IT is now an axiomatic law that Board circulars are binding on the Department, even if they are wrong or against decisions of the Supreme Court. But our Boards do not have the habit of tracking down the multitude of circulars they issue and considering whether they are relevant after the Law has been amended and the Apex Court had already ruled on the issue. In the Dhiren Chemicals case (2002-TIOL-83- SC-CX), the Supreme Court had held that if there was a Board Circular which was not in tune with the views of the Supreme Court, the Board Circular would prevail. The whole idea is that the Department should not be seen arguing that the Board was wrong – even if it is wrong, the Departmental officers should be bound by it.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER This Agreement is made here at New Delhi on this ….th day of ………, 200…., between ………………………………………………….. through its…………………………………………………….. s/o ……………………………………… r/o ………………………………………………………., hereinafter called the Owner, the First Party and M/S ………………………………………, ……………………………………… through its Director ……………………………………… s/o ……………………………………… r/o ………………………………………………………, hereinafter called the Developers, Second Party.
(1) No excisable goods shall be removed from a factory or a warehouse except under an invoice signed by the owner of the factory or his authorized agent and in the case of cigarettes, each such invoice shall also be countersigned by the Inspector of Central Excise or the Superintendent of Central Excise before the […]
IN the present case which was referred to the Third Member of the Tribunal, the dispute revolves around the issue of, whether interest u/s 201(1A) is payable on the ”usance interest” from the date of payment or from the date of pronouncement of High Court decision in the Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn case
Need for notice u/s 143(2) cannot be dispensed with in a case where AO proceeds to make inquiry for assessment, and determination of taxes payable after issuing notice u/s 143(1) as well – ITAT
CAN double benefits under Sec 10B and also under Section 80HHC be availed on export of the same goods? Should Income Tax allow Sec 80HHC benefits if an exporter procures orders and closes the transaction by procuring goods from a third country and shipping the same straight to the buyer country,
It is clarified that Domestic Venture Capital Funds registered with SEBI, have been permitted to invest in equity and equity-linked instruments only of off-shore Venture Capital Undertakings. Accordingly, Domestic Venture Capital Funds registered with SEBI, desirous of making investments in off-shore Venture Capital Undertakings may approach SEBI for prior approval.
In a setback to the once popular vyaj badla transactions, the Bombay high court recently held that an aggrieved party cannot take their disputes to the arbitration tribunal set up under the byelaws of the Bombay Stock Exchange. Dismissing a petition filed by a Mahim-based partnership firm against a city broker, a division bench of Justice R M S Khandeparkar and Justice D G Karnik held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of such private transactions.
Explore a recent taxation case involving plagiarism allegations in a land deal. Learn how the apex court addressed ‘borrowed words’ from tribunal orders, impacting judicial clarity and fairness.
Section 254 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 relates to appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by assessees and the tax department. It also deals with the law relating to grant of stay of demand on assessees’ petitions. This section was amended w.e.f. June 1, 2001, to provide that where in an appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal passes an order granting stay of demand, it shall hear and decide such appeal within 180 days from the date of passing of stay order, failing which, the stay granted shall stand vacated on the expiry of this period.
