With effect form 29.05.2011, in the following cases challan mode for payment is allowed for amount less than Rs. 50,000/-. a. Payment to ‘Investor Education and protection Fund’ through `Pay Misc. Fee’ functionality b. Any payment made by user having category as ‘Official liquidator office
S.O. In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide GSR No.482 jEj, dated the 4th March, 2011, published at page 2 of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 4th March, 2011, namely:- in line 5, for has assets read has either assets. in line 6, for Rs. 250 crore or read Rs.250 crore in India or” . in line 7, for Rs.750 crore from” read Rs.750 crore in India from
Notification No. 44/2011-Customs Whereas in the matter of import of Acetone (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under sub-heading 29141100 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in, or exported from, the Chinese Taipei (hereinafter referred to as the subject country) and imported into India, the designated authority vide its final findings, in notification No. 14/04/2006-DGAD, dated 4th January 2008 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section I, dated the 4th January, 2008 had come to the conclusion that
Notification No.43/2011-Customs Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Finance( Department of Revenue) No. 121/2006-Customs dated the 26th December, 2006, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide G.S.R.769 (E), dated the 26th December, 2006, namely:- In the said notification, in the Table, in column (2), for the figure ‘50079000’ wherever it occurs, the figure and words “50079010 or 50079090’’ shall be substituted.
Notification No. 36/2011 – Customs (N.T.) Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto into Indian currency or vice versa shall, with effect from 1st June, 2011 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, for the purpose of the said section, relating to imported and export goods.
CIT Vs Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Income tax – Capital or Revenue Receipt – Rule 115 – Whether, if assessee receives a sum on account of non-performance of the terms of the agreement by the purchaser under an arbitration award and keep it in the capital account, the surplus arising on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange is taxable as revenue receipt or should be considered as capital receipt – Whether profit and loss arising on account of appreciation or depreciation in the value of foreign currency is taxable only when there is actual conversion of foreign currency – Case Remanded
ACIT v Viceroy Hotels Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) – The payment made by the assessee to the non-resident for only providing advisory services and opinions for the improvement of existing facilities in the hotels for meeting international standards would not fall within ambit of “fees for included services” as enumerated in Art 12(4) of the DTAA between India and USA. The provisions of s 195 were also not applicable and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default within the meaning of s 201(1).
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in an important case namely Lajpat Rai Chanana V State of Haryana & others (2011) 38 PHT 390 (P&H) that input tax credit to a works contractor executing the works contract will be justified if the contractee has already paid the tax on the goods supplied by him to the contractor. The assessee was a works contractor for executing various works for the Government and its authorities. For executing the work, the State and its authorities supplied material to the petitioner (Contractor) which was treated as sale. Since the said authorities had paid the tax while purchasing the said material before supplying the same to the petitioner, the petitioner claimed the benefit of input tax credit. It is held by the Hon’ble High Court that in such case assessee (Contractor) is entitled to input tax credit paid by the contractee.
CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi High Court) Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if “in the course of proceedings” the AO is satisfied that there is “concealment” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars“. The words “in the course of proceedings” mean the assessment proceedings because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the question whether there is “concealment” or “inaccurate particulars” has to be determined with reference to the return of income. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
A.A.R. No. 840 of 2010 in the case of ABC International Inc. USA- Foreign corporates with subsidiaries in the country are not subject to payment of withholding tax for financial services like discounting of bills provided to their Indian arms. In a ruling, the Authority of Advanced Rulings (AAR) also held such companies are also not liable to pay income tax in case the firm is based in a country which has a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) agreement with India.
