CIRC-CC-Status after elimination of M K Agarwal

The elimination of AGRAWAL SANJAY KUMAR is in progress..

Rank	Name	City	Total	1st Pref Votes
1	NANDA CHARANJOT SINGH	NEW DELHI	2346	2154
2	GUPTA NAVEEN N D	NEW DELHI	2181	2009
3	CHAUDHARY SANJIV KUMAR	NEW DELHI	2022	1915
4	GUPTA ATUL KUMAR	DELHI	1966	1786
5	AGARWAL SANJAY VOC	NEW DELHI	1937	1753
6	GUPTA VIJAY KUMAR	FARIDABAD	1770	1649
7	JAIN VINOD	NEW DELHI	1539	1405
8	TYAGEE PANKAJ	DELHI	1469	1359
9	SHARMA S S	NEW DELHI	1385	1283
10	AGRAWAL DURGA DAS	DELHI	855	752
11	AGRAWAL SANJAY KUMAR	NEW DELHI	660	581
12	AGARWAL M K	DELHI	611	569
13	BHAGWAN LAL	DELHI	567	548
14	NAGARAJAN R	NEW DELHI	297	294
15	R K GAUR	DELHI	172	171
16	VERMA ASHOK KUMAR	FRANKFURT	13	13

No TDS on Specified Payments made by Bank

SECTION 197A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE - NO DEDUCTION IN CERTAIN CASES - SPECIFIED PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 197A(1F)

NOTIFICATION NO. 56/2012 [F. NO. 275/53/2012-IT(B)], DATED 31-12-2012

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1F) of section 197A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies that no deduction of tax under Chapter XVII of the said Act shall be made on the payments of the nature specified below, in case such payment is made by a person to a bank listed in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), excluding a foreign bank, namely:-

(i)  bank guarantee commission;

(ii)  cash management service charges;

(iii)  depository charges on maintenance of DEMAT accounts;

(iv)  charges for warehousing services for commodities;

(v)  underwriting service charges;

(vi)  clearing charges (MICR charges);

(vii)  credit card or debit card commission for transaction between the merchant establishment and acquirer bank.

2. This notification shall come into force from the Ist day of January, 2013.

■■

CIRC-CC-Quota of 2606 is too big for people..

The quota for CIRC for central council is 2606. The highest voter getter at this moment is Charanjot Singh Nanda, and even after 4 elimination, he is more than 300 votes away from quota. For the available six seats, the fight is fierce and tough. We look the trend, two sitting central council member lost in SIRC and one in CIRC. Do you think anyone from NIRC is in danger? Let's wait for little more time. Waiting is on in this slow counting process.

NIRC-CC: Status after elimination of Bhagwanlal

Rank	Name	City	Total	1st Pref Votes
1	NANDA CHARANJOT SINGH	NEW DELHI	2291	2154
2	GUPTA NAVEEN N D	NEW DELHI	2088	2009
3	CHAUDHARY SANJIV KUMAR	NEW DELHI	1996	1915
4	GUPTA ATUL KUMAR	DELHI	1890	1786
5	AGARWAL SANJAY VOC	NEW DELHI	1841	1753
6	GUPTA VIJAY KUMAR	FARIDABAD	1726	1649
7	JAIN VINOD	NEW DELHI	1483	1405
8	TYAGEE PANKAJ	DELHI	1430	1359
9	SHARMA S S	NEW DELHI	1361	1283
10	AGRAWAL DURGA DAS	DELHI	816	752
11	AGRAWAL SANJAY KUMAR	NEW DELHI	634	581
12	AGARWAL M K	DELHI	611	569
13	BHAGWAN LAL	DELHI	567	548
14	NAGARAJAN R	NEW DELHI	297	294
15	R K GAUR	DELHI	172	171
16	VERMA ASHOK KUMAR	FRANKFURT	13	13

CBEC New Year Bomb

The Horror Begins - CBEC's New Year Bomb-If Stay Application is Pending, Pay up Confirmed Amounts 

WE never imagined our Tax horror-scope would be a reality in less than 24 hours. (Please see yesterday's DDT) CBEC has issued its first Central Excise Circular on arrears recovery during pendency of Stay applications. The circular has rescinded seven previous circulars on the subject matter. Suddenly, the Board has noticed a Supreme Court judgement delivered in 1993 in case of Krishna Sales (P) Ltd 2002-TIOL-428-SC-CUS wherein the Court observed that "As is well known, mere filing of an Appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the Order appealed against". So, the Board has come to a conclusion that their predecessor Chairmen/Members did not know how to read Court Judgements and had issued some useless Circulars, which are now rescinded.Now, a fresh circular on how to deal with demands against which stay applications are pending before the Appellate forums, is issued.

According to the latest Circular, if a stay application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT and if there is no stay within 30 days, recovery action has to be initiated. In case of stay applications before High Courts and Supreme Court, even this 30 days time is not available. Recovery has to be initiated immediately after the orders if there is no stay.

Perhaps the Board is not aware that there was no Bench sitting in Bangalore and Chennai CESTAT for the last several months and even now, the Bench is functional only for half of the month. How can they expect the CESTAT to dispose of all the stay petitions within 30 days? There are many places where the Commissioner (Appeals) posts are lying vacant. How can they expect the assessees to get stay within 30 days? Perhaps the Board is under the impression that stay orders are just like a ready-to-eat dish which the assessee should go, pick up and come back. All that the assessees can do is only file a Stay Petition and wait for the hearing notice.

The Circular issued by the Board lacks foresight, proper understanding of the real situation and shows utter lack of respect for established procedure and the judicial system in the country. This Circular will no doubt create lot of work for the High Courts, as many Writ Petitions will be filed against this atrocious Circular. Perhaps the High Courts should award costs on the Board for issuing such mindless directions without understanding how not to apply the Supreme Court decision of 1993 to the present situation.

When the Board has shown extreme obedience to the Supreme Court order in case of Krishna Sales (P) Ltd , why do they have total disregard to this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Cotton Mills case, which is more recent compared to the 1993 order? (2005-TIOL-42-SC-CESTAT). Is it because it just does not suit you? How can they have only selective respect for the Supreme Court judgements? Their Lordships in Kumar Cotton Mills observed that:

The sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasionally by reason of other administrative exigencies for which the assessee cannot be held liable, the stay application s are not disposed within the time specified.

Certainly, this is not the way to treat the goose that lays golden eggs for the department. They don't fill the Commissioner (Appeals) post, they don't post Members in Tribunal and they want to punish the assessees for the fault of babus! Is it the job of the assessees to fill the vacancies in CESTAT, post the Commissioner (Appeals)?

The situation in case of appeals filed in High Court / Supreme Court is worse. The orders passed by the lower authorities will be implemented immediately if there is no stay in operation. Does the Board expect the High Courts and Supreme Court to dispose of the Stay applications immediately, as directed by the Hon'ble CBEC? Are they aware of the level of pendency in these courts?

Before causing damage to the industry and embarrassment to itself, the Board should immediately do proper introspection and withdraw this draconian Circular.

CBEC Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX, Dated: January 01 2013

LLP-Name-NOC

NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) FROM THE CONCERNED REGULATOR/INSTITUTE FOR LLP NAME APPROVAL/INCORPORATION

GENERAL CIRCULAR NO. 40/2012, DATED 17-12-2012

In continuation of this Ministry's Circular No. 2/2012, dated 1st March, 2012 on registration of companies or LLPs where one of their objects is to carry on the profession of Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary, Cost Accountant, Architect, etc. relating to the requirement of obtaining NOC from the concerned regulator, it is hereby stated that the approval of the council/regulator governing the profession shall be obtained both at the time of application for incorporation and while seeking to change the name of an existing Limited Liability Partnership.

2. All ROCs are accordingly advised to ensure that in-principle approval/NOC of the regulator/institute governing such profession is obtained at the time of incorporation/conversion into LLP and not while making application for name approval for new LLP.

3. However, in case of change of name of an existing LLP, NOC from the concerned regulator shall be obtained at the time of making application for name approval because change of name of LLP is made by filing Form 5 through STP mode.