Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Customs

CHALR - Department directed to issue licence to petitioner who passed 1984 Regulations Examination: HC

THE issue raised by the Petitioner is whether he should take the CHA examination again under CHA Regulations 2004, when he has passed the examination conducted under Regulation 9 of the earlier Regulations of 1984. According to the Petitioner, a candidate upon passing the examination held under the 1984 Regulations, need not write the examination again.

Income Tax

Whether in case of demerger, demerged company cannot claim Sec 10A benefits for income of financial year in which demerger takes place - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the assessee, a demerged company is entitled to deduction u/s 10A, in respect of the profit as declared in its return of income till the date of demerger - Whether in view of section 10A(7A), only the resulting company will be entitled for deduction u/s 10A and the demerged company will not be allowed any deduction for the income offered for the financial year in which the demerger took place. And the verdict partly goes in favour of Revenue.

Central Excise

Range Superintendent is not empowered to quantify duty demand - CESTAT

IN the normal course, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have required the original authority (Additional Commissioner) to quantify the revised demand. In this case, however, this did not happen. The Range Superintendent appears to have, on his own accord, done the exercise of re-quantification of duty. The aforesaid letter was issued to demand such duty. After considering all aspects of this case, the demand worked out by the Superintendent without concurrence of the original authority should not be enforced during the pendency of this appeal.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements