Even higher liability of the assessee had to be treated to be in issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 when appeal had been preferred was not permissible. The view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with above statutory provision.
Sales Tax – Indirect Tax – U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Exemption – Notification No. 1166 dt. 10.4.2000 – Assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sales of various ‘scientific and biological equipments/instruments’, claimed goods sold by it were exempted from tax in view of the notification no. 1166 – Assessing Authority (AO) held that the assessee was not entitled to get exemption under the aforesaid notification and the impugned goods of the assessee were liable to be taxed at the rate of 10% as unclassified goods
Ld. Counsel Shri Pahwa argues that the second category of work carried out with M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Gurgaon is exhibited by para 34 of the adjudication order at page 94. In this case, the appellant acted as a sub-contractor and tax liability has been discharged by the principal contractor. According to him such aspect remains undisputed by Revenue, in which no liability arose. But this is subject to scrutiny in the course of regular hearing.
Notification No. 28/ 2011 – Customs (N.T.), New Delhi, dated the 6th April, 2011- Central Board of Excise and Customs, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 12/97-Customs (N.T.), dated the 2nd April, 1997, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), vide number G.S.R. 193(E), dated the 2nd April, 1997, namely:- In the said notification, in the Table, against serial number 4 relating to the State of Gujarat, in column (3), after item (viii) and the entry relating thereto in column (4), the following item and the entry shall respectively be inserted, namely:-
The Indian affiliate of PricewaterhouseCoopers routinely failed to follow the most basic audit procedures, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday as it penalized the firm for its failed audits of Satyam Computer Services, the Indian company that falsely reported more than $1 billion in profits. The S.E.C. and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board fined the affiliate, PW India, $7.5 million in what was described as the largest American penalty ever against a foreign accounting firm.
Several Indian professionals will be adversely affected by Britain’s new immigration rules that come into effect tomorrow as part of the David Cameron government’s efforts to reduce migration from non-European Union countries. The new immigration regime includes tighter rules for students, limits on skilled professionals and new restrictions on the settlement of migrants who are already in Britain.
Recently Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Allahabad high court which had granted exemption from trade tax to a firm which was engaged in the manufacture and sale of various scientific and biological equipment used by scientists for research purposes. In the case, Commissioner of Trade Tax vs Kartos International, the revenue authorities demanded 10 per cent tax, but the company challenged it invoking a 2000 notification arguing that it was entitled to the benefit under the Central Sales Tax and also because it was engaged in inter-state sales made to various government institutions. The Supreme Court ruled that the company was not entitled to the benefit as the notification covered maps, educational charts, mechanical drawings and biology equipment used in schools and colleges. Goods used by research institutions are not eligible for the tax benefits, the court ruled.
In the Companies Regulations, 1956, in regulation 2, for clause (d), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:- “(d) ” Regional Director” means the person appointed by the Central Government in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as a Regional Director for the respective regions as under:-
In the Director’s Relatives (Office or Place of Profit) Rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 3, for the figures “50,000”, the figures “2,50,000” shall be substituted. 3. In the said rules, for the figures “50,000”, the figures “2,50,000” shall be substituted. 4. In the said rules, for rule 7, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:— The selection and appointment of a relative of a director holding office or place of profit in the company shall be approved by adopting the same procedure applicable to non-relatives :
The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board was wrong in raising the price of industrial plots arbitrarily, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing its appeal against the high court ruling. The board had allotted plots after receiving payment. But 13 years later, it asked the allottees to pay more. This was challenged by the allottees. The board claimed that it has power under the rules to raise the demand.
