The US is seeking an order from a San Francisco federal court authorising the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to request information from HSBC Bank about US residents who may be using accounts in HSBC India to evade federal income taxes, the Justice Department said Thursday.
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Indiabulls Securities after SEBI challenged a Securities Appellate Tribunal order setting aside the penalty imposed against the firm by the market regulator for alleged manipulative and fraudulent practices in the F&O segment.
India can get information on secret bank accounts from Swiss authorities for cases dating from January 2011, once the revised taxation treaty between the two countries is ratified by the Switzerland Parliament. “In this case, because you (India) wants to find all the tax evaders… I think we have conceded in the negotiation of DTAA, that India will get information effective from January 1, 2011,” Swiss Ambassador to India Philippe Welti told PTI.
It was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the averments raised by the appellant herein need to be decided on merits by the appellate authority in view of the issue raised by the appellant with regard to his liability. The impugned order has been passed on a prima facie view of the appellate authority. Keeping in view the averments raised by the appellant and the fact that he is an aged person of about 80 years and has no source of income of his own and the fact that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, we are of the view that the pre-deposit order of an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is not justified. In the given circumstances, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of asking for the pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs.
Revenue in their memo of appeal have sought to distinguish the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI, on the ground that in that decision the services were received outside the India, whereas in the present case, the services were received inside the India from the person having his office in India. We do not find any merit in the above distinction being made by the Revenue. Section 66-A having been inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.4.2006 clearly laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. We find no merits in the Revenue’s contention. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Stay petition also get disposed off.
The Union Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee said that the greatest challenge before us today is to create and sustain more and better opportunities for a young, growing and aspiring India. He said that an important part of the response to this concern is to ensure that the macroeconomic balance of the economy is strengthened through a determined focus on fiscal consolidation. The Finance Minister said that it would improve and sustain the growth prospects of the economy. He said that with Budget proposals for 2011-12, we are moving on that path.
The government today informed the Supreme Court that it will set aside its order directing scam-hit information technology (IT) firm Satyam Computer to pay Rs 617 crore as income tax and will give a fresh hearing to the firm’s plea challenging the tax demand. Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati, appearing for the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), told the apex court that it would recall its March 10, 2011, order, demanding Rs 617 crore in tax and decide afresh on the actual tax liability of Satyam Computer, now known as Mahindra Satyam.
The Reserve Bank has imposed penalty of up to Rs 5 lakh on two Gujarat-based co-operative sector lenders — the Mehsana Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd and the Jamnagar Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd — for violation of certain guidelines. The violations range from conduct of non-banking business to non-reporting of cash transactions, the RBI said.
Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Cenvat credit – Distribution of credit on inputs by office or any other premises of output service provider – Assessee paid service tax pertaining to advertisement of its product manufactured in a unit – It availed Cenvat credit of service tax so paid in another unit – Revenue denied said credit on ground that assessee was entitled to take credit only in unit where product was manufactured –
This Act may be called the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011. (2) (a) Section 1 shall come into force on the date of the publication of this Act in the Official Gazette. (b) Section 19 (1) shall come into force with effect from the date on which the Finance Act, 2011 comes into force. (c) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the remaining sections shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions.
