IT : Where assessee cricket board arranged international matches and received share in broadcasting right and advertisement sales from its apex body BCCI, under section 12AA(3) Commissioner could not cancel its registration by invoking first proviso to section 2(15)
■■■
[2013] 40 taxmann.com 527 (Rajkot - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH
Saurashtra Cricket Association
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot - 2*
T. K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND D. K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND D. K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 64 (RJT.) 2013
OCTOBER 25, 2013
Section 12AA, read with section 2(15), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Registration of [Cancellation of registration] - Assessee-trust was created for promotion and development of sports in Saurashtra region - Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled registration of assessee-trust by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) by observing that assessee-trust had arranged one day international matches of cricket and, in turn, had received TV subsidy/subvention income, i.e., sharing of TV broadcasting right, and advertisement sales income; and, thus, it had carried out activities in nature of trade, commerce or business in view of first proviso to section 2(15) - Commissioner held that object of assessee-trust was no longer of charitable nature - Whether since registration had been cancelled by Commissioner on basis of amended provisions of section 2(15), action taken by Commissioner did not fall within permissible limits of section 12AA(3) and therefore, impugned order cancelling assessee's registration was bad in law - Held, yes [Para 16] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Circular No. 395, dated 24-9-1984
FACTS
| ■ | The assessee-trust was created for the promotion of game of cricket in Saurashtra region. | |
| ■ | The Commissioner cancelled the registration of the assessee-trust by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) by observing that the trust has arranged one day international matches of cricket and in turn had received TV subsidy/subvention income i.e. sharing of TV broadcasting right income from BCCI and advertisement sales income. The Commissioner was of the view that the assessee-trust had carried out the activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business in view of the first proviso to section 2(15) and, therefore, the object of the assessee-trust are no longer of charitable in nature. | |
| ■ | In the instant appeal, before the Tribunal, the assessee-trust contended that : |
| - | Section 12AA(3) does not extend the power to Commissioner for re-examination of the 'objects' of the trust or institution once registration has been granted under section 12A. | |
| - | The insertion of first proviso to section 2(15) with effect from 1-4-2009 would not have any bearing on section 12AA(3) since it does not extend to the objects of the trust or institution but only to its activities as stated therein. |
| ■ | The revenue's case was that the assessee-trust was given registration under section 12AA on the ground that it is a charitable institution in as much as it is engaged in the advancement of an object of general public utility in the form of developing and promoting the game of cricket. | |
| ■ | Its activities were later on oriented towards generating income and revenue by converting the sport of cricket into a celebrated industry, which means, the present activities carried on by the assessee are not genuine, when compared to the objects stated at the time of getting registration under section 12AA. |
HELD
| ■ | The Registration has been cancelled by Commissioner on the basis of amended provisions of section 2(15). The action taken by the Commissioner, does not fall within the permissible limits of section 12AA(3) and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. | |
| ■ | In the case of Madras Motor Sports Club v. DIT (Exemptions)[2013] 141 ITD 1/30 taxmann.com 135 (Chennai), in almost identical facts the registration was restored, which was cancelled by DIT (Exemptions), observing that the nature of objects of the assessee cannot fluctuate in tandem with the quantum of receipts mentioned in the first proviso to section 2(15). | |
| ■ | The issue raised by the Commissioner, in the impugned order regarding the activities of the trust can be examined by the Assessing Officer in the appropriate proceedings. The findings given by the Commissioner in the impugned order is not permissible keeping in view the limited power available to him under section 12AA(3). Therefore, it would be open for the Assessing Officer to consider all the issue raised in the impugned order, if so advised, in the course of assessment proceedings of relevant years. [Para 16] | |
| ■ | Therefore, the Registration granted to the assessee-trust under section 12A was to be restored. |
CASE REVIEW
Gujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 33 taxmann.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.).
CASES REFERRED TO
Gujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 33 taxmann.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.) (para 5), Vidarbha Cricket Association v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 3 (Nag.) of 2010, dated 30-5-2011] (para 5), Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 902 (Ahd.) of 2010] (para 5), Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 754 (A) of 2010] (para 5), Gujarat Maritime Board v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 36 (Ahd.) of 2011] (para 5), Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. v. DIT (Exemption) [2012] 23 taxmann.com 319/52 SOT 149 (Mum.) (URO) (para 5), Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Taxman 501 (SC) (para 6), Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2011] 202 Taxman 1/13 taxmann.com 175/[2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) (para 8), Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust v. Asstt. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 144 ITD 280/35 taxmann.com 552 (Ahd. - Trib.) (para 7), Mumbai Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2012] 138 ITD 338/24 taxmann.com 99 (Mum.) (para 9), Tamil Nadu Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 57 SOT 439/32 taxmann.com 50 (Chennai) (para 10), Hiralal Bhagwati v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 188 (Guj.)(para 14), Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 239 ITR 775/106 Taxman 166 (SC) (para 15), Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589/103 Taxman 623 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 541/226 ITR 625 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149/62 Taxman 471 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) (para 15),CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) (para 15),CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 236 (SC) (para 15), Controller of Estate Duty v. R. Kanakasabai [1973] 89 ITR 251 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC) (para 15) and Madras Motor Sports Club v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 141 ITD 1/30 taxmann.com 135 (Chennai) (para 16).
Tushar P. Hemani for the Appellant. Dr. M.L. Meena for the Respondent.
ORDER
T.K. Sharma, Judicial Member — This appeal by the assessee-trust is against the order dated 28.01.2013 of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-2, Rajkot u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee-trust was created and instituted for the promotion and development of sports in Saurashtra region. The Commissioner of Income-tax, after duly considering the objects of the assessee-trust and genuineness of its activities, has granted the registration of trust u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act vide its order No. CIT-R/65-5/138/87-88 dated 05.05.1989. Subsequently, in the impugned order dated 28.01.2013, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-2, Rajkot cancelled the registration of the assessee-trust by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act by observing that the trust has arranged one day international matches of cricket and in turn has received TV subsidy/subvention income i.e. sharing of TV broadcasting right income from BCCI and advertisement sales income. Therefore, the ld CIT is of the view that the assessee-trust had carried out the activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business in view of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act and therefore, the object of the assessee-trust are no longer of charitable in nature. Aggrieved with this impugned order dated 28.01.2013 of CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot, the assessee-trust is now in appeal before this Tribunal, on the following grounds:—
| "1. | The ld. CIT has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in cancelling registration of trust u/s 12AA(3) of the Act after holding that the activities carried out by the Appellant-Trust are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and in view of amended provisions of S 2(15) of the Act. | |
| 2. | The ld. CIT has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in not appreciating the scheme of the Act whereby he is empowered to cancel registration of trust only under provisions of S. 12AA(3) of the Act and that also after recording a satisfaction only in two circumstances viz. (a) the activities of the Trust are not genuine or (b) the activities of the Trust are not carrying out in accordance with the objects of the trust. In the facts of the present case none of these two conditions are satisfied and therefore the action of ld. CIT is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. | |
| 3. | The ld. CIT has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in not following the binding decision of Jurisdictional ITAT in the case ofGujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 33 taxmann.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.) which was cited and relied upon in the proceedings before him. | |
| 4. | Under the circumstances and facts of the case, the action of the ld CIT in cancelling the registration is beyond his power and jurisdiction, and therefore the same is required to be treated as null and void and be quashed accordingly." |
3. At the time of hearing before us, on behalf of the assessee, Shri Tushar P Hemani, Advocate appeared and contended that as per provisions contained in subsection 3 of section 12AA of the Act, the registration granted to the Trust can be cancelled by the CIT if the following two conditions are satisfied:—
| (a) | The activities of the trust or institution are not genuine; or | |
| (b) | The activities of the trust or institution are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution. |
4. The ld counsel of the assessee also pointed out that section 12AA(3) of the Act does not extend the power to CIT for re-examination of the "objects" of the trust or institution once registration has been granted u/s 12A of the Act. The ld counsel of the assessee submitted that the insertion of first proviso to section 2(15) with effect from 01.04.2009 would not have any bearing on section 12AA(3) since it does not extend to the objects of the trust or institution but only to its activities as stated therein. He further submitted that, in the present case, the assessee-trust was instituted for the promotion of game of cricket in Saurashtra and Kutch and throughout from its getting Registration of Trust from 1989 to till today and the said activities of the assessee-trust has been treated as genuine and charitable activities and exemption has always been granted to the assessee-trust u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. He further submitted that there is no change in the objects for which the Trust was instituted in as much as genuineness of the activities have never been questioned and doubted. He also pointed out that merely because of insertion of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the activities of the assessee-trust cannot be treated as non-genuine. To sum-up, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that nowhere in the impugned order u/s 12AA(3) the ld CIT judiciously satisfied that any of the two conditions to cancel the registration fulfilled and therefore the action of the ld CIT in cancelling the registration is beyond his jurisdiction.
5. Continuing his argument, the ld counsel of the assessee, pointed out that the controversy involved in this appeal is directly covered by the decision of the Co ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption)[2013] 33 taxman.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.) (copy of the same placed on records), wherein also the registration was cancelled in view of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act by the Commissioner. Reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 3 (Nag.) of 2010, dated 30-5-2011] (relevant extract of which is reproduced in the order of Gujarat Cricket Association (supra), wherein also the registration was cancelled in view of first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act by the Commissioner, but the Tribunal in both the aforesaid cases reversed the view of ld CIT in cancelling the registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act. The ld counsel of the assessee also placed on record the following decisions of the co-ordinate benches of ITAT, wherein it has been held that until and unless conditions laid down u/s 12AA(#) are not satisfied, registration of Trust cannot be cancelled:—
| (a) | Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 902 (Ahd.) of 2010] | |
| (b) | Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No.754 (A) of 2010] | |
| (c) | Gujarat Maritime Board v. ACIT [IT Appeal No.36 (Ahd.) of 2011] | |
| (d) | Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. v. DIT (Exemption) [2012] 23 taxmann.com 319/52 SOT 149 (Mum.) (URO) |
6. With regard to the activities carried out by the assessee-trust, the ld counsel of the assessee pointed out that those activities are charitable in nature and not in the nature of trade, commerce or business in view of amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act, because the entire issue has to be seen from the two limbs of the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act viz.;—
| (a) | Whether the promotion of sports and games, cricket in the present case, is charitable or not within the definition as provided u/s 2(15) of the Act and | |
| (b) | Whether such promotion of sports and games of cricket are carried out in the profit-motive or not so to be treated as in the nature of trade, commerce or business or charitable purpose. |
With regard to the first limb as mentioned in (a) above, the ld counsel of the assessee-trust, invited our attention to the circular No.395 [F. No.181(5) 82/IT(A-I)], dated 24-09-1984 wherein the Board has advised that promotion of sports and games is considered to be a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2 (15) of the Act. With regard to the second limb as mentioned in (b) above, the ld counsel of the assessee-trust submitted that the law is settled by the larger bench of Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Taxman 501 that (i) the primary or dominant purpose of the trust or institution has to be examined to determine whether the said trust/institution is involved in carrying out any activity for the profit and (ii) if the "object" of the trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, the same would satisfy the requirements of Section 2(15) of the Act.
7. It was further submitted by the ld counsel of the assessee that the first proviso to section 2(15) of the act should not generalized to each and every facts of the case where there is a surplus over the expenditure in respect of the activities or objects carried out by the trust which are in any case of the charitable purpose. He also submitted that the cardinal principle is the predominant object of the trust and if the predominant object of the Trust is of charitable nature and with no-profit motive, the said activities cannot be treated as trade, commerce or business merely because some surplus has remained left over the expenditure to carry out such activities. The ld counsel of the assessee also pointed that even after the insertion of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the following authorities, after following the law laid down by Apex Court in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association(supra), have taken a view that if the predominant object of the Trust is of charitable nature and with no-profit motive, the said activities cannot be treated as trade, commerce or business merely because some surplus has remained left over the expenditure to carry out such activities:
| (a) | Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. (supra) | |
| (b) | Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2011] 202 Taxman 1/13 taxmann.com 175/[2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) | |
| (c) | Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust v. Asstt. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 144 ITD 280/35 taxmann.com 552 (Ahd. - Trib.) |
8. The ld counsel of the assessee further pleaded that, in the present case, the main object of the Trust is to promote and encourage the game of cricket in Saurashtra and Kutch by organizing coaching schemes, tournaments, exhibition matches and other matches etc. The attention is further invited to the clause 3(j) of MOA which provides "to organize matches for the achievements of the objects of the Association and utilize the net proceeds thereof towards the implementation of the object set therein". It is submitted that all the receipts arising or accruing to the assessee-trust are on account of the activities carried out to meet the object of the assessee-trust i.e. to promote and encourage the game of cricket in Saurashtra and Kutch by organizing coaching schemes, tournaments, exhibition matches and other matches etc, and they are not with the intention to carry out any trade, commerce or business with profit-motive. Such receipts should be strictly confined to the attainment of the objects of the assessee-trust and with no intention to carry out any trade, commerce or business.
9. With regard to the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption [2012] 138 ITD 338/24 taxmann.com 99 relied upon by the ld CIT in the impugned order; the counsel of the assessee pointed out that the same is distinguishable because in that case it was found that (a) Mumbai Cricket Association entered into an agreement with another party for running activities such as restaurants, bar, banquet halls, etc apart from cricket academy and (b) the land was allotted by MMRDA to assessee strictly for non-commercial activity, which was violated by the planning, executing the activity of recreation centre. Whereas, in the present case, neither such commercial activities have been carried out by the assessee-trust nor any violation has been made by the assessee-trust; on the contrary, the assessee-trust carries out all the activities in accordance with the objects of the assessee-trust only. Therefore, he pointed out that, the ratio laid down by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association (supra) is not applicable in the present case.
10. On the other hand, Dr. M.L. Meena, DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the order of ld CIT in cancelling the Registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act. The ld Departmental Representative relied upon on the of ITAT, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 22.02.2013 in the case ofTamil Nadu Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 57 SOT 439/32 taxmann.com 50 and contended that by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2009, the Legislature made a specific provision by inserting sub-section (8) to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that wherever the first proviso to the section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is applicable, the trust does not become liable for exemption of its income u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since in the case of the trust, the first proviso is clearly applicable, the trust is not liable for exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the income of the trust would not be exempted ab-initio, there is no requirement to continue the registration in perpetuity.
11. In support of this, the ld Departmental Representative relied upon paragraph 11 of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association (supra), wherein the ITAT held that by virtue of power u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "there is no bar on review of activities of the association." The Commissioner can review the activities of the association at any given point of time and can cancel the registration.
12. The ld Departmental Representative also drew our attention to the following paragraphs of the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (supra):—
"12.1 In paragraph 53 of the aforesaid decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench, it has been discussed the pattern of the receipts accounted by the assessee, shows that the revenue is generated from advertisement and special events like IPL matches, celebrity matches, etc. These are all commercial activities. Therefore, it is crystal clear that even though cricket matches are conducted by the assessee, they are not conducted in accordance with the objects.
12.2 In paragraph 54 of the aforesaid decision, it has been discussed that it is necessary for the purpose of section 2(15) that the objects are carried out not only in their physical aspect but also in their conceptual framework, so as to claim the benefit of registration under section 12AA. In the present case, the conceptual framework has not been followed.
12.3 In paragraph 55 of the above said decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench, it has been discussed that the DIT (Exemptions) has clearly stated that the activities of the association are not in the nature of activities for advancement of any object of general public utility. But the activities involve carrying on activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any other activity of rendering any service for a cess or fee. Therefore, it is clear that the first proviso inserted under section 2(15) hits the case of the assessee.
12.4 In paragraph 56 of the aforesaid decision, ITAT Chennai Bench has discussed that there cannot be a conflict between the first proviso inserted under section 2(15) and the conditions laid down in section 12AA(3) for cancelling the registration. If there is a conflict between the two, the law stated in the proviso will be defeated. So also, the law stated in section 12AA(3) will be defeated. Therefore, when the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 2(15), its consequential reflection is automatic on section 12AA(3), which prima facie establishes that the activities carried on by the assessee are not genuine, in as much as it is not for advancement of any object of public utility. The two conditions laid down in section 12AA(3) cannot be read and understood in disregard to the proviso to section 2(15)."
13. In the end, ld Departmental Representative concluded that the two conditions stated in section 12AA(3) have reference to the de facto nature of the activities carried on by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee-trust was given registration under section 12AA on the ground that it is a charitable institution in as much as it is engaged in the advancement of an object of general public utility in the form of developing and promoting the game of cricket in Tamilnadu and Puducherry. But, now it is seen that its activities are oriented towards generating income and revenue by converting the sport of cricket into a celebrated industry, which means, the present activities carried on by the assessee are not genuine, when compared to the objects stated at the time of getting registration under section 12AA of the Act.
14. In rejoinder, the ld counsel of the assessee also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati v. CIT[2000] 246 ITR 188 and contended that in this judgment it was held that once the registration under section 12A(a) of the Act is granted, the grant of benefit cannot be denied and the AO was not justified in refusing the benefits on the ground that the scheme is not for the benefit of public at large. He submitted that since 1989, the assessee-trust is carrying out the same activities where were held by the Department as charitable; and therefore by overnight, on the ground of IPL matches, it cannot be held that the same has become non-charitable.
15. The ld counsel of the assessee also pointed out that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be adopted. In support of this, reliance was placed on the following decisions:—
| a. | Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775/106 Taxman 166 (SC) | |
| b. | Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589/103 Taxman 623 (SC) | |
| c. | CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 541/226 ITR 625 (SC) | |
| d. | CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149/62 Taxman 471 (SC) | |
| e. | CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) | |
| f. | CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) | |
| g. | CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) | |
| h. | CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 236 (SC) | |
| i. | Controller of Estate Duty v. R. Kanakasabai [1973] 89 ITR 251 (SC) | |
| j. | CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC). |
16. Rival submissions were considered. Admittedly, in the present case, the Registration has been cancelled by CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot on the basis of amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; therefore we are of the considered opinion that the action taken by the ld CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot does not fall within the permissible limits of Section 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. Similar view is taken by the Ahmedabad "A" Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association (supra) and the ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. With regard to the judgment of ITAT, Chennai "B" Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (supra) and ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association (supra), as relied upon by the ld Departmental Representative; we are of the view that the same are distinguishable as rightly pointed out by the ld counsel of the assessee-trust. Recently, ITAT Chennai "B" Bench, in the case of Madras Motor Sports Club v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 141 ITD 1/30 taxmann.com 135, in almost identical facts restored the registration, which was cancelled by ld DIT (Exemptions), observing that the nature of objects of the assessee cannot fluctuate in tandem with the quantum of receipts mentioned in the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue raised by the CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot in the impugned order regarding the activities of the trust can be examined by the Assessing Officer in the appropriate proceedings and our decision is resting only on the basis of the findings given by the ld CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot in the impugned order which is not permissible keeping in view the limited power available to him u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it would be open for the Assessing Officer to consider all the issue raised in the impugned order, if so advised, in the course of assessing proceedings of relevant years.
17. In view of above discussion, we set aside the order of ld CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act and restore the Registration granted to the assessee-trust u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed.
SB*In favour of assessee.
Regards,
Pawan Singla , LLB
M. No. 9825829075Amendment in 'Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty ) Rules, 2010′
NOTIFICATION NO. 04/2014-CENTRAL EXCISE (NT), Dated: January 24, 2014
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty ) Rules, 2010, namely:-
(1) These rules may be called the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty)First Amendment Rules, 2014.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
- In the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, -
(i) in rule 5, for the Table, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"Table
| Sl. No | Retail sale price (per pouch) | Capacity of production per packing machine per month for chewing tobacco (including Filter Khaini) ,unmanufactured tobacco and jarda scented tobacco (number of pouches) | ||
| | | Without lime tube/ lime pouch | With lime tube/lime pouches | Filter Khaini |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| 1. | Up to Re.1.00 | 3993600 | 3793920 | 2745600 |
| 2. | Exceeding Re. 1.00 but not exceeding Rs. 1.50 | 3993600 | 3793920 | 2745600 |
| 3. | Exceeding Rs. 1.50 but not exceeding Rs. 2.00 | 3594240 | 3394560 | 2608320 |
| 4. | Exceeding Rs.2.00 but not exceeding Rs. 3.00 | 3594240 | 3394560 | 2477904 |
| 5. | Exceeding Rs.3.00 but not exceeding Rs. 4.00 | 3354624 | 3154944 | 2354009 |
| 6. | Exceeding Rs.4.00 but not exceeding Rs.5 .00 | 3354624 | 3154944 | 2236308 |
| 7. | Exceeding Rs.5.00 but not exceeding Rs. 6.00 | 3354624 | 3154944 | 2124493 |
| 8. | Exceeding Rs.6.00 but not exceeding Rs. 7.00 | 3194880 | 2995200 | 2018268 |
| 9 | Exceeding Rs.7.00 but not exceeding Rs. 8.00 | 3194880 | 2995200 | 1917355 |
| 10 | Exceeding Rs.8.00 but not exceeding Rs. 9.00 | 3194880 | 2995200 | 1821487 |
| 11 | Exceeding Rs.9.00 but not exceeding Rs.10 .00 | 3194880 | 2995200 | 1730413 |
| 12 | Exceeding Rs. 10.00 but not exceeding Rs.15 .00 | 3003187 | 2853028 | 1730413 |
| 13 | Exceeding Rs. 15.00 but not exceeding Rs.20 .00 | 2822996 | 2681846 | - |
| 14 | Exceeding Rs.20.00 but not exceeding Rs.25 .00 | 2653616 | 2520935 | - |
| 15 | Exceeding Rs. 25.00 but not exceeding Rs.30 .00 | 2494399 | 2369679 | - |
| 16 | Exceeding Rs.30.00 but not exceeding Rs.35 .00 | 2344735 | 2227499 | - |
| 17 | Exceeding Rs.35.00 but not exceeding Rs.40 .00 | 2204051 | 2093849 | - |
| 18 | Exceeding Rs. 40.00 but not exceeding Rs.45 .00 | 2071808 | 1968218 | - |
| 19 | Exceeding Rs.45.00 but not exceeding Rs.50 .00 | 1947500 | 1850125 | - |
| 20 | Above Rs.50.00 | 1947500 | 1850125 | -" |
(ii) in rule 6, in sub-rule 3,for the third proviso, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"Provided further that annual capacity of production for the period from the 24th day of January, 2014 to the 31st day of January, 2014 shall be calculated on pro-rata basis for the total number of days in the month of January, 2014 and the number of days remaining in the month starting from and including the 24th day of January, 2014."
F.No. 354/120/2011-TRU
(Raj Kumar Digvijay)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Note.- The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), dated the 27th February, 2010 vide notification No. 11/2010-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 27th February, 2010, [G.S.R.127 (E), dated the 27th February, 2010] and were last amended vide notification number 20/2012-CE (NT), dated the 19th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (1), vide number G.S.R 226(E), dated 19th March, 2012.
PAN Card Notification ignores Practical issues in Implementation
CA Sandeep Kanoi
CBDT has changed the procedure for issue of PAN Card w.e.f. 03.02.2014 and has made it mandatory to submit self- attested copies of proof of identity, address and date of birth documents and also to produce original documents for verification vide its Notification No. F.No: oPAN/1/3/2003/Part Dated: 24.1.2014 and vide Press Release Dated 24.01.2014.
It said in above Notification that "The copies of Proof of Identity (POI), Proof of Address (POA) and Date of Birth (DOB) documents attached with PAN application form, will be verified vis a vis their original documents at the time of submission of PAN application at PAN Facilitation Centre. Original documents shall not be retained by the PAN Facilitation Centres and will be returned back to the applicant after verification."
While passing the notification CBDT has failed to take into account practical difficulties which Applicant and PAN Facilitation Centres will have to face. It is easier said than done. Before pronouncing the anarchic order the CBDT should have considered the problems of millions of PAN Holders (requiring to get their PAN DATA base changed and or for issuance of New PAN CARD) and NEW APPLICANTS above the age of 50 years and millions of illiterates male and female applying for PAN for one or the other reasons who would be failing to produce any documents with regard to their Date of Birth. In the absence of any specific guidelines as to what would construe as a valid birth date proof other than school certificate would be a daunting task and big challenge for Applicants as well as TIN_FCs.
CBDT move seems to be also a result of CAG Report in March 2011, in which after finding a huge mismatch between the number of PAN holders and the number of tax return filings, the Comptroller & Auditor General had asked the I- T department to ensure that a single taxpayer was not issued multiple cards.
CBDT move may also result in curb on PAN Frauds and on issue of PAN based on forged documents but at the same time CBDT should understands the practical problem, Ground Realities and comes up with a practical solution sooner than the earlier.
(Published with input from Advocate C.P Chugh)
Submit Form 27A generated by FVU withTDS/TCS statement wef 01.02.2014
With effect from February 1, 2014, it is mandatory to submit Form 27A generated by TDS/TCS FVU (File Validation Utility) duly signed, along the TDS/TCS statement/(s). Any other Form 27A submitted will be treated as invalid submission and the same will be rejected by TIN-FC branches. (27/01/2014)
ITAT DELHI - Income Tax
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Held that:- The order of the CIT(A) upheld - It cannot be held as an inflexible rule that when the assessee agrees to have certain items included in his total income, he makes an admission which by itself would warrant the imposition of penalty - It would be a wrong notion deciding the penalty proceedings that once a surrender is made of any amount, the assessee can be straightaway penalized without asking the Assessing Officer to bring some other material and further proof establishing the dishonest concealment of the undisclosed income and the falsity of the return and without affording the assessee an opportunity to show that the surrendered amount was in reality his undisclosed income or that it was for certain other reasons that the assessee had made surrender of the amount - no addition on account of sundry creditors can be made unless the trade liability had ceased to exist, even if no confirmations are filed – Relying upon CIT vs. Sita Devi Juneja [ PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT].
Mere fact of surrender could not necessarily be an admission of assessee that amount surrendered was undisclosed income and liable to be subjected to penalty – Relying upon CIT of CIT vs. Punjab Tyres - MADHYA PRADESH High Court] - no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be levied when the assessee has surrendered certain amount in the assessment proceedings - The requirements of sections 271(1)(c) had not been satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee within the same - Thus, the penalty could not be levied on the amount surrendered by the assessee, unless there was material on the record to show that the surrendered item was his income - there was no case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to make the appellant liable for penal consequences – thus, the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) levying penalty is cancelled – Decided against Revenue.
Mere fact of surrender could not necessarily be an admission of assessee that amount surrendered was undisclosed income and liable to be subjected to penalty – Relying upon CIT of CIT vs. Punjab Tyres - MADHYA PRADESH High Court] - no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be levied when the assessee has surrendered certain amount in the assessment proceedings - The requirements of sections 271(1)(c) had not been satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee within the same - Thus, the penalty could not be levied on the amount surrendered by the assessee, unless there was material on the record to show that the surrendered item was his income - there was no case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to make the appellant liable for penal consequences – thus, the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) levying penalty is cancelled – Decided against Revenue.
ITAT AHMEDABAD - Income Tax
Deletion of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act – Charitable institution eligible for depreciation u/s 32 falling under Profits and gains from business and profession – Held that:- The decision in Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust [GUJARAT High Court] followed - the income of the assessee-trust has to be computed on commercial principles and therefore, depreciation has to be allowed - allowing the deduction on purchase of assets as application of income u/s.11(1) is not equivalent to allowing deduction for the purpose of computing income, but in fact, the income remains same and the only effect of considering acquisition of asset as application of income is that such income is treated as exempt income – thus, it cannot be said that allowing exemption u/s.11(1) of the Act in respect of acquisition of asset on this basis that it is application of income is akin to allowing deduction of an expenditure but it is in fact an incentive provision allowing the charitable-trust the benefit of having exempt income - depreciation has to be allowed as per the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court which is binding on us and it is not resulting into allowing of double deduction – Decided against Revenue.
IT : Where income, whether it is actually earned or not, is not includible in total income corresponding expenditure has to be disallowed
■■■
[2013] 40 taxmann.com 517 (Mumbai - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'I'
Mrs. Varsha R. Taurani
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 19(1), Mumbai*
RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 3505 (MUM.) OF 2012
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09]
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09]
OCTOBER 30, 2013
Section 14A, read with section 57, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income [Interest] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether marginal note to section 14A clearly states that expenditure incurred in relation to income not 'includible' in total income which means that if income is not includible in total income whether it is actually earned or not, corresponding expenditure has to be disallowed under section 14A - Held, yes - Whether where income from shares which is in form of dividend has to be excluded from total income, such income cannot be considered as income from other sources and, therefore, expenditure incurred on borrowings invested in shares could not be considered while computing income from other sources - Held, yes [Paras 5.1 & 5.2] [In favour of revenue]
FACTS
| ■ | The assessee who was deriving income from house property and interest income had advanced money to company 'T' on which it had earned interest income of Rs. 3.95 lakhs. The assessee had on the other hand, borrowed Rs. 1.75 crore from company 'P' which was utilized for the purpose of making payments for acquiring preferential allotment of shares of company 'T'. The assessee paid Rs. 17.50 lakh interest on the borrowed sum. | |
| ■ | The assessee set off interest paid on borrowings from 'P' against the interest earned from 'T'. | |
| ■ | The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of interest expenditure on basis of the observation that there was no nexus between interest expenditure and interest income earned. | |
| ■ | On first appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the view of the Assessing Officer. | |
| ■ | On second appeal by the assessee to Tribunal: |
HELD
| ■ | The marginal note to section 14A clearly states that expenditure incurred in relation to income not 'includible' in total income which means that if the income is not includible in total income whether it is actually earned or not, the corresponding expenditure has to be disallowed. This aspect had also been examined by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in case of Everplus Securities & Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 101 ITD 151 in which it was held that section 14A was applicable even if no dividend income was actually earned. Thus, the interest expenditure which was in incurred indisputably in relation to acquisition of shares, income from which is not taxable cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the income from any other source. [Para 5.1] | |
| ■ | If a particular income is to be excluded from total income, this has not to be considered as income under the head 'income from other sources'. The income from shares which is in the form of dividend has to be excluded from total income whether earned or not and, therefore, such income cannot be considered as income from other sources. Therefore, the expenditure incurred on borrowings invested in shares cannot be considered while computing the income from other sources. [Para 5.2] | |
| ■ | Therefore, disallowance of expenditure by the authorities on the facts of the case was justified. [Para 5.3] |
CASE REVIEW
CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) and Krishna Bai v. ITO [1980] 10 TTJ 354 (Delhi) (para 5.3) distinguished.
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 4), Krishna Bai v. ITO [1980] 10 TTJ 354 (Delhi) (para 4), Everplus Securities & Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 101 ITD 151 (para 5) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Delhi)(SB) (para 5.1).
Deepak Tralshawalla for the Appellant. O.P. Kant for the Respondent.
ORDER
Rajendra Singh, Accountant Member - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.2.2012 of CIT (A) for the assessment year 2008-09. The only dispute raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding allowability of interest of Rs. 3,95,268/- while computing the total income.
2. The facts in brief are that the assessee who was deriving income from house property and interest income had advanced money to M/s Tips Industries Ltd on which it had earned interest income of Rs. 3,95,268/- during the year. The assessee had also borrowed a sum of Rs. 1.75 crore from M/s Prachar Communications Ltd., on which it had paid interest of Rs. 17,50,000/- during the year. The entire money borrowed from M/s Prachar Communication Ltd., has been utilized for the purpose of making payments for acquiring preferential allotment of shares of M/s Tips Industries Ltd. The dividend income receivable if any from the shares of M/s Tips Industries Ltd., is not chargeable to tax. However during the year the assessee had not received any dividend income. The assessee set off the interest paid on borrowings from M/s Prachar Communication Ltd., against the interest income earned from M/s Tips Industries Ltd,. The AO further observed that the borrowings had not been advanced as loan to M/s Tips Industries Ltd from which interest income was earned and, therefore, there was no nexus between the interest expenditure and the interest income earned. He referred to provisions of section 57(iii) as per which only the expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning of income from other sources could be allowed as deduction. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 3,95,268/- on account of interest expenditure.
3. In appeal CIT (A) agreed with the AO that under the provisions of section 57(iii) there must be clear nexus between the expenditure incurred and income sought to be earned for allowing the claim of expenditure. He did not accept the arguments of the assessee that the transactions were correlated and there was indirect nexus between the interest income and the interest expenditure incurred. He accordingly upheld the view of the AO that the interest expenditure was not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the decision of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
4. Before us, the learned for the assessee submitted that while considering the allowability of expenditure u/s 57(iii) the entire income from other source as a whole has to be considered and it was not necessary to correlate a particular expenditure to a particular item of income from other source. It was argued that the borrowings had been used for acquisition of hares income from which was assessable as income from other source and, therefore, interest expenditure incurred had to be allowed against the interest income on advances given to M/s Tips Industries Ltd. It was also submitted that though no dividend income had been received, earning of income was not necessary for allowability of expenditure as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ofCIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that in case the expenditure had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income, the deduction has to be allowed even if no income was actually earned under the head "income from other sources". Reliance was also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of Tribunal dated 15.3.1980 in case of Krishna Bai v. ITO [1980] 10 TTJ 354. It was accordingly urged that the claim of interest expenditure made by the assessee should be allowed.
4.1 The learned DR on the other hand submitted that the borrowings had been utilised for acquisition of shares income from which was not taxable and, therefore, the corresponding interest expenditure could not be allowed as deduction against the interest income earned from other sources.
5. We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of expenditure on account of interest paid against interest income earned. The assessee had borrowings of Rs. 1.75 crore from M/s Prachar Communiation Ltd. which had been utilised for acquiring preferential shares of M/s Tips Industries Ltd. The assessee had paid interest of Rs. 17,50,000/- on the said borrowings. The assessee had also advanced loan to M/s Tips Industries Ltd. on which interest income of Rs. 395268/- had been made. The dispute is whether the interest paid by the assessee to M/s Prachar Communication Ltd can be set off against interest income on loan given to M/s Tips Industries Ltd. The case of the assessee is that while considering allowability of expenditure against income from other sources the entire income has to be considered as a whole and was not necessary to correlate each item of expenditure to income earned. Therefore, if the expenditure had been incurred for earning income from other source and there is no actual earning of income, such expenditure can be allowed against any other item of income from other source. In our view, the arguments advanced are not relevant to the factual matrix of the present case. In this case, borrowings had been utilised for acquisition of shares, income from which is exempt from tax. Though no income from dividend had been actually earned during the year, the dividend income even if earned is not taxable. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 14A interest expenditure which relates to tax free income is not allowable as deduction against any other source of income.
5.1 It has been pointed out that there was no actual dividend income received and, therefore, provisions of section 14A are not applicable. We are unable to accept the arguments advanced. The marginal note to section 14A clearly states that expenditure incurred in relation to income not "includible" in total income which means that if the income is not includible in total income whether it is actually earned or not the corresponding expenditure has to be disallowed. This aspect had also been examined by Delhi bench of Tribunal in case of Everplus Securities & Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 101 ITD 151 in which it was held that section 14A was applicable even if no dividend income was actually earned. The said decision of Tribunal has been upheld by the special bench of Tribunal in case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Delhi)(SB). Thus the interest expenditure in this case which was incurred indisputably in relation to acquisition of shares income from which, is not taxable, cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the income from any other source.
5.2 As regards the argument of Ld. AR that while considering the allowability of expenditure under the head "income from other sources" all the items of income have to be considered as a whole. We find that section 56 defines the income falling under the head "income from other source" every kind of income which is not to be excluded from total income and which is not chargeable under any specific head under section 14. Therefore, it is clear that if a particular income is to be excluded from total income, this has not to be considered as income under the head "income from other sources". The income from shares which is in the form of dividend has to be excluded from total income whether earned or not and, therefore, such income cannot be considered as income from other sources. Therefore, the expenditure incurred on borrowings invested in shares cannot be considered while computing the income from other sources.
5.3 The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) relied upon by the learned AR is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case it was held by the Apex Court that if the expenditure had not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from other sources, the corresponding expenditure had to be allowed even if no income was actually earned. The issue in the present case is not whether income has been earned or not. The issue is whether the expenditure can be allowed if the income even if earned is not taxable. Moreover, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) had been rendered when the provisions of section 14A were not on the statute. Similarly the decision of Delhi bench of Tribunal in case of Krishna Bai (supra) is also not applicable. The Tribunal in the said case following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowed money invested in shares had to be allowed even if there was no income earned from investments in shares. The judgment is relevant only to the period prior to insertion of section 14A as per which no expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income can be allowed. Therefore, in our view the disallowance of expenditure by the authorities below on the facts of the case is justified. We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A).
6. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
SB*In favour of revenue.
Regards,
Pawan Singla , LLB
M. No. 9825829075 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 4:20 AM, "info@cliofindia.com" <info@cliofindia.com> wrote:
www.cliofindia.com info@cliofindia.com
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX REPORTS (GSTR) HIGHLIGHTS
F Writ petition against preliminary finding published by the designated authority maintainable especially when point of jurisdiction raised : Nirma Ltd. v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. (Mad) P. 238
F Discretionary power of designated authority in respect of domestic producers not taken away by amendment to term "domestic industry" : Nirma Ltd. v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. (Mad) P. 238
F Domestic producer being only producer of article, entitled to maintain application for investigation : Nirma Ltd. v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. (Mad) P. 238
F Fiscal law to be construed strictly : Nirma Ltd. v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. (Mad) P. 238
F Where assessee paying differential duty on supplementary invoices regularly and reflecting it in ER-I returns, Department has no jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice for interest beyond period of one year : Commissioner of Central Excise v. VAE VKN Industries P. Ltd. (P&H) P. 286
F Appeal by Department involving amount much lower than monetary limit fixed by Board, dismissed : Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. (Guj) P. 289
F Whether production copies of shipping bills related to bills raised by customs house agency and invoices raised by testing agency amounts to sufficient compliance of requirement of notification, Matter remitted : Meridian Apparels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Trib.-Chennai) P. 303
F Whether production copies of certain documents amount to sufficient compliance of requirement of notification, not question relating to rate of duty and can be decided by single Member Bench : Meridian Apparels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Trib.-Chennai) P. 303
F Rules :
Central Excise (Second Amendment) Rules, 2013 P. 110
Service Tax Third (Amendment) Rules, 2013 P. 110
F Notifications :
Central Excise Act, 1944 : Notification under section 5A(1) : Concessional rate of duty on specified goods : Amendments P. 111
Central Excise Rules, 2002 : Notification under rule 2(ea) : Conditions to be specified and procedures : Amendments P. 111
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 : Notification under section 9A(1) and (5) : Anti-dumping duty on import of acrylic fibre from Korea and Thailand : Amendments P. 102
Anti-dumping duty on import of cable ties from China and Taiwan : Amendments P. 103
Anti-dumping duty on import of diclofenac sodium from China : Amendments P. 108
Anti-dumping duty on import of paracetamol from China P. 99
Anti-dumping duty on import of phenol from South Africa : Amendments P. 104
Anti-dumping duty on import of polypropylene from Oman : Amendments P. 109
Anti-dumping duty on import of vitamin A palmitate from Switzerland and China P. 105
Anti-dumping duty on import of vitrified and porcelain tiles from China P. 97
Finance Act, 1994 : Notification under section 93(1) : Exemption to certain services : Amendments P. 112
Service Tax Rules, 1994 : Notification under rule 2(cc) : Conditions to be specified and procedures : Amendments P. 111
To Unsubscribe : Reply back with "Unsubscribe" in subject followed by the key word "ITR" or "CC" or "VST" or "CCD" or "GSTR" or "ITR (Trib)", respectively or "All" if you do not want any Email. ITR : Income Tax Reports, CC : Company Cases, VST : VAT and Service Tax Cases, CCD : Consolidated Commercial Digest, GSTR : Goods and Service Tax Reports, ITR (Trib) : ITR'S Tribunal Tax Reports. Also send your feedback or comments to info@cliofindia.com
COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD.
No. 2, Vaithyaram Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017.
Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55
Fax: (044) 24322015
info@cliofindia.com
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment