The finance ministry today introduced “Sahaj” and “Sugam” forms to make the process of filing income tax returns simpler, user-friendly and to reduce compliance burden on salaried persons and small businessmen. “Sahaj and Sugam are major steps towards simplification of income tax return filing,” said Sudhir Chandra, chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. He also said efforts were being made to facilitate electronic filing through Sahaj and Sugam I-T return forms.
Sugam – Presumptive Business Income tax Return- SUGAM (ITR-4S) for A.Y. 2011-12 Financial year 2010-11. Indian Individual Income tax Return for those who are not having Income from Business but having Income from Salary – ITR-1 SAHAJ for A.Y 2011-12 Financial Year 2010-11. ITR –V Acknowledgement for ITR-1 SAHAJ, ITR- 2, ITR-3, SUGAM (ITR-4S), ITR-4, ITR 5 and ITR 6- ITR-V-ACKNOWLEDGEMENT for ITR 1 to 7.
Shri P. Chidambaram recommended an excise duty of 2 per cent on such branded jewellery and clarified that there was no levy on unbranded jewellery, including unbranded gold jewellery. Accordingly an exemption notification 05/2006 CE dated 1-03-2006 was issued which exempted full duty in excess of 2% on article of jewellery on which brand name or trade name was indelibly affixed or embossed on the articles of jewellery itself.
We have uploaded below ITR 1- Sahaj, ITR 2, ITR 3, ITR-4, SUGAM (ITR-4S), ITR 5, ITR-6 and ITR-7 in Pdf Format applicable for Assessment year 2011-12 and Financial Year 2010-11. In addition to these we have also uploaded ITR 2, ITR 3, ITR-4 and ITR 5, ITR 6 and ITR 7 in Word Format. We will soon upload all the ITR and acknowledgement in Excel Format also.
Even before the PoTR, 2011 see the light of the day, a major surgery was carried out wherein the whole focus for the events determining PoT was shifted to issue of invoice. Notification No. 25/2011 dt. 31st March, 2011 made many changes in the PoTR making it necessary for the SP to sit down and re-do the whole exercise once again. As if the confusions were not enough, Notification No. 26/2011 dt. 31st March, 2011 added few more. This analysis incorporates these amendments. CBEC has been silent on the objectives of making so many amendments so frequently. In order to get the clear picture and deciphering the objectives, an attempt has been made here to analyse Draft PoTR of August, 2010, PoTR before amendment and PoTR after Notification No. 25/2011 together.
The identical questions of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244. This Court held that the transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity.
Addressing concerns of garment manufacturers, the Central Board of Customs and Excise today said effective rate of excise on branded apparel is only 4.50 per cent and small manufacturers are exempted from the levy. “Manufacturers having a turnover of Rs four crore are eligible for SSI (small scale industry) exemption from central excise duty for clearance up to Rs 1.5 crore, “the CBEC said in a public notice.
Substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere technical violation. In this case, the respondents have made effort to obtain certified copy of the bill of entry which was also denied to them. Further it is not disputed that the goods have not suffered duty and they have not been used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
Though the excise duty was not paid at the time of clearance strictly in accordance with rules governing the same, the assessee cannot be found fault with because according to the assessee the said goods were not excisable to tax. Now the said stand has been vindicated by the order of the Appellate Authority, which has become final.
SC rejects claim of firms using HSD in captive units- The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a batch of appeals by various companies claiming credit of duty paid on high speed diesel oil used in their captive electricity generating plants. The Rajasthan high court had earlier rejected their contention in the case, Sangam Spinners Ltd vs Union of India. Their argument was that they had acquired accrued and vested right and it could not be taken away retrospectively by an Act of Parliament, in this case, the Finance Act, 2000. Since the companies were unable to pass on the burden to the customers, they would have to bear the entire burden themselves, and that too retrospectively, and therefore such a provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution (equality). The revenue authorities, on the other hand, contended that the 2000 Act was not a validating Act, but explanatory in nature in order to clarify and put in proper perspective the legal position as some tribunals had misinterpreted departmental notifications. The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent changes made by Parliament were clarificatory and the companies were not entitled to the credit of duty.
