Circular No.17/2011- Customs- New Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for self-assessment of duty on imported and export goods by the importer or exporter himself by filing a Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill, as the case may be, in the electronic form (new Section 46 or 50). The importer or exporter at the time of self-assessment will ensure that he declares the correct classification, applicable rate of duty, value, benefit of exemption notifications claimed, if any, in respect of the imported / export goods while presenting Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill. This should not pose any new difficulties since the importers / exporters and CHAs have been filing these documents containing the required details regularly in the ICES.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section of section 620A read with sub-section (1) of section 637A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the Notification of the Government of India, the erstwhile Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Company Law Administration) No. G.S.R. 978 dated 28th May, 1963 and published in the Gazette of India, in Part II, section 3, sub-section (i) dated 28th May, 1963 as amended by No. G.S.R. 84(E), dated 23rd February, 1988 and No. G.S.R. 517(E), dated 31st August, 2006.
CIRCULAR NO. 134/3/2011 – ST [F.NO.354/42/2011-TRU], DATED 8-4-2011- Representations have been received from the field formations, seeking clarification regarding the applicability of service tax exemption to Education Cess (refers to both Education Cess leviable under Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 and Secondary and Higher Education Cess leviable under Finance Act, 2007), under notifications where ‘whole of service tax’ stands exempted. Apparently the doubt arises in the context of Tribunal’s Order in the matter of M/s. Balasore Alloys Ltd. Vs CCE, Customs and Service Tax, BBSR-I.
The US is seeking an order from a San Francisco federal court authorising the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to request information from HSBC Bank about US residents who may be using accounts in HSBC India to evade federal income taxes, the Justice Department said Thursday.
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Indiabulls Securities after SEBI challenged a Securities Appellate Tribunal order setting aside the penalty imposed against the firm by the market regulator for alleged manipulative and fraudulent practices in the F&O segment.
India can get information on secret bank accounts from Swiss authorities for cases dating from January 2011, once the revised taxation treaty between the two countries is ratified by the Switzerland Parliament. “In this case, because you (India) wants to find all the tax evaders… I think we have conceded in the negotiation of DTAA, that India will get information effective from January 1, 2011,” Swiss Ambassador to India Philippe Welti told PTI.
It was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the averments raised by the appellant herein need to be decided on merits by the appellate authority in view of the issue raised by the appellant with regard to his liability. The impugned order has been passed on a prima facie view of the appellate authority. Keeping in view the averments raised by the appellant and the fact that he is an aged person of about 80 years and has no source of income of his own and the fact that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, we are of the view that the pre-deposit order of an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is not justified. In the given circumstances, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of asking for the pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs.
Revenue in their memo of appeal have sought to distinguish the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI, on the ground that in that decision the services were received outside the India, whereas in the present case, the services were received inside the India from the person having his office in India. We do not find any merit in the above distinction being made by the Revenue. Section 66-A having been inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.4.2006 clearly laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. We find no merits in the Revenue’s contention. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Stay petition also get disposed off.
The Union Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee said that the greatest challenge before us today is to create and sustain more and better opportunities for a young, growing and aspiring India. He said that an important part of the response to this concern is to ensure that the macroeconomic balance of the economy is strengthened through a determined focus on fiscal consolidation. The Finance Minister said that it would improve and sustain the growth prospects of the economy. He said that with Budget proposals for 2011-12, we are moving on that path.
The government today informed the Supreme Court that it will set aside its order directing scam-hit information technology (IT) firm Satyam Computer to pay Rs 617 crore as income tax and will give a fresh hearing to the firm’s plea challenging the tax demand. Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati, appearing for the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), told the apex court that it would recall its March 10, 2011, order, demanding Rs 617 crore in tax and decide afresh on the actual tax liability of Satyam Computer, now known as Mahindra Satyam.
