G.S.R. (E). -Whereas, the Designated Authority vide initiation notification No. 7/4/2018- DGAD dated the 16th April, 2018, has 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)
The Board has amended the sub-clause (2) of the clause 3 of the SEBI (STP Centralised Hub and STP Service Providers) Guidelines, 2004 by inserting the following new sub-clause, namely,- “iii. whether the applicant is a fit and proper person based on the criteria specified in Schedule II of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008.”
Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s S.S. Engineers are engaged in the sale of own manufactured goods and also engaged in trading of bought out items which are used in erection, installation and commissioning of Sugar Plant and other goods falling under chapter 84 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
It is held that information sought regarding date of deposit of Rs. 15 Lakhs in the account of each citizen as promised by PM Narendra Modi and how print media houses came to know before the announcement of PM Narendra Modi about the demonetisation, etc. of the RTI application does not fall under the definition of ‘information’ as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax-30, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-30/AC19(3)/238/2014-15 dated 03-12-2015. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Iqra Roadways (India) Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In the instant case since the factual disputed issues are involved and further that the penalty proceedings are already initiated, as intimated by the counsel for the State, therefore, it would be proper in the interest of justice that the seized goods be released in favor of the petitioners on the payment of an amount of Rs. 1,11,564/- (as indicated in the show cause notice dated 26.9.2017).
Where dis allowance was made by revenue under section 14A in respect of interest and administrative expenses, it was made clear that where assessee had its own surplus fund, then no question of any estimation of expenditure under rule 8D would arise. Thus, revenue was not justified in disallowing interest and administrative expenses, when the same was made out of interest free fund.
Various courts have held that if assessee invests the amount in purchase / construction of building within the stipulated period and the construction is in progress, then the benefits of exemptions under section 54 / 54F, cannot be denied to the assessee.
As we are dealing with admissibility of expenditure u/s 37 and not u/s 36(i)(vii) according to which, there must be an expenditure at the first instance which has crystallized during the impugned AY as against deduction u/s 36(i)(vii) which is allowable to the assessee the moment bad debt is written off in the books of accounts, notwithstanding the fact that whether the same has actually become bad or not.
Learn about ITAT Pune’s decision on deduction under section 10B/10A in relation to TP adjustment by Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT.
