I.  Today's Topline News:   

1. CBDT Cir. No. 1 - Form 16A for TDS Deducted after 1st April 2012 to be issued only through TIN  (Click for detail)

2. ST Circular No. 155 - Clarification on Point of Taxation Rules- the point of taxation shall be the date of receipt of payment or date of issuance of invoice, whichever is earlier  (Click for detail)

3. Finmin Sets up Study Group on CTC for Service Tax, Excise  (Click for detail)

4. E-filing taxpayers won't have to acquire a digital signature  (Click for detail)

5. CAG Should Appoint Auditors for Parties: ICAI  (Click for detail)

6. Ministry wants bank audit panels to get more time to vet earnings  (Click for detail)

 

II.  Useful Case laws:

1.   Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai-I Vs. Inters Cape (CESTAT Mumbai) Misc. Order No. M/190/2011-WZB/C-II/(EB), Dated: 21.01.2011 in Application No. E/ROM/1245/2010 in Appeal No. E/1047/2001 (Partly In favour of Revenue & Assessee)

Issue:

• Interest on refund of pre-deposit amount is payable from the date of receipt of order of the tribunal by the commissioner. 

• Interest to be paid on amount of pre deposit at the rate prescribed under the statutory provisions of the Act and not as per rate determined on equitable principles by Tribunal.

Held:

• After considering the submissions, we have found substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel (by Assessee) with reference to Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act. This provision came into force only on 10-5-2008 and hence cannot be made applicable to the instant case inasmuch as the remand order of this Tribunal was passed on 19-7-2005. Therefore interest to be paid from the date when order was passed by  tribunal.

• As rightly submitted by the learned SDR (Department), the rate of interest notified by the Central Government under Section 11BB of the Act is @ 6% p.a. vide Notification No. 67/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12-9-2003. The Commissioner is liable to pay interest only at this rate to the party.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

2.  P. Muraleedharan, Managing Partner Vs. Union of India (HC Kerala), Dated: 19.08.2011, C.N. Ramachandran Nair and P.S. Gopinathan, JJ. (In favour of Revenue)

Issue:

Whether the explanation introduced to section 65(19)(ii) read with section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act 1994 providing for levy of tax on service rendered in relation to lotteries promoted or marketed by the clients is unconstitutional as claimed by the petitioners/assesee.

Held:

After hearing the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel and on going through the later judgment rendered by the Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.21/2009, we are unable to accept the challenge against the constitutional validity of the amendment.

In nutshell, we can say that it was held that contention of the assessee was not accepted and they had to pay tax.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

III.  Tenders Info.: 

1. Satluj Valley Watershed Development Society
   Invited Himachal based CA Firms to conduct audit
   Shimla - H.P.
   (Click here for detail)
   
    

Key of Success :

"Do you know the basic difference between god and human?
God gives, gives, gives, gives and forgives
and human gets, gets, gets, gets and forgets"

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"  

  
CA. Agarwal Sanjay  
' Voice of CA' 

Founder
Mob: 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com      
   
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA 
mukbansal80@gmail.com 

CA. Avinash Gupta, Co-Moderator-International Taxation 
caavinashgupta@gmail.com