Legal -ST-Arbitration -Exemption

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

(Department of Revenue) 

  

Notification No. 45/2011 – Service Tax

 New Delhi, the 12^th September, 2011

            G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts taxable services referred to under item (iii) of sub-clause (zzzzm) of clause (105) of section 65 of Finance Act, 1994.

2. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 354/167/2011-TRU]

(Samar Nanda)

 Under Secretary to the Government of India

By virtue of this notification, Services rendered to any business entity, by an arbitral tribunal, in respect of arbitration  shall be exempted from service tax.

V.Imp-e-Filing of Returns-Practical Issues

 E-filing of Returns for Assessment Year 2011-12 - Practical Issues
--

ER 5 & ER 6 – Electronic Filing Mandatory

ER 5 & ER 6 – Electronic Filing Mandatory

Every excise assessee is required to file ER-5(Annual Information relating to principal inputs) & ER 6 (Monthly return of Receipts and  Consumption of each of principal inputs) electronically with effect from 1^st October,2011 without any limit in payment of excise duty and cenvat credit mandatorily.

See notification

Advocates -e-Forms -Companies Act

Advocates/corporate advocates cannot be included in list of practicing professionals and they cannot issue various certificates integrated into various e-forms notified under Companies Act and Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008
--

PPF Deposit Limit Increased

MODIFICATION IN PPF SCHEME : DEPOSIT LIMIT RECOMMENDED TO BE RAISED FROM RS. 70,000 TO RS. ONE LAC WHILE RATE OF INTEREST ON ADVANCES AGAINST DEPOSITS IN PPF SCHEME RAISED FROM 1 PER CENT TO 2 PERCENTAGE POINTS

PRESS RELEASE, DATED 6-9-2011

The Committee on Comprehensive Review of National Small Savings Fund (NSSF) headed by Deputy Governor, RBI has recommended revision of certain provisions of PPF Scheme, 1968 and benchmarking of interest rates on various small savings schemes with the secondary market yields on Central Government securities of comparable maturities with suitable spread.

The Committee has recommended increasing the deposit limit under PPF Scheme from existing Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 1 lakh per annum and fixing of rate of interest on advances against deposits in PPF scheme at 2 percentage points as against the prevailing interest rate on such advances at 1 per cent.

The Committee has further recommended benchmarking interest rate on small saving schemes to interest rate on Government securities of similar maturities with a positive spread of 25 basis points on all schemes except for 50 basis points for 10 year NSC and 100 basis point for Senior citizens Savings Scheme. Recommendations of the Committee have been referred to State Governments and concerned Ministries/Departments of Central Government for their comments.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Finance Shri Namo Narain Meena in a written reply to a question raised in Rajya Sabha today.

CBDT Letter on Appeals

SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - APPEALS AND REVISION - FILING OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE BY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY - CBDT's INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011, DATED 9-2-2011 REVISING MONETARY LIMITS NOT TO APPLY IPSO FACTO TO APPEALS FILED PRIOR TO 9-2-2011

LETTER NO. DIT(L&R)-I/SLP/393/2011/4589, DATED 2-9-2011

1. Kindly refer to the above.

2. In a large number of cases Hon'ble Delhi High Court has summarily dismissed the appeals filed by the department prior to 9-2-2011 on the ground that the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limits of tax effect involved prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 3/2011, dated 9-2-2011.

3. As per Instruction No. 3/2011 the revised monetary limit was applicable only for the appeals filed on or after 9-2-2011 i.e. the date of issue of Instruction. As per para 11 of the Instruction, it was clarified that the appeals filed earlier would be governed by the old instructions operative at the time of filing.

4. On this issue SLP was filed in Supreme Court and one case namely Surya Herbal came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29-8-2011. The order passed by the Hon'ble Court in that case in SLP(C) CC No. 13694 of 2011 is enclosed herewith (see Annexure). The Supreme Court has directed that review petition be filed in High Court within two weeks. In such cases the attention of the High Court may be drawn to the observations of Supreme Court with a prayer not to apply the Instruction No. 3/2011 ipso facto in respect of appeals filed prior to 9-2-2011.

5. In view of the above, the Board desires that in all such cases (including the cases in which proposal to file SLP has been sent to Directorate of Legal & Research) immediate steps be taken to file review petition in High Court pointing out the observations of Supreme Court. The officers may be advised not to send any proposals henceforth to file SLP in such cases.

ANNEXURE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Commissioner of Income-tax Central-III

v.

Surya Herbal Ltd.

CHIEF JUSTICE; K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

CC NO. 13694/2011

AUGUST 29, 2011

Goolam E. Vahanvati, Rupesh Kumar, Anand Kannan and B.V. Balaram Das for the Petitioner.

ORDER

Delay condoned.

Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular, dated 9-2-2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

nn

DTAA with Singapore Amended

SECTION 90 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - DOUBLE TAXATION
AGREEMENT - AGREEMENT FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION
AND PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH SINGAPORE - SECOND
PROTOCOL AMENDING SAID AGREEMENT
NOTIFICATION NO. 47/2011 [F. NO. 500/139/2002-FTD-II], DATED 1-9-2011- see attachment

Circular On Monetary Limits For Filing Appeals Applicable Prospectively: CBDT

Government of India
Office of the Director of Income-tax (Legal & Research)-I
3rd Floor, Drum Shape Building, I P Estate, New Delhi – 110002
Phone: 2337 8302 Fax: 2337 8826

No. DIT (L&R) –I/SLP/393/2011/4589 Date: 02/09/11

To
All Chief Commissioners of Income-tax
All Directors General of Income-tax
Sir / Madam,

Sub Observations of Hon'ble Apex Court- Summary dismissal of departmental appeal by Delhi High Court by retrospective application of monetary limits of tax effect revised by CBDT Inst No 3 of 2011 – filing of review petition in High Court – reg


Kindly refer to the above.

2. In a large number of cases Hon'ble Delhi High Court has summarily dismissed the appeals filed by the department prior to 09/02/11 on the ground that the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limits of tax effect involved prescribed by CBDT Instruction No 3/2011 dtd 09/02/11.


3. As per Instruction No 3/2011 the revised monetary limit was applicable only for the appeals filed on or after 09/02/11 ie the date of issue of Instruction. As per para 11 of the Instruction, it was clarified that the appeals filed earlier would be governed by the old instructions operative at the time of filing.

4. On this issue SLP was filed in Supreme Court and one case namely Surya Herbal came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29/08/11. The order passed by the Hon'ble court in that case in SLP(C) CC No 13694 of 2011 is enclosed herewith. The Supreme Court has directed that review petition be filed in High Court within two weeks. In such cases the attention of the High Court may be drawn to the observations of Supreme Court with a prayer not to apply the Instruction No 3/2011 ipso facto in respect of appeals filed prior to 09/02/11.

5. In view of the above, the Board desires that in all such cases (including the cases in which proposal to file SLP has been sent to Directorate of Legal & Research) immediate steps be taken to file review petition in High Court pointing out the observations of Supreme Court. The officers may be advised not to send any proposals henceforth to file SLP in such cases.

Yours faithfully
(R. K. Gupta)
Director of Income-tax (L&R)-I
New Delhi