In the instant case, the amendment under Section 260A (2A) has been introduced retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.1998 by the Finance Act, 2010. But fact remains that the cases already settled before the said amendment cannot be re-opened, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Babu Ram v. C. C. Jacob and others; AIR (1999) SC 1845, where it was observed that the prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
Notification No. 43/2012-Income Tax Whereas the annexed Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China for the exchange of information with respect to taxes signed in Macao on the 3rd January, 2012 shall come into force on the 16th day of April, 2012, being the date of receipt of later of the notifications after completion of the procedures as required by the respective laws for the entry into force of this Agreement, in accordance with article 13 of the said Agreement.
In exercise of powers under section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944(1 of 1944), the Central Government hereby declares that the provisions of section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 (5 of 1962) shall be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by section 3 of the first mentioned Act, subject to the following modifications and alterations which the Central Government considers necessary and desirable to adapt those provisions to the Circumstances, namely.
1. Point of taxation under reverse charge mechanism is date of payment to the service provider provided payment must happen within 6 months from the date of invoice otherwise point of taxation will be date of invoice. Invoice needs to be issued by the service provider within 30 days of completion of each event/service. If invoice is not issued within the specified time, point of taxation will be the date of completion of provision of service.
From the Board’s Circular dated 19/01/2010, it is abundantly clear that refund of Cenvat credit can be allowed irrespective of when the credit was taken in case of service providers exporting 100% of their services. From the facts narrated in the order dated 13/01/2012, wherein the refund claim has been partly allowed, it is evident that the appellant was continuously undertaking exports during the said period and there were no domestic clearances. Therefore, in terms of the Board circular and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd., (supra), the appellant is eligible for the refund of the entire amount of service tax credit paid by them on the input service irrespective of when the credit was taken.
The issue under consideration in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by the appellant are liable to be taxed as ‘Parts of Television Receivers’ falling under Tariff Entry 8529 of the Central Excise Tariff contained in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short ‘the Tariff’) or as ‘Television Receivers’ under Tariff Entry 8528 of the Tariff, for the year 1989-90.
MCA Front offices situated at Delhi , Chennai , Mumbai and Kolkata are being discontinued with effect from Monday, the 8th of October, 2012 , and hence, will not be available to offer any assistance to MCA stakeholders. Kindly plan your activities accordingly.
Gross direct tax collection during first six months of current financial year was up by 5.87 percent at 2,72,133 crore rupees. It was over 2,57, 000 crore rupees in the same period last year. While gross collection of corporate taxes increased to 1,78,173 crore rupees from 1,75,360 crore rupees and gross collection of personal income tax was up by 14.87 percent.
Policy Circular No. 06(RE- 2012)/2009-14 Issuance of physical copy of BRCs by banks has been dispensed with for the purpose of DGFT use. Banks will, now,transmit BRC data electronically to DGFT server.
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the rent free accommodation provided by Maruti Udyog Ltd. to the Assessee, an employee of Suzuki Motors Corporation (Japan) is not a perquisite in the hands of the Assessee under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the answer to this is in the negative whether the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided by Section 10(14) of the Act?
