31 January 2014

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.

28 January 2014

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.

24 January 2014

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.


22 January 2014

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 20th 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 


18 January 2014

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. 

17 January 2014

S. 272B Penalty is Rs. 10000 per deductor and not per wrong PAN

The assessing officer had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case where PAN Number was not provided by the deductee. There were in all 30706 cases in which the PAN Number was missing or was incorrectly stated. The assessing officer, accordingly, imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. Thus, penalty of Rs.30,70,60,000/- was imposed. Board in the letter dated 5.8.2008 vide No.275/24/2007-IT(B) has clarified that penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 272B is linked to the person, i.e., the deductor who is responsible to deduct TDS, and not to the number of defaults regarding the PAN quoted in the TDS return. Therefore, regardless of the number of defaults in each return, maximum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- can be imposed on the deductor. Penalty cannot be imposed by calculating the number of defective entries in each return and by multiplying them with Rs. 10,000/-. This also appears to be a legislative intent, as in many cases, the TDS amount may be small or insignificant fraction of Rs. 10,000/-.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA 314/2013
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS
versus
DHTC LOGISTICS LTD.
ORDER
26.07.2013
1. There are two reasons why we feel the present appeal should not be entertained.
2. Firstly, the assessing officer in the penalty order under Section 272B has not specifically referred to any default or failure by the respondent-assessee mentioning PAN Number even when the said particulars and details were available. The stand taken by the respondent was that the PAN Numbers were not furnished by the Truck owners and, therefore, they were not quoted by them or PAN Numbers as informed were quoted. In case, the PAN Numbers are not furnished by the deductees, the respondent- assessee cannot be penalized under Section 272B. Section 139A also imposes the obligation on the deductees to furnish PAN Number to the deductor.
3. Secondly, the stand taken by the revenue is contrary to the stand taken by Central Board of Direct Taxes. The assessing officer had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case where PAN Number was not provided by the deductee. There were in all 30706 cases in which the PAN Number was missing or was incorrectly stated. The assessing officer, accordingly, imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. Thus, penalty of Rs.30,70,60,000/- was imposed. Board in the letter dated 5.8.2008 vide No.275/24/2007-IT(B) has clarified that penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 272B is linked to the person, i.e., the deductor who is responsible to deduct TDS, and not to the number of defaults regarding the PAN quoted in the TDS return. Therefore, regardless of the number of defaults in each return, maximum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- can be imposed on the deductor. Penalty cannot be imposed by calculating the number of defective entries in each return and by multiplying them with Rs. 10,000/-. This also appears to be a legislative intent, as in many cases, the TDS amount may be small or insignificant fraction of Rs. 10,000/-.
4. We clarify that we have not examined in this appeal, question and issue that if a deductee has made a representation to the deductor and inspite of the said representation, proper details and particulars are not correctly mentioned/recorded by the deductor, whether penalty under Section 272B can be imposed, as a separate case.
5.In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think any substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal is dismissed.

CBEC on Implementation of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Fiat India ltd


CBEC issues clarifications on application of SC decision in Fiat India Ltd to determine transaction value; Mere sale of goods below manufacturing cost and profit, not sole basis to reject transaction value; Valuation a matter under self - assessment procedure, but excise officer can conduct verification of valuation during audits; Aspects like loss percentage on sale, period / reasons for such loss making price must be considered while applying Fiat ratio; Cost auditing of unit / summoning of costing data should be done, only where investigation at Commissioner level; Calculations of manufacturing cost may be carried out using CAS-4 standards; Circular clarifies that extended period of limitation, for period prior to judgment date, shall not apply where show cause notice issued on grounds of Fiat judgment alone; However, any sale post Fiat ruling, where circumstances similar to Fiat case exist, then such transaction value would amount to wilful mis-statement of assessable value : CBEC Circular.

No TDS on Service Tax if shown separately

The CBDT has issued Circular No. 1/2014 dated 13.01.2014 pointing out that the Rajasthan High Court has taken the view in CIT(TDS) vs. Rajashthan Urban Infrastructure (copy attached) that if as per the terms of the agreement between the payer and the payee, the amount of service-tax is to be paid separately and was not included in the fees for professional services or technical services, no TDS is required to be made on the service-tax component u/s 194J of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the CBDT has decided in exercise of powers u/s 119 that wherever the terms of the agreement/ contract between the payer and the payee, the service tax component comprised in the amount is indicated separately, tax shall be deducted at source under Chapter XVII-B of the Act on the amount paid/payable without including such service tax component.

 

 

No TDS on Service Tax if shown separately


CIRCULAR NO. 1/2014 [, DATED 13-1-2014

Subject: TDS under Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on service tax component comprised in thepayments made to residents - clarification regarding

The Board had issued a CircularNo.4/2008 dated 28-04-2008 wherein it was clarified that tax is to be deducted at source under section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the amount of rent paid/payable without including the service tax component. Representations/letters has been received seeking clarification whether such principle can be extended to other provisions of the Act also.

2. Attention of CBDT has also been drawn to the judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court dated 1-7-2013, in the case of CIT (TDS) Jaipur v. Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure (Income-tax Appeal No.235, 222, 238 and 239/2011), holding that if as per the terms of the agreement between the payer and the payee, the amount of service tax is to be paid separately and was not included in the fees for professional services or technical services, no TDS is required to be made on the service tax component u/s 194J of the Act.

3. The matter has been examined afresh. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, the Board has decided that wherever in terms of the agreement/contract between the payer and the payee, the service tax component comprised in the amount payable to a resident is indicated separately, tax shall be deducted at source under Chapter XVII-B of the Act on the amount paid/payable without including such service tax component.
4. This circular may be brought to the notice of all officer for compliance


F.NO.275/59/2012-IT(B)]


14 January 2014

Amendment to ST Mega Exemption Notification


Service Tax :
Central Govt extends service tax exemption to sponsorship of national sports events; Amends Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 - ST

Notification No.01/2014 Service dated January 10, 2014 

12 January 2014

Names of Audit Firms approved for appointment as Statutory Central Auditors in 25 Public Sector Banks for the year 2013-14

Sr.No
Auditors appointed for 2013-14
  
1.
Allahabad Bank, Kolkata
1
M/s N K Bhargava & Co., New Delhi
2
M/s Raghu Nath Rai & Co., New Delhi
3
M/s Khandelwal  Kakani & Co., Indore
4
M/s Batliboi & Purohit , Mumbai
5
M/s Sarath & Associates, Hyderabad

2.
Andhra Bank, Hyderabad
1
M/s Umamaheswara Rao & Co., Hyderabad
2
M/s R Subramanian and  Company , Chennai
3
M/s Patro & Co., Bhubaneshwar
4
M/s C R Sagdeo & Co., Nagpur
5
M/s  Nag & Associates, Dankuni

3.
Bank of Baroda, Mumbai
1
M/s S K Mittal & Co., New Delhi
3
M/s Ray & Ray, Kolkata 
4
M/s N B S & Co, Mumbai
5
M/s Laxminiwas Neeth & Co., Hyderabad
5
M/s K A S G & Co, Dhanbad
6
M/s Khandelwal Jain & Co., Mumbai

4.
Bank of India, Mumbai
1
M/s S R B & Associates, Bhubaneshwar
2
M/s Isaac & Suresh, Thiruvananthapuram
3
M/s M M  Nissim & Co., Mumbai
4
M/s  J P Kapur & Uberai, New Delhi
5
M/s D Singh & Co., New Delhi
6
M/s A N D R O S & Co., New Delhi

5.
Bank of Maharashtra, Pune
1
M/s Kirtane & Pandit , Pune
2
M/s J C Bhalla & Co, New  Delhi
3
M/s G Basu & Co, Kolkata
4
M/s Singh Ray Mishra & Co, Bhubaneshwar

6.
Canara Bank , Bangalore
1
M/s Loonker & Co., Mumbai
2
M/s P Chopra & Co., Karnal
3
M/s A R Das & Associates, Kolkata
4
M/s S C Vasudeva & Co., New Delhi
5
M/s Vinay Kumar & Co., Allahabad
6
M/s Ford Rhodes Parks & Co., Mumbai

7.
Central Bank of India, Mumbai
1
M/s Kumar Chopra & Associates, New Delhi
2
M/s P K Subramaniam & Co, Raichur
3
M/s Doogar & Associates, New Delhi
4
M/s N Sarkar & Co., Kolkata
5
M/s N Chaudhuri & Co., Kolkata
6
M/s B N Misra & Co., Bhubaneshwar

8.
Corporation Bank, Mangalore
1
M/s Suresh Chandra & Associates, New Delhi
2
M/s B K Ramadhyani & Co., Bangalore
3
M/s Nripendra & Co., Kanpur
4
M/s G M J & Co., Mumbai
5
Manohar Chowdhry & Associates, Chennai

9.
Dena Bank, Mumbai
1
M/s S N Dhawan & Co, New Delhi
2
M/s S C Ajmera & Co., Udaipur
3
M/s Anand & Ponnappan, Chennai
4
M/s  A P A S & Co., Raipur

10.
Indian Bank,Chennai
1
M/s Sharp & Tannan, Mumbai
2
M/s Bhattacharya  Das & Co, Kolkata
3
M/s Deoki Bijay & Co, Kolkata
4
M/s  S P Puri & Co., New Delhi
5
M/s C K Prusty & Associates, Bhubaneshwar

11.
Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai
1
M/s Badari Madhusudhan & Srinivasan, Bangalore 
2
M/s B Thiagarajan & Co, Chennai 
3
M/s Sankar & Moorthy, Thiruvananthapuram
4
M/s P R Mehra & Co, New Delhi
5
M/s Dass Khanna & Co, Ludhiana

12.
Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi
1
M/s Jain Kapila Associates, New Delhi
2
M/s P L Tandon & Co., Kanpur
3
M/s Shah & Taparia, Mumbai
4
M/s Bansal R Kumar & Associates, New Delhi
5
M/s R S Sipayya & Co., New Delhi

13.
Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi
1
M/s R M Lall & Co., Lucknow
2
M/s O P Tulsyan & Co., New Delhi
3
M/s B K Shroff & Co., Kolkata
4
M/s R Kothari & Co., Kolkata
 
14.
Punjab National  Bank, New Delhi
1
M/s Borkar & Muzumdar, Mumbai
2
M/s G S Madhava Rao & Co., Hyderabad
3
M/s Phillipos & Co, Bangalore
4
M/s K N Gutgutia & Co, Kolkata
5
M/s C V K & Associates, Mumbai
6
M/s Ramesh Kapoor & Co, Srinagar

15.
Syndicate Bank
1
M/s Chandiok & Guliani, New Delhi
2
M/s J N Sharma & Co, Kanpur
3
M/s Ramanlal G Shah & Co, Ahmedabad
4
M/s Sambhu N De & Co, Kolkata
5
M/s K N Goyal & Co, New Delhi
 
16.
UCO Bank, Kolkata
1
M/s SBA  Associates, Kolkata
2
M/s Ved & Co, Ghaziabad
3
M/s Dass Gupta & Assocites,  New Delhi
4
M/s Gupta Sharma & Associates, Jammu
5
M/s A Kayes & Co., Kolkata
 
17.
Union Bank of India, Mumbai
1
M/s Price Patt & Co., Chennai
2
M/s  S G C O & Co., Mumbai
3
M/s Jindal & Co., New Delhi
4
M/s Shah Gupta & Co., Mumbai
5
M/s V Rohatgi & Co., Ranchi
6
M/s J Gupta & Co., Kolkata
  
18.
United Bank of India, Kolkata
1
M/s Dinesh Mehta & Co, New Delhi
2
M/s Ramamoorthy (N) & Co., Hyderabad
3
M/s S P M R & Associates., New Delhi
4
M/s P C Bindal & Co., Jammu      

19.
Vijaya Bank, Bangalore
1
M/s Mukund M Chitale & Co., Mumbai
2
M/s Karra & Co., Chennai
3
M/s N C Mittal & Co., New Delhi
4
M/s K P M C & Associates, Ghaziabad

20.
State Bank of India
1
M/s Singhi & Co, Kolkata
2
M/s SCM Associates, Bhubaneshwar
3
M/s S N Nanda & Co, New Delhi
4
M/s Prakash & Santosh , Kanpur
5
M/s K B Sharma & Co, Jammu
6
M/s ADD & Associates, Kolkata
7
M/s V P Aditya & Co, Kanpur
8
M/s S Venkatram & Co, Chennai
9
M/s S Jaykishan, Kolkata
10
M/s T R Chadha & Co, New Delhi
11
M/s Dhamija Sukhija & Co, Srinagar
12
M/s Sriramamurthy & Co, Visakhapatnam
13
M/s S R R K Sharma Assocaites, Bangalore
14
M/s Mehra Goel & Co., New Delhi

21.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur
1
M/s Agarwal Anil & Co, New Delhi
2
M/s M K Aggarwal & Co, New Delhi
3
M/s Chaturvedi & Co, Kolkata
4
M/s Uberai Sood & Kapoor, New Delhi
5
M/s P S D & Associates, Jaipur
 
22.
State Bank of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
1
M/s Rao & Narayan, Hyderabad
2
M/s S Mann & Co, New Delhi
3
M/s Elias George & Co, Kochi
4
M/s Khanna & Annadhanam, New Delhi
5
M/s Sharma Goel & Co, New Delhi
6
M/s SRI Associates, Kolkata

23.
State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore
1
M/s B L Ajmera & Co., Jaipur
2
M/s M K P S & Associates. Bhubaneshwar
3
M/s Maharaj N R Suresh and Co., Chennai
4
M/s Bubber Jindal & Co, New Delhi

24.
State Bank of Patiala, Patiala
1
M/s Abhijit Dutta & Associates, Kolkata 
2
M/s Rawla & Co, New Delhi
3
M/s Sreedhar Suresh & Rajagopalan, Chennai
4
M/s Patel Mohan Ramesh & Co, Bangalore

25.
State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvananthapuram
1
M/s G K Rao & Co, Hyderabad
2
M/s Abraham & Jose, Thrissur
3
M/s R G N Price & Co Chennai
4
M/s Kumar Vijay Gupta & Co., New Delhi

No CA Attestation-DSC

Dear Members,

Chartered Accountant (CA)  is not allowed to attest documents acceptable as proof of identity and proof of address for issuance of Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) wef 15th Jan,2014- SEE NOTIFICATION.

10 January 2014

Amendments to CENVAT CREDIT Rules

Dear Members,

The CBEC has as amended the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Notification No. 01/2014-CE(NT) dated 08.01.2014 in relation to cenvat credit on removal/writing off of inputs and capital goods under Rule 3. Also, the date for payment of duty on removal of inputs/capital goods under the said rule has now been inserted as Explanation to Rule 3(5C).

09 January 2014

Sec 234E-HC Interim Stay Order


High Court grants interim stay on levy of fee for failure to file TDS statement
S. 234E: High Court grants interim stay on levy of fee for failure to file TDS statement S. 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 provides for levy of a fee of Rs. 200/- for each day's delay in filing the statement of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) or Tax Collected at Source (TCS). The constitutional validity of s. 234E has been challenged in the Kerala High Court. Vide an interim order dated 18.12.2013, the High Court has admitted the Petition and granted a stay of proceedings for a period of two months.

08 January 2014

VCES Clarifications-11-12-2013

F. No. B1/19/2013-TRU (Pt.)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise & Customs
(Tax Research Unit)
***
New Delhi the 11th December, 2013
 To,
All Chief Commissioners of Central Excise/Service Tax
Director General Service Tax
All Commissioners of Central Excise/Service Tax

Madam/Sir,

Sub: The Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme – issues for clarification – reg

            The undersigned is directed to state that the  Board has issued clarifications on issues concerning various aspects of the VCES, vide circulars dated 13.05.2013, 8.08.2013 and 25.11.2013. A FAQ has also been issued on VCES.  However, certain instances have come to notice, as mentioned below, that the declarants under the VCES are still facing difficulties.

2.         In one instance, the Designated Authority has asked a declarant, who has "tax dues" only for a part of the period covered by the Scheme, to furnish an undertaking that he had no unpaid "tax dues" for the remaining period covered by the Scheme. However, the Scheme does not envisage furnishing of any such undertaking. A declarant may have tax dues only for a part period covered by the Scheme. In terms of the Scheme a declaration of tax dues has to be made in Form VCES-I, which includes an undertaking that the information given in the declaration is correct and complete. Therefore, the Designated Authority should not ask for any other undertaking or declaration beyond what has been prescribed in the Scheme or Rules made there under.

3.         In another instance, the Designated Authority has objected to the payment of the first tranche of 50%, payable by 31.12.2013, in installments. It is clarified that the Scheme only prescribes that the declarant would pay a minimum amount of 50% of the tax dues by 31.12.2013. Rest of the payment may be made by 30.6.2014, without any interest, and any amount remaining unpaid on 30.6.2014 shall be paid by 31.12.2014, with interest for the period of delay beyond 30.6.2014. There is no bar to pay these amounts in installments. For example a declarant may pay the 50% amount that he is required to pay by 31.12.2013 in more than one installment. Therefore, payment of 50% "tax dues" in lump-sum may not be insisted to.

4.         In some instances, it has been observed that the Designated Authority has raised frivolous/unnecessary queries as regards the veracity and the manner of calculation of tax dues. While the designated authority may cause arithmetical check as regards the correctness of computation of tax dues, the Scheme does not envisage investigation by the designated authority into the veracity of declaration. Only if the Commissioner has reason to believe that the declaration filed by the declarant is substantially false he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, serve notice on the declarant requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the tax dues not paid or short-paid. 

Yours faithfully,

(S.Jayaprahasam)
Technical Officer (TRU)
Tel. No.: 2309 5547.

Empanel as Concurrent Auditors

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA invites online applications from practicing firms of Chartered Accountants, in the prescribed format, who are willing to...