ADVISORY FOR MULTIPURPOSE EMPANELMENT FORM (MEF) FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 – 1. Last date for submission of applications on the website www.meficai.org is 14th August 2012. 2. Please use Internet Explorer 6.0/ Mozilla Firefox 7.0 or later versions to fill MEF 2012-13. Members are advised to fill MEF well in advance to avoid last minute rush and technical problems. 3. The information filled in by the applicant in MEF can be edited/modified any number of times before online submission of MEF.

CIRCULAR NO. 163/14/2012-ST, Concerns have been expressed in various forums regarding the leviability of service tax on the remittance of foreign currency in India from overseas. 2. The matter has been examined and it is clarified that there is no service tax per se on the amount of foreign currency remitted to India from overseas. In the negative list regime, ‘service’ has been defined in clause (44) of section 65B of the Finance Act 1994, as amended, which excludes transaction in money. As the amount of remittance comprises money, the activity does not comprise a ‘service’ and thus not subjected to service tax.

When the shares of the individual beneficiaries are determinate:- a. The shares falling to each of the beneficiaries are liable to be assessed, either in the hands of the trustee(s) as a representative assessee or directly in the hands of the beneficiary entitled to the income. Such assessment is made at the rate applicable to the total income of each beneficiary. b. Where the income of the trust consists of or includes profits and gains of business, income tax shall be charged in the hands of trustee(s) on the whole of the income at the maximum marginal rate. This provision is not applicable, in the case of a trust which has been declared by any person exclusively for the benefit of any relative dependent on him and also such trust is the only trust so declared by him.

In any case, expert advice obtained by the assessee from Vakharia & Associates lacks credibility and just because the assessee’s claim is supported by a chartered accountant’s opinion, this fact per se cannot absolve the assessee from penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the case of CIT Vs Escort Finance Limited (328 ITR 44), Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rejected assessee’s reliance on expert advice to avoid the penalty

July is the month when most of us in the tax bracket need to file income tax returns, more so in case of individual assessees and where audit is not required. 31st July is the last date for filing income tax returns by all individuals, firms, HUFs, etc. whose books of accounts are not subject to audit under any law including income tax. This generally covers all individual assessees including salaried persons, professionals etc.

After six years of uncertainties, finally section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 has few more days to survive. 1.7.2012 is the day when this section will cease to exist. On this date, Export of Services Rules, 2005 and Taxation of services (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 will also extinguish. In place of these, a new charging section 66B will come into force and instead of import-export rules, a new set of rules namely, Place of provision of services rules, 2012 will be implemented. In this article, an effort has been made to bring out its impact on the import of intermediary services from abroad.

Service tax by way of Negative list is the beginning of a new era in the 18 years old Service tax law. Most of the existing provisions have been reviewed to line up them with the new scheme. Inspite of a no. of ambiguities regarding the negative list to be introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2012, the hotel industry is receiving positive signs therefrom. This piece of articulation is about the impact of negative list scheme on the hotel industry.

Service tax on Works Contract was introduced on 1.6.2007. Starting with an attractive rate of 2% service tax on the composite value of both material & labour, today it has reached the rate of 4.8% w.e.f. 1.4.2012. Under the current scheme, the works contract covers only immovable properties, however, in order to bring it up to the proposed negative list; the definition of works contract has been amended so as to include the movable properties also. Further the reverse charge mechanism is also extended to it. This article revolves around the enhanced scope of the works contract service under negative list scenario.

The AO has simply mentioned in the asstt. Order that on enquiry some of the vehicles shown to have been involved in the supply of seeds have been found to be two-wheelers and cars and not trucks & metadors, but has not given any specific instance. Therefore, the charge made by the AO to this extent cannot be verified by this office. Even otherwise, it is a fact that the vehicle Nos. are being mentioned at the gate-passes by the security staff who are not highly literate and who may write an alphabet of insurance in such a way that any person may read it to be some other alphabet. For example it is quite possible that the gate-keeper writes the alphabets OD on the gate pass which the next record may read as OO or DO or DD for the simple reason that the first person might have written the two alphabets in a near similar fashion. Therefore, no adverse inference can be derived only for the reason of discrepancy in the vehicle numbers

The monies held in the account must be regarded as being at the joint disposal of Mr and Mrs Pflum which means when the mandate is such that either party can draw on them, that either party is free to withdraw and spend them as he or she wishes. In practice most withdrawals were made by Mrs Pflum without reference to Mr Pflum. Thus when she withdrew sums in the UK using the debit card, the cash so withdrawn would be her own money and she was drawing on an asset which was just as much her own asset as it was Mr Pflum’s. That is the essence of a joint bank account held by the holders as joint tenants. We therefore reject Mrs Teggart’s submission that because the monies were derived from Mr Pflum’s earnings he was to be regarded as not having alienated them, in the absence of clear evidence of an intention to sever the joint tenancy and confer beneficial ownership on Mrs Pflum. The application of this principle also leads to the same conclusion in relation to purchases made through use of the debit card in the UK.