27 February 2014

Karnataka HC gives interim stay on Sec 234E demand recovery

Karnataka HC gives interim stay on Sec 234E demand recovery


High court's relief for employers, businessmen from paying penal fees for not filing TDS

 In a big relief for several employers and businessmen, the Karnataka high court has stayed for four weeks the operation of series of demand notices sent by the Income Tax department asking them to pay penal fees in relation to non-filing of TDS statements. 

Justice Jawad Rahim passed an interim order to this affect while asking Income Tax department and 
ministry of finance to file their replies. 

Several employers as well as assessees under TAN have moved the court challenging the penal provisions under newly inserted section 234E of the Income Tax Act , 1961 connected to filing of TDS returns by employers. 
"The incorporation of Section 234E to the IT Act with effect from July 1,2012 has at one stroke ,deleted all the favorable and beneficial sections- an appeal under section 246(1)(l)(ii) of the Act and also waiver of penalty under section 273B itself .Now it is mandatory and compulsory on the deductees to pay fee at Rs.200 per day till the date of filing/submitting the TDS statement to TDS reconciliation analysis and correction enabling system, Ghaziabad. Failing which, the deductor/s will be totally debarred from filing their TDS statement itself and as a further consequence , they will not be competent to issue Form No.16 or 16A as stipulated under section203 of the IT Act to the dedctee/s." the petitioners have stated. 

"If they continue defaulting section 234E of the Act, then they would be further subjected rigorous penal provisions of having to shell out penalty at Rs.100 per day, as set out in Section 272A(2)(g), in case recipient/deductee claims credit of the TDS in his return of income tax" the petitioners have claimed. 

The petitioners have stated that levy of fee is against the scheme of the Income Tax Act and the word 'fee' is an alien word by itself vis-a-vis the Income Tax Act. 


VMV S RAO                                                                                                            26/02/2014                                                                                                                           Source: Times of India

26 February 2014

Amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules

Central Govt Notifies
CENVAT Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2014 w.e.f April 1, 2014

Amends Rule 7 pertaining to credit distribution by input service distributor; Accordingly, service tax credit attributable to service used by one or more units exclusively engaged in exempted goods manufacture / exempted service rendition, shall be barred from distribution; Further, credit of service used wholly by a unit shall be distributed only to that unit; Pro rata distribution of service tax credit shall be based on turnover of units using said service during relevant period to total turnover of all its units operational in current year, during said relevant period; As per new Explanation 3, "relevant period" means (i) preceding financial year, where assessee's turnover available for that year, or (ii) where such details unavailable for some / all units , last quarter for which turnover details of all units available (previous to month / quarter for which credit distributed) : Finance Ministry Notification







24 February 2014

Case Law on Gold to Daughter


Coram : Shri Abraham P. George (Accountant Member)
and Shri George Mathan (Judicial Member)
I.T .A. No. : 1400/Kol./ 2011
Assessment year : 2007-2008

Shri Harish Kumar Manikant Goda Vs Income Tax Officer

Appearances by:
Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, for the assessee
Shri P.B. Pramanick, JCIT, Sr. D.R, for the Department
Date of concluding the hearing : February 14, 2014
Date of pronouncing the order : February 19, 2014
Per Abraham P. Geroge :

1. In this appeal, assessee assails an addition of Rs.3,62,100/- which was scaled down by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIX, Kolkata to Rs.2,68,150/-.

2. Facts apropos are that assessee is an individual , had filed his return for the impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs.1,69,635/-. It seems that return was originally subject only to a processing under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Reason for reopening is not available in the assessment order. During the course of reassessment proceedings, Assessing Officer based on certain documents came to a finding that jewellery worth Rs.5.5 lakhs was handed over by the assessee to the in-laws of his daughter. As per Assessing Officer, said jewellery was not shown in assessee's balance- sheet. No return of wealth was filed by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the maximum gold jewellery that can be possessed by a married man, who has not filed any wealth-tax return, can be only 200 grams. Taking per gram rate of Rs.939.5, Assessing Officer reached a figure of Rs.1,87,900/-, as the maximum value of gold jewellery that can be possessed by the assessee. The difference of Rs.3,62,100/- was added as unaccounted income.

3. In its appeal before ld. CIT(A ppeals), argument of the assessee was that only 400 grams of jewellery was handed over to the in-laws of his daughter at the time of marriage and on various occasions. As per the assessee, such jewellery was purchased over a large number of years out of savings. Assessee further submitted that there were regular withdrawals made by him from his accounts and, therefore, surplus money was available with him for purchasing small quantities of gold ornaments over a long period of time. As per the assessee, the total amount spent by him for the marriage of his daughter was Rs.12.32 lakhs and the jewellery given to the in-laws of his daughter was only 400 grams.

4. Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly accepted the claim of assessee. According to him, withdrawals were made by the assessee over a number of years from his accounts and, therefore, the cl aim that some of jewellery was purchased in the earlier years out of savings, could not be brushed aside.

He was of the opinion that credit to the extent of 300 grams of jewellery coul d be allowed to the assessee. He, therefore, held that at the rate of Rs.939.5 per gram the maximum value of jewellery that could be held by the assessee was only Rs.2,81,850/-. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2,68,150/-.

5. Now before us, l d. A.R. strongly assailing the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) submitted that 400 grams of jewellery was not a huge holding and not something which was not achievable for a common man.

According to him, reopening of assessment was based on complaint given by the son-in-law of the assessee who was trying for a divorce from assessee's daughter. As per l d. A.R. when withdrawals were found sufficient for more than 400 grams, ld. CIT(A ppeals) erred in coming to a conclusion that assessee could at the best hold onl y 300 grams of jewellery.

6. Per contra, ld. D.R. supported the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not disputed the claim of assessee that he was having drawings from his accounts in the earlier years. Admittedly assessee was having only 400 grams of jewellery, which was given by him to the in-laws of his daughter at the time of marriage.

Assessee who was regularl y filing return of income claimed that he had acquired such jewellery over a number of years. Since he was having a daughter to marry off, this is not an unbelievable version. Endeavour of every Indian is to accumulate some jewellery which can be used at the time of marriage of his/her daughter. At the best, assessee can only be considered as a doting father. It is not required for an assessee to file personal balance-sheet along with the return of income. Hence, the question of jewellery not appearing in the balance-sheet, in our opinion, is irrelevant. The reopening, as well as assessment, in our opinion, was an aftermath of family disputes between the daughter of the assesese and her husband. This is not a case where undisclosed income or unaccounted income could have been assessed. The addition made is deleted in full.

8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of February, 2014.

22 February 2014

CBDT on Promotions

CBDT Order Promoting CsIT/ DsIT to Chief Commissioners of Income-tax

Vide Order No. 36 of 2014 dated 20.02.2014 the CBDT has promoted officers in the grade of Commissioner / Director of Income Tax to the grade of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) in the Pay Band of Rs. 67,000 – 79,000with immediate effect and actually from the date of assumption of charge of the post and until further orders. The CBDT has also directed the postings of the said promotees

CBDT Order Promoting Addl. CsIT/ DsIT to Commissioners of Income-tax

Vide Order No. 32 of 2014 dated 20.02.2014 the CBDT has promoted several officers in the grade of Additional Commissioner / Additional Director of Income Tax are hereby promoted to the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) in the Pay Band 4 – Rs. 37,400-67,000 + Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000/- with immediate effect and actually from the date of assumption of charge of the post and until further orders

17 February 2014

Highlights of Interim Budget 2014

Excise Duty
  • The Excise Duty on all goods falling under Chapter 84 & 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act is reduced from 12 percent to 10 percent for the period upto 30.06.20 14. The rates can be reviewed at the time of regular Budget.
  • To give relief to the Automobile Industry, which is registering unprecended negative growth, the excise duty is reduced for the period up to30.06.2014 as follows:
·         Small Cars, Motorcycle, Scooters  and Commercial Vehicles       -    from 12 % to 8%
·         SUVs -   from 30% to 24%
·         Large and Mid-segment Cars  – from 27/24% to 24/20%
  • It is also proposed to make appropriate reductions in the excise duties on chassis and trailors – The rates can be reviewed at the time of regular Budget
  • To encourage domestic production of mobile handsets, the excise duties for all categories of mobile handsets is restructured. The rates will be 6% with CENVAT credit or 1 percent without CENVAT credit.
Service Tax
  • The loading and un-loading, packing, storage and warehousing of rice is exempted from Service Tax.
  • The services provided by cord blood banks is exempted from Service Tax.
Custom Duty
  • To encourage domestic production of soaps and oleo chemicals, the custom duty structure on non-edible grade industrial oils and its fractions, fatty acids and fatty alcohols is rationalized at 7.5 percent.
  • To encourage domestic production of specified road construction machinery, the exemption from CVD on similar imported machinery is withdrawn.
  • A concessional custom duty 5 percent on capital goods imported by the Bank Note Paper Mill India Private Limited is provided to encourage domestic production of security paper for printing currency notes.
Income Tax
No changes in Direct tax laws in interim budget


MCA Clarification on Sec 185

MCA issues clarification on section 185 of the Companies Act 2013
MCA after receiving number of representations on the. applicability of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 with reference to loans made, guarantee given or security provided under Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956, has come out with necessary clarification vide circular No. 3/2014 dated 14th Feb 2014, which will definitely provide much needed relief to corporates. It is clarified that in order to maintain harmony with regard to applicability of Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956 till the same is repealed and Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013 is notified, any guarantee given or security provided by a holding company in respect of loans made by a bank or financial institution to its wholly owned subsidiary company, exemption as provided in clause (d) of sub-section (8) of Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956 shall be applicable. This clarification will, however, be applicable to cases where loans so obtained are exclusively utilized by the subsidiary for its principal business activities.
It is noteworthy to mention that the relief is not given with respect to loan given by holding Company to its wholly owned subsidiaries.

14 February 2014

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?

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


12 February 2014

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.



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


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:

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.

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


VMVSR                                                                                                               BIMAL JAIN       

11 February 2014

CBDT Circular On Extension Of Due Date For Filing Refund Claims

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".

10 February 2014

02 February 2014

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.


WPMP.NO:26799 of  2013


WP.NO:21872 of   2013

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


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



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).

01 February 2014

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.



Government of India
Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue)

Notification No. 02/2014 - Service Tax

New Delhi, 30th 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 10th January, 2014 G.S.R. 15(E), dated the 10th January,2014.
 Notification No.  25/2012-Service Tax
New Delhi, the 20th 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;  

Statistics: Viewers of this blog were

Sanjay Nikam, Ankit Agarwal and Ketan Saiya crosses quota at elimination of Jayesh Kala. Ishwar Jivani crosses quota at final elimination of...