Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO – There is no dispute about the fundamental posit ion that as long as the payments are for reimbursements, and not expenditure, the tax deduct ion obligations do not come into play and accordingly, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i ) cannot be made either. In support of this proposition, our attention is invited to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Satyendra Jhunjhunwalla –vs. – ITO (ITA No. 1988/Kol. /2009; order dated 11.11.2011). He, however, fairly submits that as this aspect of the matter, i.e. payment being in the nature of reimbursement , has not been examined by the authorities below, the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the above principle.
As per the Finance Bill, 2012, of Govt. of India, there have been vast changes in the taxation provisions relating to Service Tax. As per the new provisions, services of all types unless these have been specifically exempted in the negative list ( Vide Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax Dated 20th June, 2012) , shall become chargeable to service tax. As a consequence, domain registration charges have also become chargeable to service tax.
The procedure to be followed in the matter of execution of the order made by the company court is different from that laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. As per section 635, it is sufficient to produce to the Court which is required to execute its order, a certified copy of the order sought to be executed. It is not necessary to comply with the procedure laid down in section 39 and Order 21, rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil procedure and get the order first transferred by the Court which made it to the Court which is to enforce it and then make an application to execute it .
Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Adani Pharmachem (P.) Ltd. – 2008 (12) STR 593 (Tri-Ahmd) cited by the appellants has held that in case where the sale is on FOB/CIF basis, the place of removal has to be load port only. Further in the case of Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem -2010 (18) STR 73 (Tri-Chennai) has held that since the price of the goods exported was on FOB basis and therefore the ownership of the goods exported remained with the assessee up to the port of shipment and they also bore the risk of the goods up to the port of shipment. It was further held that the place of removal is the port and GTA service from factory gate to port of shipment is an input service and hence credit of service tax paid thereon is admissible
In addition, it has further been decided to change the time of booking of Tatkal tickets at the counters from existing 8.00 A.M. to 10.00 A.M. with effect from 10th July, 2012 to avoid congestion in the morning hours at counters for the normal advance booking passengers. The restriction on the agents for Tatkal tickets booking during the first two hours shall also continue. The Minister said that these steps have started yielding results.
In the present case, the wording of Clause 7.1 of the lease reflects the intention of the parties that it is the Petitioner who would bear the incidence of all taxes. In light of the decisions in Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. v. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, the view of the learned Arbitrator that in terms of Clause 7.1 of the lease deed, the service tax liability is that of the service provider, i.e. the Petitioner, is a plausible one.
Notification No. 6 (RE-2012) /2009-2014 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) and also read with Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, the Central Government hereby deletes the entry at Point (ii) in the “Nature of Restriction” column [Column No. 6 of the table] against Sl. No. 57 in Chapter 10 of Schedule 2 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export and Import Items relating to Basmati rice.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) read with sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mumtaz A. Kapta, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and also the Special Court at Srinagar.
The International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) issued IFRIC 17 Distributions of Non-cash Assets to Owners. IFRIC 17 is to be applied prospectively for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2009. This Interpretation provides guidance on the appropriate accounting treatment when an entity distributes assets other than cash as dividends to its shareholders. The specific questions addressed in the Interpretation are:
Former Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, in the Budget for 2012-13, had announced introduction of the Rajiv Gandhi equity scheme under which 50% tax deduction would be provided to retail investors with annual income less than Rs 10 lakh. Under the proposed scheme, the investors would be allowed to invest up to Rs 50,000 in a year with a lock-in period of 3 years.
