The newly proposed section 56 [2][vii] in the Finance Bill, 2009 is no ‘rosagoola’. When the Hon’ble Finance Minister ‘pronounced’ his budget in the Parliament, there was not even a whisper of reference to this section in his speech. And in this silence, lurked a deadly Bengal Tiger called ‘section 56 [2][vii]’.
The present article discusses amendment proposed by Finance Bill (No. 2) 2009 regarding provisions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and deduction u/s. 80-IB(10). Though the provisions relating to Dispute Resolution Panel are not a complete code for full and complete resolution of dispute referred to it, it is a step in right direction. Litigation is time consuming and it has been demand of AIFTP from time to time that Law must provide for Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism for settling of dispute at the option of the assessee.
Question. The dealer has purchased plant along with land from Financial Institution in auction. The original owner of plant was declared sick unit and was liable to discharge sales tax dues for past years. The Sales Tax Department is contemplating to recover the said dues from the dealer who has purchased the plant and land in auction. Whether the department is justified in such demand?
The facts are that the dealer is registered under CST Act in Andhra Pradesh as well as in Maharashtra. Order is placed by AP branch on Tamil Nadu dealer for supply of goods against H form. The supplier prepares invoice mentioning Maharashtra address. The goods are delivered by TN party in AP from where dealer exports the goods. The dealer accounts the said invoice of TN party in its books in Maharashtra and shows the same in the Maharashtra Sales Tax returns. The H form issued by Maharashtra authorities is issued to TN party. Whether the above course of action as per law?
The subject of works contract is one of the most confusing and litigated issues. The Constitution (Forty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 granted powers to State Governments to enact laws for providing the levy of tax on the transfer of property (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of works contracts. Builders and Developers undergo untold hardship and misery while computing the gross and taxable turnovers. Each State has prescribed its own law, rules and methodology for determining the gross and taxable turnovers.
Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (LLP Act) was passed by the Parliament in December, 2008. Some of the sections of the LLP Act were made effective on 1-4-2009. Sections relating to conversion of existing partnership firms and private as well as public unlisted companies into LLP have been brought into force on 31-5-2009. Sections relating to liquidation and winding up of LLP have not yet come into force. LLP Rules, 2009, have also been made and they have now come into force.
Government proposes to extent benefits of Special Economic Zones (SEZ) to food parks so that the country could quickly emerge as a regional hub for food processing and SEZ benefits are available only to SEZ Developers and units. Mega Food Park Scheme presently operates under different set of guidelines framed by the Government.
ALL practicing chartered accountants in the country may now have to keep a close tab on their clients, as the accounting rule-maker , the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), is considering a proposal to devise a set of know your customer (KYC) norms to be followed by its members before taking up business.
The Government has set up a Market Research and Analysis Unit in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office with the objective of improvements in the regulatory system in Corporate Sector. Giving this information in the Lok Sabha today Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Corporate Affairs said the unit will inter-alia perform following main functions:
The Tribunal dismissed the excise appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. The application filed by the assessee for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed. The dismissal was challenged before the High Court on the ground that under s. 35C of the Excise Act (corresponding to s. 254 of the Income-tax Act) the Tribunal had no power to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance of the Appellant. It had to decide on merits. HELD:
