EXPORTS (including re-exports) India’s exports during October, 2011 were valued at US$ 19869.97 million (Rs.97875.32 crore) which was 10.82 per cent higher in Dollar terms (22.92 per cent higher in Rupee terms) than the level of US$ 17929.64 million (Rs. 79626.77) during October, 2010. Cumulative value of exports for the period April-October 2011 -12 was US$ 179777.23 million (Rs 820679.43 crore) as against US$ 123170.46 million (Rs.564313.87 crore) registering a growth of 45.96 per cent in Dollar terms and 45.43 per cent in Rupee terms over the same period last year.
Notification No. 23/2011- Central Excise (N.T.) Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that according to a practice that was generally prevalent regarding levy of duty of excise (including non-levy thereof) under section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( 1 of 1944), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the duty of excise on pile liners fabricated at the site of construction for use at the marine site, falling under heading 7305 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as said goods) was not being levied under section 3 of the said Act, during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 2005 and ending with 17th day of November, 2011;
Notification No.86/2011 – Customs (N.T.), These rules may be called the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Second Amendment Rules, 2011.
Now a days, every assessee who is doing investment in shares are getting hitted hard by the impact of section 14A. The AO are adding back a huge sum on account of this, whereas the assessee had not earned so much from it. The article will provide you brief analysis of this section which will help to substantiate your views at the time of the the assessment or before the appellate authority.
Pneumech Engineers Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty to conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.
Service tax on transportation had a bad innings right from its first levy. It has gone through the ups and downs since it was levied for the first time on 16.11.1997. The levy was challenged and was withdrawn on 2.6.1998 just after few months. Though government did retrospective amendments twice in this category of service, yet the issue does not seem to be settled till date. The levy of service tax for the mid-period of 16.11.97 to 2.6.98 is still in limelight by one reason or another. Here is the anatomy of the issue that has been on fire since past so many years.
Supreme Court dismisses revenue appeal confirming ITAT stand on joint names issue. Allahabad High Court judgment explained. #IncomeTax #LegalNews
Notification No. 60/2011 – Income Tax Section 115JC which provided for special provisions for payment of “Alternate Minimum Tax” by certain Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP), was introduced by the Finance Act, 2011. As per section 115JC(3) every LLP to which section 115JC applies is required to obtain a report from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed. Accordingly, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, has through this notification, notified Income-tax (9th Amendment) Rules, 2011. The said Amendment Rules have inserted Rule 40BA after Rule 40B which provides that the report of an accountant which is required to be furnished by the assessee under section 115JC(3) shall be in Form 29C. Further, in Appendix II of the said rules, Form 29C has been inserted after Form 29B. These Rules will come into force on 1st April, 2012.
Guidelines for reporting TDS transactions where amount paid to deductee has not exceeded the threshold limit in the first quarter but in subsequent quarters has exceeded threshold limit (as issued by the Directorate of Income Tax – Systems). Flag “Y” should be selected in the field of ‘Reason for non deduction/ lower deduction/higher deduction/ threshold’ to highlight transactions where TDS is not deducted as the threshold for deducting tax has not exceeded. If threshold flag is provided then rate of deduction should be ‘0.0000’ and tax deducted/ deposited (deductee) amount should be ‘0.00’. Threshold flag is can be quoted only against the following section codes in corresponding challan details:
