52/17/CAB‐2011 In continuation of MCA’s General Circular No. 8/2012 dated 10th May, 2012, it has been decided that filing of Cost Audit Reports and Compliance Reports with the Central Government in the XBRL mode shall be allowed after 31st July, 2012.
Circular No. 15 /2012 In order to have better understanding of the circular, it is clarified that the time limit of 60 days shall be read as 122 days for filing of Form 11 by LLPs in respect of the Financial Year ending on 31.03.2012. This circular shall be effective from 30.06.2012.
Notification No. 55/2012-CUSTOMS (N. T.) Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 748 (E), dated the 3rd August, 2001, namely:-
Draft guidelines regarding implementation of General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) in terms of section 101 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. – The Chairman, CBDT, Vide OM F.NO. 500/111/2009-FTD-1 Dated 27 February, 2012 constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director General of the Income Tax (International Taxation) to give recommendations for formulating the guidelines for proper implementation of GAAR Provisions under the Direct Tax Code Bill, 2010 and to suggest safeguards to these provisions to curb the abuse thereof. The Committee comprised of the following officers :-
Notification No. 54/2012 – Customs (N.T.) CBEC, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 14/2002-Customs (N.T.), dated the 7th March, 2002, published in the Gazette of India, vide number G.S.R. 170(E), dated the 7th March, 2002, namely:-
Section 195 of the Act clearly states that any person responsible for paying to a non resident any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall at the time of credit of such income will income tax thereon at the rate inforce at the time of payment or credit. Therefore, the first test to be applied for deduction of TDS is to see whether income in the hands of payee is taxable in India or not.
As per the scheme of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 Contractee who entered into Contract for Works Contract with Contractor is under an obligation to deduct 5 % while making the payment to the contractee if execution of which involves transfer of property in goods and liability on account of such contract exceeds Rs. 5 Lacs in a single Contract. These provisions do not apply to individual or HUF who are not registered under the Act.
I. Dissent note submitted by Shri Gurudas Dasgupta, MP II. Minutes of the sittings of the Committee held on 24 January, 2012 , 18 May, 2012 and 7 June, 2012 III. The Companies Bill, 2011
The bank had provided credit facilities to the company. The private respondents in the two writ petitions were the guarantors to the said credit facilities provided by the bank. As there was default in payment of the bank dues, an application was filed before the DRT by the bank against the company and private respondents in these petitions. It transpires that the company was declared a sick company under section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on 8-11-1994 and recommendation was made for it to be wound up. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed.
Since the appellant is a charitable institution, can they be considered as a commercial training or coaching centre ? Here again the answer is negative. So long as the appellant imparts training or skill in any subject or field other than sports for a consideration, the said activity would come under the purview of commercial training or coaching. It is on record that the appellant is collecting substantial amount of fees from the students for imparting training. Merely because the appellant is registered as a Charitable Institution under the Income-tax Act, 1961, that does not entitle the appellant to claim exclusion from the ambit of service tax. Thus it is obvious that the appellant does not come under the exclusion clause of the definition of commercial training or coaching centre.
