The Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers unveiled the First Discussion paper on Goods and Service Tax in India on 10th November 2009. This discussion paper provides us with broad contours of dual GST to be implemented in India.
From the above, it can be clearly seen that there is no blanket restriction on the powers of the Tribunal to enhance the assessment but the restriction on enhancement is in light of the judge – made law, or to put it differently, in light of the ratio decidendi of the binding judicial pronouncements. Further this view has been confirmed by various judicial pronouncements viz., Pathikonda Balasubha Setty (Decd.) Vs. CIT 1967 – 65 – ITR- 252 (Mys), and in the latest Supreme Court judgment in the case of MCorp Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad 2009-(222)-CTR -0110 -SC.
Give the known challenges, every central bank has to move in the direction of taking right steps that it may feel as appropriate despite lack of consensus on many critical issues, without waiting for the global system to move. It would be wrong, however, as noted by Mr. Stephen Roach, to presume that “best global policies are the sum of the best national policies”.
Section 14A was introduced in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act 2001 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1962. The intent of introducing this section was reiteration of the well settled legal principle that when an assessee incurs any expenditure in relation to income which is not liable to tax under the Act, he would ideally not be allowed the benefit of claiming such expenditure. The need for introduction of this section had arisen to negate the decision of Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT [2000] ITR 450.
As per well settled law and also according to canons of taxation only that expenditure which is relatable to taxable income should be deducted in computing the total income. Expenditure which has a bearing on exempt income should not be considered in the computation of total income as otherwise this would result in double advantage to the assessee.
Auditors in public sector banks (PSBs) must be appointed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the current practice of allowing bank managements to decide on such appointments must be done away with, the new President of the CA Institute, Mr Amarjit Chopra, has said.
Notification No. 11/2010 – Customs (N. T.),New Delhi, 15th February, 2010 – S. O… (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Board, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Cus (N. T.), dated, the 3rd August 2001, namely: –
The finding of the Tribunal that 12.5% of net ad revenues is arms length price, was not challenged by the Revenue, we uphold the findings of the first appellate authority. Money received from a holding company with whom the assessee does not have any trading or business transaction cannot be considered as trading receipt.
Background of the Circular:- CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (‘CCR’) permit availment of credit of excise duty on inputs and service tax on input services used for manufacture of dutiable goods or providing output services. In order to zero-rate the exports, Rule 5 of CCR provides that such accumulated credit can be refunded to the exporter subject to conditions provided in Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 (‘subject notification’).
Section 74A dealing with the powers of the Commissioner to revise Orders passed earlier was introduced with effect from November 16, 2005. Provisions of the Section have now been made effective retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Extension of time limit for disposal of disputes pending under the erstwhile Delhi Sales Tax Act.
