Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
05.01.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Saturday, January 5, 2013

I.  Headlines Today: 

  • Income Tax Notification: IDBI Bank can accept deposits under Capital Gains Account Scheme  (Click for detail)
  • Income Tax Notification No. 56/2012: Section 197A of the income-tax Act, 1961 – Deduction of tax at source – no deduction in certain cases – Specified payment under section 197A(1f)  (Click for detail)
  • Income Tax Circular No. 10: Section 132, read with section 132A of the income-tax Act, 1961 – search & seizure – Assessment of preceding years in search cases during election period  (Click for detail)
  • RBI /2012-13/363: Frauds – Classification and Reporting  (Click for detail)
  • Salient Features of Companies Bill, 2012 on Corporate Social Responsibility  (Click for detail)
  • ICAI: Empanelment of Members to act as Observers at the Examination Centres for the Chartered Accountants Examinations May / June 2013  (Click for detail)
  • How Sahara played a string of clever deals to buy prime properties abroad  (Click for detail)
  • Gross direct tax collection up 8% in April-December  (Click for detail)
  • Excise revenue growth trails overall growth due to a narrow industrial base  (Click for detail)
  • Vodafone gets reminder on Rs 11,000 cr tax dues  (Click for detail)


IITender Info.:

  • Hindustan Prefab Limited
    Intends To Outsource Its Internal Audit of Its Corporate Office
    New Delhi
    (Click for detail)
  • Comptroller And Auditor General Of India
    CA firms, who intend to be empanelled with this office for appointment as auditors of Govt. Companies
    New Delhi
    (Click for detail)
  • Chief Officer
    Preparation Of Audit Of Audit Report
    Panchkula - Haryana
    (Click for detail)


III.  Useful Contrubitions:

[Contribution by Respected CA Bimal Jain Ji and contributor is available at ] ] 

1.  An article - "What is acceptance of Service for the chargeability of Service Tax"

(Click here for detail)

2.  An article - "CBEC Gift – If Stay application is pending, pay up confirmed demands"

(Click here for detail)

3.  An article - "Recovery of Confirmed Demands‏ during pendency of Stay applications"

(Click here for detail)




 IV.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.  Ms. Katrina R. Turcotte Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Appeal No. ST/387 of 2011, Dated: 09-10-2012, CESTAT- Mumbai

Katrina Kaif (Assessee) not liable to pay service tax if already paid by agent

Facts of the Case:

In this case, the appellant has provided the service for promotion of product by agreeing as model herself for advertisement films, TV commercials, still photographing, footage, press advertisement, outdoor, packaging and sales material etc. The revenue is of the view that as the appellant is engaged in the activity of promoting/marketing or sales of the product manufactured by her client etc., therefore, the said activity falls under “Business Auxiliary Service” The appellants contention is that appellant has appointed M/s Matrix as their agent to receive payment on behalf of the appellant from the clients and thereafter discharge the service tax liability on the above activity.


As M/s Matrix (Agent of Assessee) has paid the service tax under the category of Advertisement Agency Service that does not mean that M/s Matrix has not paid service tax on behalf of the appellant. By mere paying the service tax liability under wrong head does not meant that service tax liability has not been discharged. The allegation of the revenue that service has been rendered by appellant but has not discharged the service tax liability is not sustainable as per section 65(7) of the Finance Act, wherein the ‘assessee’ means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Ingram Micro (India) Exports Vs. Dy. CIT, ITA Nos. 8133, 8137,8138,8136, 8135 & 8132/Mum/2010, Date of Order: 21/12/2012, ITAT- Mumbai

Sec. 153C search assessment is void if AO’s satisfaction not recorded

Held that there is no satisfaction recorded by AO before initiating proceedings under section 153C, considering the fact that AO refused to allow inspection to assessee as recorded by the bench on 20.04.2011. The Revenue has not been able to show any satisfaction recorded either in the case of searched person or in the case of assessee and consequently in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT 289 ITR 341 (SC), a notice issued under section 153C r.w.s. 153A is liable to be held as invalid. Thus, the consequential assessments passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144C are annulled on account of the invalidity of the notices under section 153C. 

(Please click here for judgment)   

 Golden Rules:

"Small minds talk about win,
Average minds talk about position,
Great minds talk about growth,
But champions never talk,
They just perform and the world talk


  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA 





« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now