THE much-awaited order of the Karnataka High Court on the question of liability to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-residents for the purchase of software to be used in business is finally out. The order passed on 24th September, 2009 was made available only on 17th November, 2009.
Please refer to our circulars UBD.CO.BPD. (PCB) No. 32/09.39.000/2007-08 dated February 25, 2008 on Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms/ Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Standards/Combating of Financing of Terrorism and UBD.CO. BPD. (PCB) No. 1/12.05.001/2008-09 dated July 02, 2008 on Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 –Obligation of banks in terms of Rules notified there under.
The draft Direct Tax Code Bill, 2009 (DTC or Code) was released for public comments by the Government of India (Government) on 12 August 2009. The stated objective of the DTC is to establish an economically efficient, effective and equitable direct tax system which will facilitate voluntary compliance and reduce the scope for disputes and minimize litigation.
This articles summarizes a recent ruling of the Larger Bench (LB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-692-ITAT-MUM-LB] in the case of M/s B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd.(Taxpayer) v. ACIT. Due to contradictory views expressed by the two-member bench of the ITAT, an LB was constituted to examine the issue of whether the Taxpayer, who is engaged in executing construction contracts for and on behalf of the Government/statutory bodies, is eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
The sole proprietorship is the oldest, simplest, and most common form of business entity. It is a business owned by a single individual. For tax and legal liability purpose, the owner and the business are one and the same. The proprietorship is not taxed as separate entity. Note that the earnings of the business are taxed at the individual level, whether or not they are actually in cash. There is no vehicle for sheltering income.
The Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers, finally issued a long awaited First Discussion Paper on Goods and Services Tax in India. Though it was expected that this Discussion paper will put an end to much awaited queries on implementing GST in India, however after analyzing the Paper, it appears as if this has been drafted in a hush-hush manner to meet the revised deadline of implementing GST in India.
The principle of protection against self-incrimination is a fundamental principle of the British system of criminal jurisprudence. From there the principle find its place in all civilized legal system following common law jurisprudence. It has been adopted by the American system by the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, which provides that no person shall be compelled in any case to be a witness against himself. Thus the protection in American Constitution is available to all persons and in every proceeding, civil or criminal and the Courts have given a very wide interpretation to the protection.
The indirect tax regime in India is evolving into GST in the year 2010. The steps towards introduction of GST have commenced. The Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers has introduced the First Discussion Paper on GST in India on November 10, 2009. A dual structure of Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST) is proposed to be imposed on the manufacture of goods and on provision of services.
The Reserve Bank said it will soon come out with norms for banks to augment the capital requirements that the lenders have to keep aside against bad assets. “We will be issuing the circular (provisioning against NPAs) so you can then see details on that,” RBI deputy governor Usha Thorat told.
All that could happen, by allowing proceedings to continue, was that the assessing officer might pass an order of assessment or re-assessment. The petitioner would then have a spate of statutory remedies. The judge who heard a writ petition from the Chennai-based Jayaram Paper Mills Ltd challenging a notice of July 7, 2008 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Company Circle II(3), Chennai, for AY 2004-05 ruled that the reason recorded by second respondent (ACI-T) “cannot be said to be vague”.
