmation of the vehicle having been imported and capital good installed.
It is important to check the status of Private Limited Company, if the shareholder of such Private Limited is Body Corporate incorporated outside India. It is also important from the audit point of view since if the status of such Private Limited Company is established as Subsidiary of Public u/s 4(7) of Companies Act, 1956 then all the Compliances under Companies Act, 1956 has to be been taken care as it is a Public Company.
It has been observed that a large part of litigation in the Direct Taxes matters involves interpretation of legal provisions. Lack of desired clarity on a contentious legal issue, amongst the officers of the department, sometimes leads to inconsistent approach on the same issue giving rise to further litigation. With a view to provide clarity on contentious legal issues, promote consistency of approach on a given issue and reduce litigation, it has been decided to set up the following institutional mechanism to formulate ‘Departmental View’ on contentious legal issues:
A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Wo Power 14.A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Wo Petroleum 15.A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Mbo Highways 16.A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Wo Urban
After examination of the activities of the assessee samiti and after considering CBDT Circular No. 11/2008, dated 19-12-2008, it is found that the admitted facts of the case under consideration are that the assessee-trust is carrying on the activities in respect of medical relief. It is found that Samiti/institution/entities whose object is ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’ would continue to be eligble for exemption as charitable institutions even if they incidentally carry on a commercial activity.
The Revenue’s case is that the provision of sec. 50C having come on the statute book with effect from 1-4-2003, and the capital asset which is the subject-matter of transfer, being land, the same would apply, and thus stands rightly invoked by the AO. The assessee’s case, and on the basis of which it found favour with the first appellate authority, is that the transfer in the first five (5) cases stood effected much prior the relevant year, i.e., on 15-01-1998
The assessee had disclosed full details in the Return of Income in the matter of its dealing in stocks and shares. According to the assessee, the loss incurred was a business loss, whereas, according to the Revenue, the loss incurred was a speculative loss. Rejection of the objections of the assessee to the re-opening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer vide his Order dated 23rd June, 2006, is clearly a change of opinion. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order re-opening the assessment was not maintainable.
This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2006, passed by the Calcutta High Court in A.C. No.54 of 2005 dismissing the Appeal on the ground that in the absence of any specific finding whatsoever as to the rate of rent and the period of default committed by the respondent-tenant, the proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, for winding-up was not maintainable.
