Government hereby delegates to the Registrar of Companies, the power and functions vested in it under the following sections of the said Act, subject to condition that the Central Government may revoke such delegation of powers or may itself exercise the powers and function under the said sections, if in its opinion such a course of action is necessary in the public interest, namely :-
Central Government hereby delegates to the Regional Directors at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Noida, Ahmedabad and Hyderabad, the power and functions vested in it under the following sections of the said Act, subject to condition that the Central Government may revoke such delegation of powers or may itself exercise the powers under the said sections, if in its opinion such a course of action is necessary in the public interest, namely :-
S.O. (E).- In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 (11 of 2003), the Central Government hereby appoints the 12thday of August of 2012 as the date on which the provisions of sections 7, 8 (in relation to section 18 & 19 of the Companies Act, 1956), 20 and 25 (in relation to section 188 of the Companies Act, 1956) of the said Act shall come into force.
Who can use this Return Form -This Form can be used a person being a firm, LLPs, AOP, BOI, artificial juridical person referred to in section 2(31)(vii), cooperative society and local authority. However, a person who is required to file the return of income under section 139(4A) or 139(4B) or 139(4C) or 139(4D) shall not use this form. Download Return Preparation Software
After six years of uncertainties, finally section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 has few more days to survive. 1.7.2012 is the day when this section will cease to exist. On this date, Export of Services Rules, 2005 and Taxation of services (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 will also extinguish. In place of these, a new charging section 66B will come into force and instead of import-export rules, a new set of rules namely, Place of provision of services rules, 2012 will be implemented. In this article, an effort has been made to bring out its impact on the import of intermediary services from abroad.
Service tax by way of Negative list is the beginning of a new era in the 18 years old Service tax law. Most of the existing provisions have been reviewed to line up them with the new scheme. Inspite of a no. of ambiguities regarding the negative list to be introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2012, the hotel industry is receiving positive signs therefrom. This piece of articulation is about the impact of negative list scheme on the hotel industry.
Service tax on Works Contract was introduced on 1.6.2007. Starting with an attractive rate of 2% service tax on the composite value of both material & labour, today it has reached the rate of 4.8% w.e.f. 1.4.2012. Under the current scheme, the works contract covers only immovable properties, however, in order to bring it up to the proposed negative list; the definition of works contract has been amended so as to include the movable properties also. Further the reverse charge mechanism is also extended to it. This article revolves around the enhanced scope of the works contract service under negative list scenario.
The AO has simply mentioned in the asstt. Order that on enquiry some of the vehicles shown to have been involved in the supply of seeds have been found to be two-wheelers and cars and not trucks & metadors, but has not given any specific instance. Therefore, the charge made by the AO to this extent cannot be verified by this office. Even otherwise, it is a fact that the vehicle Nos. are being mentioned at the gate-passes by the security staff who are not highly literate and who may write an alphabet of insurance in such a way that any person may read it to be some other alphabet. For example it is quite possible that the gate-keeper writes the alphabets OD on the gate pass which the next record may read as OO or DO or DD for the simple reason that the first person might have written the two alphabets in a near similar fashion. Therefore, no adverse inference can be derived only for the reason of discrepancy in the vehicle numbers
The monies held in the account must be regarded as being at the joint disposal of Mr and Mrs Pflum which means when the mandate is such that either party can draw on them, that either party is free to withdraw and spend them as he or she wishes. In practice most withdrawals were made by Mrs Pflum without reference to Mr Pflum. Thus when she withdrew sums in the UK using the debit card, the cash so withdrawn would be her own money and she was drawing on an asset which was just as much her own asset as it was Mr Pflum’s. That is the essence of a joint bank account held by the holders as joint tenants. We therefore reject Mrs Teggart’s submission that because the monies were derived from Mr Pflum’s earnings he was to be regarded as not having alienated them, in the absence of clear evidence of an intention to sever the joint tenancy and confer beneficial ownership on Mrs Pflum. The application of this principle also leads to the same conclusion in relation to purchases made through use of the debit card in the UK.
After going through the above provisions of law, it is clear that the Act has not provided for any cut off date up-to which only the information available in public domain has to be taken into consideration by the TPO, while making the transfer pricing adjustments and arriving at arm’s length price. The assessee as well as the Revenue is both bound by the Act and the rules there-under and, therefore, as provided under the Act and rules, they are supposed to be taking into consideration, the contemporaneous data relevant to the previous year in which the transaction has taken place.
