1. (1) This Ordinance may be called the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2019. (2) (A) The provisions of this Ordinance shall, except sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of section 2, be deemed to have come into force on the 26th day of September, 2018; and
CESTAT Delhi has held that exemption under Notification No. 31/2012-ST, to transportation of goods from factory to the gateway port, cannot be denied for belated filing of declaration EXP-1, EXP-2.
Sh. Ajay Kumar Singhania Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) The sole issue involved in this appeal is as to whether under the provisions of section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) there is an option to the assessee to set off the business losses against the capital gains or is it mandatory to […]
Board vide its Circular No. 35/2016-Customs dated 29thJuly, 2016, has already removed the mandatory warehousing requirements for EOUs, STPIs, EHTPs etc. Further, the said Circular clarified that all these units shall stand delicensed as warehouses under Customs Act, 1962, with effect from 13th August, 2016. Therefore, section 65 of the Customs Act, is no longer applicable to EOUs, STPIs, EHTPs etc. In view of above, the Circular-132/95-Customs dated 22″d December, 1995, is rescinded to avoid any misinterpretation.
In Re Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) (a) Whether the air-springs imported by the Applicant are classifiable under HSN heading 8607 (i.e. parts of coach work of railway running stock) and thus covered under Entry No. 241 of Schedule-I of GST rate notifications? It will not be appropriate to classify air springs […]
CESTAT Chennai has held that import of second hand machinery cannot be subjected to imposition of anti- dumping duty (ADD) meant for new machinery. It observed that purpose of anti-dumping is served, in case of second-hand machinery, by way of re-appraisement of declared value, and imposition of ADD would be nothing but double jeopardy.
PCIT Vs Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) From the record, it can thus be seen that there were two significant factors why the CIT(A) and the Tribunal did not adopt the valuation of the stamp authority for the purpose ofcollecting capital gain tax in the hands of the […]
Merely because the assessee was not able to generate desired agricultural income from the said land and thus, it sold the said land within one year of its purchase, would not change the character of agricultural land to a non-agricultural land. Consequently, the assessee would be entitled to claim the benefit of exemption under section 10(1).
Shri Srinivasa Reddy Yenumula Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) As regards the addition of Rs.18.00 lakhs towards unexplained investment is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engg. & Construction Co. reported in (1972) 83 ITR 0187 wherein […]
After issuing notice under section 153A revenue can carry out re-assessment or assessment with respect to the six immediate prior years and the year in which the search is carried out. This does not require any incriminating material recovered on search relating to those prior years; in which there is no time left, on the date of search, for an assessment under section 143.
