Follow Us:

Notification No. 268/2007, Dated: 05.11.2007

November 5, 2007 445 Views 0 comment Print

The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above.

Notification No. 267/2007, Dated: 05.11.2007

November 5, 2007 451 Views 0 comment Print

The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above.

Public Notice No. 79 (RE-2007)/2004-2009, Dated: 05.11.2007

November 5, 2007 412 Views 0 comment Print

An application fee equivalent to 1% of duty saved amount. However, no fee shall be charged when such document is lost by Government agencies and a documentary proof to this effect is submitted.

Applicability of Public Notice No. 36 in respect of pending claims for TED refunds as per amended Para 8.3.1(iii) of HBP Volume 1

November 5, 2007 700 Views 0 comment Print

All time barred, pending or rejected applications which were filed after six months from end of the option period as exercised by the applicant, but are now within a period of 12 months from end of the originally exercised option period, should be processed as per amended para 8.3.1(ii) of HBP,

Period of preservation of accounts or for which books are required to be maintained

November 3, 2007 26509 Views 0 comment Print

Companies Act, 1956 -· A company is required to maintain its books of account and vouchers for a period of 8 years immediately preceding the current year. · A s. 25 company is required to maintain its books of account and vouchers for a period of not less than 4 years. · The books and papers of the Amalgamated/Transferor Company must be not be disposed of without the prior permission of the Central Government

Circular No. 857/15/2007-Central Excise, Dated: 02.11.2007

November 2, 2007 4753 Views 0 comment Print

I am directed to invite your attention to Board’s circular No. 809/6/2005-CX dated 01.03.2005, wherein the procedure relating to sanction and pre-audit of refund/rebate claims has been prescribed. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that various court judgments have held that the procedure of pre-audit before sanction of refund amounts to interference with the quasi-judicial function of the refund sanctioning authority

Notification No. 47 (RE-2007)/2004-2009, Dated: 02.11.2007

November 2, 2007 379 Views 0 comment Print

In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) read with Para 1.3 and Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 (as amended from time to time), the Central Government hereby makes following amendment in Notification No.15(RE-2006)/2004-2009 dated 27.06.2006.

Notification No. 46 (RE-2007)/2004-2009, Dated: 02.11.2007

November 2, 2007 433 Views 0 comment Print

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) read with Para 1.3 and Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, the Central Government hereby makes the following further addition with immediate effect at the end of Paragraph 2 of Notification No. 38(RE-2007)/2004-2009, dated 15.10.2007.

Notification No. 37/2007-Central Excise, dated: 01.11.2007

November 1, 2007 769 Views 0 comment Print

The principal notification No.64/95-Central Excise, dated the 16th March, 1995 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 256(E), dated the 16th March, 1995 and was last amended vide notification No.30/2007-Customs, dated the 10th July, 2007 which was published vide number G.S.R. 478(E), dated the 10th July, 2007.

Retrospective Amendment subsequent to Assessment Order will not attract Section 263

November 1, 2007 1975 Views 0 comment Print

Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031