In order to facilitate greater use of Indian Rupee in trade transactions, as announced in the Monetary Policy Statement for the year 2011-12 (para 85), it has been decided to allow non-resident importers and exporters to hedge their currency risk in respect of exports from and imports to India, invoiced in Indian Rupees, with AD Category I banks in India, as per details given in the Annex.
Notification No. 65/2011-Customs In case of imports for a project for which the certificate regarding Mega Power Project status issued by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Power is provisional, the importer furnishes a security in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt from any Scheduled Bank for a term of thirty six months or more in the name of the President of India for an amount equal to the duty of customs payable on such imports but for this exemption, to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, at the time of importation and if the importer fails to furnish the final Mega Power status certificate within a period of thirty six months from the date of importation, the said security shall be appropriated towards duty of customs payable on such imports but for this exemption.
Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd VS Union of India (Uttarakhand High Court)- The petitioner consequently orally objected to the constitution of the collegium and submitted that there was a conflict of interest if the DIT-II continues to sit in the collegium since he was involved in the reassessment proceedings.
IBM India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Considering the second objection of the AO, namely, that separate books of account have not been maintained for the STP Units, his observation was that the objection of the AO arose on the premise that part of the expenditure which could be related to the exempted income which is not allowable to the assessee by virtue of the provisions contained in section 14A of the Act which could be disguised and allowed to be set off against taxable income and, thus, the assessee would be benefited by paying reduced tax which could have been avoided.
DCIT v. Cabot India Ltd. – At the outset the Tribunal stated that the issue to be adjudicated upon is whether or not the royalty rate of five percent is arm’s length, and not whether the increase vis-à-vis two percent is justifiable. The Tribunal ruled that the royalty of two percent paid by the assessee to its AE in the previous year was a ‘controlled’ transaction and hence, could not be taken as a benchmark for determining the arm’s length nature of the five percent royalty charge in the current year.
The toppers of Chartered Accountants Final Examinations held in May, 2011 are from Bikaner, Mumbai and Pune. The details of the top three rank holders on all India basis for Chartered Accountants Final along with the marks secured by them are mentioned at Annexure-A. The result analysis of the Final examination in terms of gender wise and region wise pass percentage is mentioned at Annexure-B. The toppers of Common Proficiency Test (Paper-Pencil Mode) held on 19th June, 2011 are from Tirupathi, Pune, Hyderabad, Guntur (Andhra Pradesh), Mumbai & Amritsar (Punjab).
The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against a Joint Commissioner; an Assistant Commissioner; four Supdts & one Inspector of Central Excise of Thiruvananthapuram Airport and one clearing agent for cheating and allegedly obtaining illegal gratification.
Emami Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Where on the last date of the Financial Year preceding the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax, he would be nevertheless asked to pay interest in terms of Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act for default in making payment of tax in advance which was physically impossible.
Has permitted export of 6,50,000 tones of wheat products upto 31.3.2010, which was earlier extended upto 31.3.2011 by Notification No. 41/2009-14 dated 18.05.2010. Now this validity has been extended upto 31.03.2012.
Brintons Carpets Asia Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – The AO has to maintain the rule of consistency unless there is change facts materially. Comparable cases accepted by the department in the subsequent assessment year should be adopted for the purpose of computing the transfer pricing adjustments for the current year also. Ld Counsel also narrated the facts of that case and stated that the AO/TPO initially picked up the domestic comparable cases in that case too as in the case of the present assessee and such a decision was not accepted by the Tribunal vide the cited order dated 23.2.2011.
