The Bombay HC last week quashed the decision of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which held the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the licensing authority under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, did not have the powers to amend licences with retrospective effect. The CESTAT ruling was challenged by Bhilwara Spinners Ltd, manufacturers of yarn, which were granted ‘export promotion capital goods’ licence to import capital goods. The terms had to be changed due to market circumstances.
The Bombay high court last week quashed the office memorandum / press release dated November 11 and policy circular dated December 22 last year as they were not issued under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, and, therefore, the restrictions contained in them were contrary to law.
Since export turnover has been defined by Parliament and there is a specific exclusion of freight and insurance, the expression “export turnover” cannot have a different meaning when it forms a constituent part of the total turnover for the purposes of the application of the formula prescribed by section 10A(4).
Where Parliament has intended to make a specific provision imposing a liability to pay penalty apart from the tax which is due and payable, a specific provision to that effect has been made; the expression “tax due” in section 179(1) cannot comprehend within the meaning of that expression a liability to pay a penalty that may have been imposed on the company.
The third proviso under section 15(1) of the SICA relieves the specified strength of secured creditors from shackle of taking consent of the BIFR and permits them to pursue their remedy under the provisions of Securitisation Act, which have been introduced as a special enactment, to further the cause of financial sector and the financial institutions to which the same is applicable.
It would be entirely arbitrary for the Assessing Officer to reopen the entire assessment under Section 147 to rectify an error or mistake which can be rectified under Section 154; an arbitrary exercise of power is certainly not a consequence which Parliament contemplates.
The fact that a surplus may incidentally arise from the activities of the trust, after meeting the expenditure incurred for conducting educational activities, would not disentitle the trust of the benefit of the provisions of Section 10(23C).
M/s. Brahma Associates Vs. CIT, Pune – Revenue was not justified in confining the deduction only to projects having commercial area upto 10% of the BUA because once the basic argument of the revenue that the housing projects with commercial user are not entitled to Section 80IB(10) deduction is rejected, no restriction could be imposed. If the project is approved as a “housing project” deduction u/s 80-IB(10) is allowable irrespective of the commercial area;
An association may engage in activities which can be described as mutual and in other activities which are not mutual; in such a case, the principle of mutuality has to be confined to transactions with members possessing the essential character of mutuality; the two activities can in appropriate cases be separated and the profits derived from transactions which do not fulfill the requirements of mutuality can be brought to tax.
The Bombay high court on Tuesday deferred a hearing on Vodafone Plc’s petition against the income tax authorities without specifying a new date for next hearing. The Bombay high court on Tuesday deferred a hearing on Vodafone Plc’s petition against t
