CBDT Circular On Application Of Section 14A And Rule 8D

CBDT Circular On Application Of Section 14A And Rule 8D

The CBDT has issued Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 in which the issue as to whether disallowance under section 14A and Rule 8D can be made in cases where the corresponding exempt income has not been earned during the financial year has been considered in great detail.

TN CM on Rice is not an Agriculture Produce-ST

Service Tax - Rice Not an Agricultural Produce - Jayalalithaa Slams Union Government

IN an acidic letter to the Prime Minister, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa said, "I write to bring to your attention an invidious, discriminatory and completely unjust situation that has arisen as a result of an extremely insensitive and regressive interpretation of certain provisions of the Service Tax legislation, which has made the services like storage and handling associated with Rice liable to levy of Service Tax."

DDT had covered this issue in detail in DDT 2275 - 20.01.2014, where in it was mentioned, "So, your rice is going to be costlier because the Finance Ministry thinks that rice is not an agricultural produce. The Finance Ministry officials who interpreted this legality of what rice should be thankful that the tea boy who is waiting to become PM is not aware of this clarification (yet) - what an effective point it would make in his election speeches!"

DDT had in DDT 2276 - 21.01.2014, explained how rice became a non-agricultural produce. The Chief Minister's letter to the Prime Minister explains the issue almost exactly as DDT did.

Now, it is almost sure that the opposition parties will use this to attack the FM and the Government during the elections. It is unfortunate that a brilliant FM will become a political target for a small thing like Service Tax on storage of rice, which will hardly give him any substantial revenue. He should have exempted this by losing a couple of crores instead of losing many seats for his party.

The CM continues with her vitriol.

This very strange stance taken by the Union Finance Minister, that rice is not an agricultural product, while other cereals including wheat, are agricultural produce and hence exempt from levy of service tax on storage and other services is discriminatory, regressive and indefensible. It smacks of unfairness against people residing in certain regions of the country, especially in the South and the East where rice is the staple food grain consumed. It will raise the price of rice in the open market, particularly at a time when food inflation is already weighing down heavily on the common people.

The interpretation given by the Ministry of Finance defies logic and common sense. From time immemorial, rice has been regarded as an "agricultural commodity".

In a thoughtless, insensitive and discriminatory manner, the Ministry of Finance has proceeded to levy service tax on the storage of Rice alone amongst all food grains. It is yet another instance of how distanced and divorced the UPA Government has become from the concerns of the common people. You will agree with me that this calls for your urgent personal intervention to clarify the position and unambiguously declare rice to be agricultural produce and hence not subject to the levy of service tax for all services related with it. The service tax already levied and collected with effect from 1st July, 2012, should also be remitted and returned to the assessees.

I request you to kindly take urgent action in the matter.

Will the PM/FM react or go with the general trend now - that the UPA Government does not do anything right?

SOURCE:TAXINDIAONLINE

CBDT Circular On Payment Of Dividend Distribution Tax By Mutual Funds

CBDT Circular On Payment Of Dividend Distribution Tax By Mutual Funds

The CBDT has issued Circular No. 6 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 in which the issue as to whether mutual funds/specified companies are required to pay additional income-tax under sub-section(2) to section 115R of the Act not only on income distributed by way of dividend but also on payments made at the time of redemption/repurchase of units as well as at the time of allotment of bonus units to existing investors has been considered in great detail By-VMVSR

J. Jayalalitha liable for prosecution for non-filing of I-T return

SC : J. Jayalalitha liable for prosecution for non-filing of I-T return

IT : J. Jayalalitha liable for prosecution for non-filing of return

• Pendency of the appellate proceedings is not a relevant factor for not initiating prosecution proceedings under section 276CC of the Act. Section 276CC contemplates that an offence is committed on the non-filing of the return and it is totally unrelated to the pendency of assessment proceedings except for second part of the offence for determination of the sentence of the offence, the department may resort to best judgment assessment or otherwise to past years to determine the extent of the breach.

• The contention that no prosecution could be initiated till the culmination of assessment proceedings, especially in a case where the appellant had not filed the return as per section 139(1) of the Act or following the notices issued under section 142 or section 148 does not arise.

• The declaration or statement made in the individual returns by partners that the accounts of the firm are not finalized, hence no return has been filed by the firm, will not absolve the firm in filing the 'statutory return under section 139(1) of the Act. The firm is independently required to file the return and merely because there has been a best judgment assessment under section 144 would not nullify the liability of the firm to file the return as per section 139(1) of the Act. Appellants' contention that since they had in their individual returns indicated that the firm's accounts had not been finalized, hence no returns were filed, would mean that failure to file return was not willful, cannot be accepted.

No ST on Authorised Person

Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Finance

04-February-2014 16:20 IST

No Service Tax Required to be Paid on Services Provided by An Authorised Person or Sub-Brokers to the Member of a Commodity Exchange in Respect of Such Taxable Service
on which the Service Tax was not Being Levied During the Period Commencing from The 10th Day of September 2004 and Ending with the 30th Day of June 2012 in Accordance with the Prevalent Practice

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the Finance Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the service tax payable on the services provided by an authorised person or sub-broker to the member of a recognised association or a registered association, in relation to a forward contract, shall not be required to be paid in respect of such taxable service on which the service tax was not being levied during the period commencing from the 10th day of September 2004 and ending with the 30th day of June 2012 in accordance with the prevalent practice.

The Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of service tax (including non-levy thereof), under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Finance Act’), on services provided by an authorised person or sub-broker to the member of a recognised association or a registered association, in relation to a forward contract, and that such services were liable to service tax under the Finance Act, which was not being levied according to the said practice during the period commencing from the 10th day of September 2004 and ending with the 30th day of June 2012.

*****

DSM/MJPS/KA

Supreme Court-NCLT

Supreme Court seeks Centre's response on plea against new Companies Act

·         The Supreme Court today sought the Centre's response on a petition seeking to declare as ultra vires of the Constitution some of the provisions of the new Companies Act that aims to create the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the Appellate Tribunal.

·         A bench headed by Justice A K Patnaik issued notice for January 27 to ministries of Law and Corporate Affairs on the petition filed Madras Bar Association which also sought to strike down provisions of the new Act "designed to provide post retirement employment to numerous civil servants with the ostensible purpose of creating a specialised tribunal dealing with corporate laws".

·         The petition said the provisions of the new Act are "unconstitutional" and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. "The present tribunal is also structured in such a way that no advocate or chartered accountant would be willing to be selected as a member," the association's plea said.

·         It said the draft rules contain "humiliating conditions" for the chairperson and members of the tribunal and make them "subservient to the minister".

·         "There is an urgent need to strike down Chapter XXVII of the Companies Act, 2013 as it is a shocking attempt to destroy the independence of the judiciary and continue with the pernicious practice of creating tribunals in the place of the high courts and convert them into departments of the respective ministries.

·         "Indeed, there is a strong case for reconsideration of the haste with which such tribunals are created," it said. The petition also mentioned that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the need to insulate the tribunals from "executive and political interference and influence" but these directions have been ignored and the tribunalisation of the judicial system continues unabated and unchecked.

·         The plea said it was necessary that this petition and the National Tax Tribunal batch of cases, which is pending disposal, be heard by a five-judge or seven-judge bench and clear rules are laid down relating to the creation, composition and functioning of tribunals.

·         "There is a grave danger that the judiciary will be substituted by a host of quasi-judicial tribunals which function as departments of various ministries," it said.

Best Wishes

CA. V.M.V.SUBBA RAO

Case Law on Reverse Charge

Service Tax - Reverse Charge liability paid by Service Provider, should not be demanded again from Service Recipient

We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon’ble Mumbai CESTAT, in the case of Umasons Auto Compo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad [2014 - TIOL – 126 – CESTAT - MUM] on following issue:

Issue:

Whether Service Tax can be demanded again from the Service Recipient under reverse charge, where the same has been paid by the Service Provider and accepted by the Department?

Facts & Background:

M/s Umasons Auto Compo Pvt. Ltd. (“the Appellant” or “the assessee”) was receiving Goods Transport Agency (“GTA”) service from GTA service provider for which they were paying Service Tax to the provider of GTA service. The provider of GTA service deposited the amount of Service Tax to the Department, which was duly accepted by them. Subsequently, the Appellant has availed Cenvat credit of the amount of Service Tax so paid to the provider of GTA service.

The Assessing Officer raised demand for Service Tax on GTA services availed by the Appellant on the ground that in respect of GTA services, service recipient (i.e. the Appellant) is liable to pay Service Tax in terms of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Act”), and if the same has been paid by the service provider, recipient can seek refund of the same. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad who has upheld the Adjudication order and confirmed the demand. Hence the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Mumbai CESTAT.

Held:

It is held by the Hon’ble CESTAT that once the amount of Service Tax is accepted by the Revenue from the provider of GTA service, it cannot be demanded again from the recipient of the GTA service.

Therefore, the Hon’ble CESTAT rejected the contention of the Department and decided the case in favour of the Appellant

Regards,

VMVSR                                                                                                               BIMAL JAIN       

CBDT Circular On Extension Of Due Date For Filing Refund Claims

CBDT Circular On Extension Of Due Date For Filing Refund Claims

February 11th, 2014

The CBDT has issued Circuar 04/2014 dated 10.02.2014 pointing out that a large number of returns have become non-est as ITR-V was not furnished within the due date. As a result the refund claims have not been processed. In order to mitigate the hardships of taxpayers pertaining to non-receipt of tax refunds, the CBDT has extended u/s 119(2)(a) the date for filing ITR-V for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 to 31.03.2014. The time-frame under the second proviso to s. 143(1) for issuing the Intimation has been extended to 6 months from the end of the month in which ITR-V is received.

Tax Audit Limit Increased to 60

Tax Audit Limit Increased From 45 to 60 for audits conducted during the financial year 2014-15 and onwards. - (11-02-2014)

In view of the enhancement of professional competence of members to perform quality services in an IT-enabled environment, the Council of the Institute at its 331st meeting held from 10th to 12th February, 2014 has decided to increase the "specified number of tax audit assignments" for practicing Chartered Accountants, as an individual or as a partner in a firm , from 45 to 60. The said limit will be effective for the audits conducted during the financial year 2014-15 and onwards. Accordingly, the Council Guidelines No.1-CA(7)/02/2008, dated 8th August,2008 stands amended from 1.4.2014 as under:- In the Council General Guidelines, 2008, the Council Guidelines No.1-CA(7)/02/2008, dated 8th August,2008, in Chapter VI "Tax Audit assignments under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ", in Explanation given in Para 6.1, in sub-para(a) and sub-para(b), the figure "45" be substituted with the figure "60".

Tax audit limit to increase to 60

Tax audit limit to increase to 60..
Wait for announcement on this page..

AP High Court grants Stays on Audit by CAG of private Company

 

AP High Court grants Stays on Audit by CAG of private Company

PRAYER – to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned letter dated 09.07.2013 of the 3rd respondent proposing the visit of the officers of the 1st respondent to petitioner premises is highly illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental rights and to pass.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

WPMP.NO:26799 of  2013

IN

WP.NO:21872 of   2013

M/s. Aditya Housing & Infrastructure Development Company Pvt Ltd

V/s.

1   The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi
2   The Accountant General (Commercial and Receipt Audit), Saifabad, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3   The Assistant Audit Officer, RACE (Head Quarters) O/o.the Accountant      General (C&RA), Saifabad, Hyderabad

 STAY ORDER

 

Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in the W.P. the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to order the officers under their control not visit the premises of the petitioner or demand production of records, pending disposal of WP No. 21872 of   2013 on the file of the High Court.

The Court, while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this petition should not be complied with, made the following order.(The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case).

Change in Definition of "Governmental Authority"

Change in Definition of “Governmental Authority”

Ministry of Finance amends definition of 'governmental authority' under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012; As per amendment, 'Governmental Authority' means board / authority set up either by Act of Parliament / State Legislature or established by Govt, with 90% equity control; Earlier, such authority was required to be set by Govt and Act of Parliament / State Legislature : Finance Ministry Notification.

By VMVSR

[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. 02/2014 - Service Tax

New Delhi, 30^th January, 2014

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 makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated the 20th June, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide G.S.R. 467 (E), dated the 20th June, 2012, namely:-

In the said notification, in the paragraph 2, for clause (s), the following shall be substituted, namely:­­–

‘(s) “governmental authority” means an authority or a board or any other body;

(i)  set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature; or

(ii) established by Government,

 with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution;’.

[F.No. 354 /236/ 2013-TRU]

(Raj Kumar Digvijay)

Under Secretary to the Government of India

Note.- The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide notification No. 25/2012 - Service Tax, dated 20th June, 2012, number G.S.R. 467 (E), dated the 20th June, 2012 and was last amended by notification No.01/2014- Service Tax, dated the 10^th January, 2014 G.S.R. 15(E), dated the 10^th January,2014.

 __________________________________________________________________

 Notification No.  25/2012-Service Tax

New Delhi, the 20^th June, 2012

2.   Definitions (Definition Prior to Amendment)

(s) “governmental authority’’ means a board, or an authority or any other body established with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control by Government and set up by an Act of the Parliament or a State Legislature to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243W  of the Constitution;  

Change in PAN Procedure-Keep in Abeyance

Ministry of Finance30-January, 2014 18:32 IST

Government Decides to Keep in Abeyance the Decision to Change the Procedure for Pan Allotment Till Further Orders

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has decided to keep in abeyance the decision to change the procedure for PAN allotment till further orders. Accordingly, the operation of Circular No. 11 dated 16.01.2014 issued to PAN service providers has been directed to be put on hold till further orders. In the meantime, the old procedure of PAN application and allotment shall continue. ********* DSM/MJPS/KA (Release ID :102868)

Three Important Judgements On Capital Gains Transfer, Transfer Pricing And Coercive Recovery Of Taxes

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. Sadia Shaikh (Bombay High Court At Goa)

S. 2(47)(v): Mere execution of a development agreement is not a “transfer” if possession as per s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not given

Though the development agreement was executed in AY 2003-04, the possession as contemplated in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was in fact not handed over by the assessee to the developer. The agreement only permitted the development to be carried out by the said developer. The entire control over the property was in fact with the assessee inasmuch as the licence to construct the property was also in the name of the assessee and the occupancy certificate was also given to the assessee. Therefore the execution of the agreement could not amount to transfer as contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The agreement was subsequently specifically modified and the assessee was liable to pay the capital gain as per the last agreement i.e. for assessment year 2008-09.

See also General Glass 108 TTJ 854 (Mum) & Fibars Infratech (ITAT Hyd) where Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia 260 ITR 491 (Bom) is explained/ distinguished. Contrast with Charanjit Singh Atwal (ITAT Chd)

ACIT vs. Casio India Co Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

Transfer Pricing: Argument, based on BMW, that the AMP adjustment law laid down in L. G. Electronics (SB) does not apply to a full-risk distributor in not correct

In LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2013 152 TTJ (Del) (SB) 273 the Special Bench held by majority that incurring of AMP expenses towards promotion of brand, legally owned by the foreign AE, constitutes a `transaction’. The contention that no disallowance could be made out of AMP expenses by benchmarking them separately when the overall net profit rate declared by the assessee was higher than other comparable cases also came to be specifically rejected by the special bench. Resultantly, the transfer pricing adjustment in relation to such AMP expenses was held to be sustainable in principle. In the eventual order, the Special Bench restored the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh determination of Transfer Pricing Adjustment in relation to AMP expenses. In order to enable the determination of correct ALP of AMP expenses, the Tribunal listed out 14 parameters in Para 17.4 of its order which should be examined by the AO/TPO before reaching the final conclusion about the warrant for a TP Adjustment on this score. It is relevant to note that there were 22 interveners in this case, some of which were distributors, while others were licensed manufacturers. While setting out 14 parameters, the Special Bench has held vide first parameter that the AO/TPO should ascertain as to whether the Indian AE is simply a distributor or is holding a manufacturing license from its Foreign AE. The second parameter talks of examining as to whether or not the Indian AE is a full fledge manufacturer and whether it is selling the goods purchased from the Foreign AE as such or is making some value addition to the goods purchased from its Foreign AE before selling it to customers. Thus there is not even a slightest doubt that the special bench order not only applies to a `Manufacturer’, but also extends to a distributor, whether he is a bearing full risk or least risk. Thus, such tests are applicable with full vigor to the extent applicable, to the distributors. There is nothing in the special bench order which restricts its operation only to the `Manufacturers’.

The argument, based on BMW India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Del) that as the assessee was a full fledged distributor and as such the benefit of AMP expenses did not spill over to the foreign AE is not acceptable because the Special Bench order in LG Electronics is applicable with full force on all the classes of the assessees, whether they are licensed manufacturers or distributors. The Bench in BMW did not have any occasion to bestow its attention to the correctness of the application by the TPO of the aforesaid parameters laid down in the special bench order as these were naturally not considered by the Officer since he passed his order much before the advent of the special bench order. There is no prize for guessing that Special Bench order has more force and binding effect over the Division Bench order on the same issue.

Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)

S. 220: AO cannot exercise coercive measures to recove tax during the period available for filing an appeal

Against the assessment order, further appeal lies to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 253 of the Act and the time for moving the Tribunal is 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As the appellate remedy is available to the petitioner, it could be accepted and the authority may thereafter proceed with the matter. However, in the absence of any legal impediment, the respondents have intimated recovery proceedings against the petitioner, when there is reasonable time for him to prefer an appeal. In view of the above, respondents are directed to not to take any coercive steps for recovery against the petitioner, till the appeal time is exhausted. Thereafter, the respondents are at liberty to act in accordance with law for recovery of the amount as per the order of the appellate authority.

See also Treatise On The Law & Practice Of Stay & Recovery and MHADA (ITAT Mum)

Change in PAN Allotment Process

• Procedure for Pan Allotment Process to Undergo a Change with Effect from 3rd February, 2014: The procedure for PAN allotment process will undergo a change with effect from 03.02.2014. From this date onwards, every PAN applicant has to submit self-attested copies of Proof of Identity (POI), Proof of Address (POA) and Date of Birth (DOB) documents and also produce original documents of such POI/POA/DOB documents, for verification at the counter of PAN Facilitation Centres.
  

PAN allotment process changes

‪
The procedure for PAN allotment process will undergo a change with effect from 03.02.2014. From this date on wards, every PAN applicant has to submit self-attested copies of Proof of Identity (POI), Proof of Address (POA) and Date of Birth (DOB) documents and also produce original documents of such POI/POA/DOB documents, for verification at the counter of PAN Facilitation Centres.

The copies of Proof of Identity (POI), Proof of Address (POA) and Date of Birth (DOB) documents attached with PAN application form, will be verified vis a vis their original documents at the time of submission of PAN application at PAN Facilitation Centre.

Original documents shall not be retained by the PAN Facilitation Centres and will be returned back to the applicant after verification.

RBI's move to demonetise pre-2005 currency

The Reserve Bank of India has today advised that after March 31, 2014, it will completely withdraw from circulation all banknotes issued prior to 2005. From April 1, 2014, the public will be required to approach banks for exchanging these notes. Banks will provide exchange facility for these notes until further communication. The Reserve Bank further stated that public can easily identify the notes to be withdrawn as the notes issued before 2005 do not have on them the year of printing on the reverse side. (Please see illustration http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/IEPR1472BI220114.pdf)

>> http://twitter.com/EquityOnSMS >>

The Reserve Bank has also clarified that the notes issued before 2005 will continue to be legal tender. This would mean that banks are required to exchange the notes for their customers as well as for non-customers. From July 01, 2014, however,  to exchange more than 10 pieces of `500 and `1000 notes, non-customers will have to furnish proof of identity and residence to the bank branch in which she/he wants to exchange the notes.

The Reserve Bank has appealed to the public not to panic. They are requested to actively co-operate in the withdrawal process.

Ajit Prasad
Assistant General Manager

Proud CAs

Proud to be CA...
1. K.M Birla - The chairman of Aditya Birla Group. This guy is my main inspiration. A Marwari and a CA. I can almost connect with him He also did MBA from London Business School.

2. Motilal Oswal - Co Promoter, Chairman & Managing Director of Motilal Oswal Group . One of the dudes who said a NO to their family business and did wonders.

3. Shekhar Kapur - You know this guy if you have watched India’s Got Talent Season 1. He was the only guy who sat beside Sonali Bendre and he was there because he directed Mr. India. And yes, he is a CA. The most amazing thing is that his Wikipedia profile says that he did Chartered Accountancy at the behest of his parents.

4. Deepak Parekh - Padma Bhushan winner and the Chairman of HDFC. Quoting Wikipedia, “A pioneer in mortgage finance, he has enabled scores of Indian middle class people to own their houses or apartments through affordable loans.” This guy should be the ideal role model for all chartered accountants. A bunch of movie buffs might have Shekhar Kapur as their role model too.

5. S.Gurumurthy– The only greatest thing Abhishek Bacchan did apart from marrying Aishwarya Rai was act in a movie called Guru. In the movie R. Madhvan plays an aggressive journalist who is hell bent on exposing the corrupt practices of reliance (guru’s company with some other name in the movie).

The movie Guru is based on true events and R. Madhvan's character is strongly based on S. Gurumurthy. Gurumurthy’s articles in The Indian Express caused a national stir in the corporate world and did massive damage to Reliance. Yes! Chartered Accountants have been glorified in the movies too.

6. Aditya Puri – MD of HDFC. We told you we are bad at advertising. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page.

7. Rakesh Jhunjhunwala – Another Investor. A few facts that he is India’s 51st richest man and world’s 1062th. He has been described as the "Pied Piper of Indian bourses".

8. Prannoy Roy – The founder and Executive Chairman of NDTV. First cousin of Arundhati Roy. Also studied at Queen Marry, University of London. His father was known as Hurricane Roy.  Some families are just full of overachievers.

9. Rameshwar Thakur – Senior Indian National Congress Politician. Former Governor of MP, AP,Kartnatka. Like a true politician, he is surrounded by controversies of eating money.

10. T.V. Mohandas Pai –  CFO of Infosys from 1994 to 2006. In 2000, he, along with others, founded the Akshaya Patra Foundation, Bangalore, to start a midday meal program for school children. Today, the midday meal program feeds over 12,00,000 children in 7,669 government schools across seven states in India,primarily in Bangalore's rural and urban areas, Mysore, Mangalore, Hubli, Mathura, Jaipur, Baran district of Rajasthan, Nayagarh district of Orissa,Puri, Bhilai, Guwahati, Ahmedabad and Vadodara. This initiative has turned outto be the largest midday meal program in the world.

11. Shri K.Rahman Khan - A chartered accountant turned politician from Karnataka, and a long-time member of the Indian National Congress. He is the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Before holding the post of the Deputy Chairman he was the Union Minister of State for Chemical sand Fertilizers. Mr Khan is one of the most prominent Muslim leaders of the country.

12. Piyush Goyal

Treasurer and spokesperson of BJP.

14. Kirit Somaiya

Former minister and BJP office bearer.

VCES Circular-ST Case Law

Circular No. 176/2/2014 - ST

F. No. B1/19/2013-TRU (Pt)

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Excise and Customs

Tax Research Unit

*****

 New Delhi, dated the 20^th January, 2014

To,

Chief Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs (All),

Director General (Service Tax), Director General (Systems),

Director General (Central Excise Intelligence), Director General (Audit),

Commissioners of Service Tax (All),

Commissioners of Central Excise (All),

Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs (All)

Madam/Sir,

Subject: Clarification regarding issue of Discharge Certificate under VCES and availment of CENVAT credit - regarding.

          Trade and Industry has sought clarification as to whether the first installment of tax dues paid under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 would be available as Cenvat Credit immediately after payment or Cenvat credit can be availed only after payment of tax dues in full and receipt of Acknowledgement of Discharge in form VCES-3.

2.       The issue has been examined. As per VCES, under Section 108 (2) of the Finance Act, 2013, a declaration made under Section 107 (1) shall become conclusive only upon issuance of acknowledgement of discharge under Section 107 (7). Further, in terms of Rule 7 of the Service Tax VCES Rules 2013, the acknowledgement of discharge in form VCES-3 shall be issued within a period of 7 working days from the date of furnishing of details of payment of tax dues in full along with interest, if any, by the declarant.

3.     It would be in the interest of VCES declarants to make payment of the entire service tax dues at the earliest and obtain the discharge certificate within 7 days of furnishing the details of payment. As already clarified in the answer to question No.22 of FAQ issued by CBEC dated 08.08.2013, eligibility of CENVAT credit would be governed by the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

4.      Chief Commissioners are also advised that upon payment of the tax dues in full, along with interest, if any, they should ensure that discharge certificate is issued promptly and not later than the stipulated period of seven days.

Yours sincerely,

(S. Jayaprahasam)

Technical Officer, TRU

Tel: 011-2309 2037

Service recipient is required to reimburse Service Tax paid by the Service provider

We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court  in the case of M/s Bhagwati Security Services (Regd.) Versus Union of India [2013 (11) TMI 649] on the following issue:

Issue:

Whether the service provider can get the reimbursement of service tax already paid by him, from the service recipient?

Facts of the case:

M/S. Bhagwati Security Services (Regd.), the Petitioner ("the Assessee" or "the Company") was providing security services under the service Agreement ("the Agreement") to BSNL. The Company deposited service tax to the Department on the basis of demand raised by the authorities. Thereafter, the Company applied for reimbursement of service tax from BSNL, which was denied on the ground that the same was not provided in the Agreement. The Company filed petition in the High Court.

Held:

The Hon'ble High Court after going through the Agreement and other legal provisions of the Finance Act and rules thereof held that:

§  Service tax is statutory liability. It is a tax which is required to be collected by the service provider from the person to whom service is provided, and thereafter to be deposited with Government treasury within the prescribed time.

§  Thus, essentially the statute is being imposing the tax upon the person to whom service is being provided and the service provider is merely a collecting agency.

§  BSNL (i.e. service recipient) directed to make reimbursement of service tax to the petitioner without further delay.

Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.

  

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. – 33

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 870 of 2007

Petitioner :- M/S Bhagwati Security Services (Regd.)

Respondent :- Union Of India & Others

Petitioner Counsel :- Virendra Kumar,Virendra Singh

Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I.,A. Nigam,S.C.,S.Chopra.,Subodh Kumar,Suneel Rai,Sunil Rai 

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J. 

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent No.2, and seen the record.There is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 i.e.B.S.N.L., under which the petitioner was required to provide security services to the respondent no.2. under agreement between the two parties. The agreement contained the terms of payment.Subsequently service tax was demanded from the petitioner which has been deposited by the petitioner . The petitioner applied before the respondent no.2 for reimbursement of the service tax, which request has been denied by the respondent no.2 by the impugned order. 
Only reason given for denying the reimbursement of the service tax is that the same was not contemplated in the service agreement. Having gone through the agreement and the provisions of the relevant statute, we find that service tax is statutory liability. It is a tax which is required to be collected by the service provider from the person to whom service is provided, and thereafter to be deposited with government treasury within the prescribed time.Thus essentially the statute is being imposing the tax upon the person to whom service is being provided, and the service provider is merely a collecting agency. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to make reimbursement of service tax to the petitioner without further delay. 
Order Date :- 16.1.2013 

Naim 

CBDT on Sec 197

CBDT Directs Assessing Officers To Respect Citizens Charter In TDS matters

The CBDT has issued Instruction No. 1/2014 dated 15.01.2014 to the Chief Commissioners stating that though the Citizens Charter prescribes a time limit of one month for a decision u/s 197 on application for no deduction of tax or deduction of tax at lower rate, there is considerable delay in issuing the lower/non deduction certificate. The CBDT has directed that the commitment to tax payers as per the Citizens Charter must be scrupulously adhered to by the Assessing Officers and all applications for lower or no deduction of tax at source filed u/s 197 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must be disposed of within the stipulated time frame.