Finance Ministry will hold annual performance review of public sector banks here on April 26 to evaluate various aspects including non-performing assets and financial inclusion. The meeting will chaired by Financial Services Secretary S K Sharma instead of the usual practice of Finance Minister conducting bankers meet.
The identical questions of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244. This Court held that the transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity.
Himachal Pardesh High court in an important recent Judgment namely M/s Durga Dass Devki Nandan.V Income-tax Officer, Palampur decided on 11-03-2011 has held the circular No 739 dated 25-03-1996 of CBDT as invalid. The said circular is on the issue of availability of deduction to a partnership firm in relation to remuneration available to partners of a firm u/s 40(b)(v) of Income Tax Act 1961. The said circular stated that the deduction u/s 40(b)(v) will be available only if the remuneration to partners is authorized by the partnership deed by way of specification of amount of remuneration therein or by way of quantification of remuneration.
It is not in dispute that the assessees used the inputs and have exported the impugned goods and the refund is only in respect of input credit attributable to the inputs utilized in the exported goods. It is not necessary to prove one-to-one correlation of inputs with that of exported goods. The assessees were not in a position to utilize the credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods which were exported under bond and which were getting accumulated from time to time. In those circumstances, when once the appellate authority correctly applied Rule 5 and granted the refund.
Notification No.29/2011 – Customs (N.T.) – Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 61/94-Customs (NT), dated the 21st November, 1994, namely: – (i) In the said notification, in the Table for serial number 6 relating to the state of Gujarat specified in column (1) and the entries relating thereto in columns (2) , (3) and (4), the following shall, respectively, be substituted, namely:-
The government has decided to issue biometric PAN cards to taxpayers across the country to weed out the problem of duplicate and fake ones. The decision was taken recently by the Finance Ministry and it comes in the wake of a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report that asked the Income Tax department to ensure that a single tax payer is not issued multiple cards.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) issued a Discussion Paper on Compulsory Licencing of Patents in August 2010. The Department received 38 responses. Ten of these responses were received from stakeholders based in countries outside India including Thailand, South Africa, USA , UK and Japan. Eleven responses were received from pharma manufacturers associations, and business promotions councils/chambers. Fourteen were received from other stakeholders including academics and NGOs.
M/s Durga Dass Devki Nandan vs. ITO (HP High Court) – The CBDT circular can only be held to be valid if it is in terms of the main section. As held above, the Section 40(b)(v) only lays down that either the working partner should be paid an amount specified in the partnership deed or it should not exceed the amount laid down in the Section. In the present case the partners have been paid their remuneration/salary strictly in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed and this amount paid to the partners does not exceed the maximum permissible amount and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
The refunds against bank guarantee shall be granted any time for any period even after the due date of filing of audit form 704 is over. The condition of refund audit of previous period and major discrepancy will not be applicable in the bank guarantee cases. It may be noted that after granting the refund against bank guarantee, if the refund audit officer notices that the deafer Is avoiding/ delaying the process of refund audit then the concerned Joint Commissioner shall encash the bank guarantee submitted by the dealer Immediately.
CIT vs. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd (Gujarat High Court) – Assessee is fully justified in arranging its affairs in such a manner where his tax liability is reduced provided the assessee does not resort to any illegal means or enter into a sham transaction for the said purpose. It is the prerogative of the assessee to use its own fund in the manner in which it considers proper. The Revenue cannot dictate the assessee that how the assessee should use its own fund. Thus in our considered opinion the A.O.’s approach in the instant case was not justified. The nexus between the interest bearing fund and interest free investment as claimed by the A.O. was not correct when it is not in dispute that the own funds were utilized for making tax free investment.
