After slapping over Rs 11,000 crore tax notice on Vodafone over its deal with Hutch , the income tax department today said it is not unnecessarily aggressive on this case and is just implementing the law. “We are implementing the law as it is.
I am directed to invite attention to the Board’s circular No.58/2004-Cus dated 21.10.2004 which prescribes form of bond to be furnished for availing duty exemption under Advance License and EPCG Schemes. Condition 1 of the prescribed form of bond reads as under
Custodian banks have expressed operational difficulties in complying with the requirement of incorporating a clause in the agreement with their clients which gives them an inalienable right over the securities to be received as payout in any settlement before November 1, 2010. Accordingly, it has been decided to grant an additional period of two months i.e. upto December 31, 2010, to the custodian banks to fulfil this requirement.
Please refer to RBI/2010-11/147 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 05 dated July 30, 2010 containing guidelines on Trading of Currency Options on Recognised Stock / New Exchanges issued by Foreign Exchange Department (copy enclosed). In this connection, we advise as under.
Please find enclosed circular DBOD No. BP .BC .44 / 21.04.141 / 2010-11 dated September 29, 2010 on the above subject. In this connection, it is advised that the above guidelines issued to banks, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the select All-India Financial Institutions.
The law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature
The Supreme Court in view of the facts of the matter analyzed the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 [SGA] and ISA and held that, the true and real meaning of a document needs to be ascertained to answer whether a contract for sale of movable property amounts to conveyance, and if yes, whether stamp duty is chargeable. The Supreme Court held that the essence of sale is the transfer of the property in a thing from one person to another for a price. As per Section 4 of the SGA, the contract of sale includes an agreement to sell and it may be absolute or conditional. The essential feature that distinguishes a contract of sale from an agreement to sell is that in a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer immediately whereas in an agreement to sell, the property is transferred at a future date. Further, an agreement to sell becomes a sale on fulfillment of the conditions of the agreement or when the time provided lapses. Under Sec. 2(10) of ISA, inter alia, every document by which movable property is transferred is ‘conveyance’. In a contract, if all the essential conditions of transfer of movable property are transferred, and it amounts to conveyance within the meaning of the said Sec 2(10) it is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 23 if there is no exemption from payment of stamp duty under Article 62 of ISA. The Supreme Court also observed that just because a contract document contains a clause on security, does not make the document a ‘Security Document’.
Board vide its earlier circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1-7-2002 had clarified that After-sale Service and Pre-delivery Inspection charges were liable to be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944. Further vide circular No. 909/29/09-CX dated 11.12.2009, it was directed to transfer all the show cause notices issued on the above subject to call book pending the decision of the larger bench of CESTAT in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd.
his circular is issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992, read with Section 10 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market.
G.S.R. (E). -Whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/5/2010-DGAD, dated the 1st July, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1 dated the 1st July, 2010, had initiated review in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the said Customs Tariff Act) and in pursuance of rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in the matter of continuation of anti-dumping duty on imports of 1-Phenyl-3-Methyl-5-Pyrazolone, falling u
