The Supreme Court today expressed displeasure over the tardy pace of probe by the Income Tax department into the tax evasion cases linked to 2G spectrum case, saying it wanted results. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly directed the department to file a detailed report on action taken by it during the last three years when it got a complaint in this regard and began tapping corporate lobbyist Niira Radia’s telephone.
Due to unavoidable reasons the examination of Paper –3- Law, Ethics and Communication of Professional Competence Examination and Paper -2- Business Laws, Ethics and Communications of integrated Professional Competence Examination which were scheduled to be held on 5th May 2011 (Thursday) stand cancelled in respect of such candidates who have opted to write their examination in Hindi Medium. The fresh date of the examination for such Hindi Medium candidates will be announced separately and such candidates are advised to visit www.icai.org for updates.
Government has decided to impose a penalty on officials who do not accept postal orders as fees for getting information under the Right to Information Act. The Department of Personnel and Training has issued a circular in this regard.
Finance Minister Shri Mukherjee said that he met Vietnamese Prime Minister yesterday and requested him to resolve all the pending issues including setting up of a steel project in Vietnam by Tata Group of Industries. The General Secretary of Communist part of Vietnam, Mr. Trong said that he will discuss all the pending issues with the Prime Minister of Vietnam in order to get them resolved. Finance Minister Shri Mukherjee invited Mr. Trong to visit India in near future which will help in further boosting the relationships between the two countries.
Supreme Court restricts cultivation of cash crops like areca nut, coconut, cashew, and black pepper in Karnataka’s reserved forests. Lease cancellations justified.
AAR in the case Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company held that capital gains provisions are not attracted in case of transfer of shares without consideration. Further, the AAR held that the transfer pricing provisions in an international transaction can be applied only when income is chargeable to tax in India and since in the present case no income was chargeable to tax in India the question of applicability of Transfer Pricing provisions and withholding tax under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) does not arise.
Circular No. 943/04/20 1 1-CX dated 29 April 2011 – Various amendments have been made in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Union Budget 2011. Definitions of the terms like ‘inputs’, ‘input services’, ‘exempt services’, etc. have been amended. Also, amendments have been made in the methodology prescribed for credit reversal in case an assessee is engaged in both taxable and non taxable activities. Many of these amendments appear to be in respect of issues which have been a subject matter of judicial scrutiny in the last few years. Thus, it seems that through these amendments, Government intends to settle the long standing disputes and move ahead.
S.E. Investment Limited (the Petitioner) was incorporated with an authorized share capital of INR 2 million which was gradually increased to INR 85 million.The Petitioner had paid stamp duty on the increase in the authorized share capital from INR 2 million to INR 85 million.The Petitioner further increased its authorized shares capital from INR 85 million to INR 1250 million and filed Form No. 5 with Registrar of Companies (RoC). The ROC insisted on payment of Stamp duty.The Petitioner sought clarification from the Collector of Stamps, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Stamp duty authority) as to whether any additional stamp duty on increase in authorized share capital was payable in accordance with Article 10 of the Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2007 (Delhi Stamp Act). In response to the application the Petitioner was directed by the Stamp duty authority to pay the stamp duty of INR 1.87 million on increased authorized shares capital of INR 1165 million.The Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
The Council of the Institute at its 200th Meeting held on March 18, 2011 at New Delhi amended the Guidelines for Compulsory Attendance of Professional Development Programmes by the Members to provide as under
DCIT v. AIG Home Finance India Ltd. The taxpayer was a housing finance company. The taxpayer had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act (ITA) in respect of securitization income earned from the business of long term housing finance. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction to the taxpayer on the basis that the taxpayer had received the proceeds on loan securitization and not the interest income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the taxpayer. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the AO preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
