think differently act perfectly - bangalore branch of … the high court in the income-tax appeal...

1

Think Differently Act Perfectly

August2009

2

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

August2009

3


August2009

PROGRAMMES - A BIRDS EYE VIEW - August 2009Date/Day Topic /Speaker Venue/Time CPE Credit

Editor : CA. Cotha S. SrinivasSub Editors : CA. S.N. Ravindranath

CA. T.R. Venkatesh Babu

The Branch does not accept any responsibility forthe views expressed in Articles / Contributions /Advertisements published in this News Letter.

2 Hrs.

Note :High Tea for Programmes at Branch Premises at 5.30 pm.

6 Hrs.

The pursuit of happiness is a most ridiculous phrase, if you pursue happiness you’ll never find it.

01.08.09 & National Seminar on Hotel Le- Meridien02.08.09 Private Equity 9.00am to 5.30pm

03.08.09 Interactive Meeting with Chairman, Peer Review Board Hotel FortuneMonday CA. K. Raghu select J P Cosmo

04.08.09 AS-6: Depreciation Accounting Branch PremisesTuesday AS-28: Impairment of Assets 06.00pm to 8.00pm

CA. Naina Gadia

06.08.09 AS-21: Consolidated Financial Statements Branch PremisesThursday AS-23: Accounting for Investments in Associates 06.00pm to 8.00pm

AS-27: Financial Reporting of Interests in Joint VenturesCA. Shyam Ramadyani

07.08.09 Peer Review Training Programme Hotel Le- MeridienFriday Delegate Fee: Rs. 1000/- 9.00am to 5.30pm

08.08.09 Burning Issues Under Service Tax: Works Contract, Branch PremisesSaturday ITSS (Information Technology Software Services) 09.00pm to 1.00pm

Tangible Goods, RentalCA. Chandrashekar B.D., CA. Vinay K.VDelegate Fee: Rs. 250/-

11.08.09 AS-22: Accounting for Taxes on Income Branch PremisesTuesday AS-25: Interim Financial Reporting 06.00pm to 8.00pm

CA. H. Anil Kumar

13.08.09 VAT aspects with regard to Income Tax Audit and Sri Bhagawan Mahaveer JainThursday Other Issues College Auditorium

CA. Sanjay M. Dhariwal Next to Bangalore Stock ExachangeDelegate Fee: Rs. 200/- 5.00pm to 8.00pm

15.08.09 Independence Day Celebration & Cultural Programmes Branch Premisesfor details refer page no.18 9.30 am to 12noon

Saturday Flag Hoisting by CA. Panduranga O. R.

18.08.09 AS-1: Disclosure of Accounting Policies Branch PremisesTuesday AS-5: Net profit or loss for the period, 06.00pm to 8.00pm

prior period items and changes in Accounting PoliciesCA. N. Nityananda

20.08.09 AS-19: Accounting for Leases Branch PremisesThursday AS-26: Intangible Assets 06.00pm to 8.00pm

CA. R. Rama Rao

21.08.09 Corporate Accountants Meet 2009 Hotel Le- MeridienFriday for details refer page no.18 05.00pm to 8.00pm

22.08.09 Second ISA MEET Hotel Le- MeridienSaturday for details refer page no.18 05.00pm to 8.00pm

25.08.09 AS-3: Cash Flow Statement Branch PremisesTuesday AS-13: Accounting for Investments 06.00pm to 8.00pm

CA. Prateek Chandok

27.08.09 Tax Audit - A Practical approach Sri Bhagawan Mahaveer JainThursday CA. D.R. Venkatesh College Auditorium

CA. D.S. Vivek Next to Bangalore Stock ExachangeDelegate Fee: Rs. 200/- 5.00pm to 8.00pm

01.09.09 AS-2: Valuation of Inventory Branch PremisesTuesday AS-12: Accounting for Government Grants 06.00pm to 8.00pm

CA. Cherian K Baby

03.09.09 AS-20: Earnings Per Share Branch PremisesThursday AS-18: Related Party Disclosures 06.00pm to 8.00pm

CA. S Ramanujam

2 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

3 Hrs.

4 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

3 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

12 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

2 Hrs.

4


August2009

TAX UPDATES June 2009Chythanya K.K., B.com, FCA, LL.B., Advocate

Reference Description

(2009) (66) Kar. L.J. 425 Mysore Construction Company, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and others (HC)Section

15(5) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was amended by Act, 6 of 2007, with effect from

01.04.2006, where under a clause (e) was introduced, Accordingly, a dealer who has opted for

composition tax scheme has to pay tax on purchases from unregistered dealers.The aforesaid

amendment was challenged. It was held that, the purchase tax demanded from dealer in respect

of goods purchased form unregistered dealers and used in execution of works contract, does

not amount to levying tax on both ends of same transaction, once on purchase when purchased

from unregistered dealers and again on sale when sold as part of works contract, as the

transactions are different. Levy of tax every time when there is transaction of sale or purchase

is not prohibited. Provision of Section 15 (5) (e) of the Act cannot be held unconstitutional,

as it does not seek to levy tax on both purchase and sale of same goods in single

transaction.However, it was held that the amendment can be made only prospectively when it is

disadvantage to dealer and purchase tax cannot be enforced as additional burden retrospectively

from 1-4-2006.

(2009) (66) Kar. L.J. 471 DCM Limited v. CST, Delhi (SC)In this case, the assessee manufacturing chemicals, entered

into an agency agreement with local dealers. Local dealers were acting as assessee’s distributors

and are required to purchase and take delivery of goods at gate of assessee’s factory within

State, for storage in their own godown for eventual removal of goods for distribution, for the

price fixed by assessee, to the places outside the State, assigned to them under agreement.It

was held that, since the transaction under agreement requires the removal of goods to places

outside State, the same must be considered as inter-State sale.

(2009) (66) Kar. L.J. 480 Kitchen Appliances India Limited, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka (Kar.-Tri.-DB)In this

case, the trade discounts allowed to the customer were disallowed on the ground that discounts

given to buyers are not reflected in tax invoices, in compliance with Rule requiring dealer to

show in the invoice itself, amount allowed as discount.It was held that, the Rule 3 of the KVAT

Rules dose not take away from dealer, his right to issue credit notes to purchaser within six

months from date of sale, extending discount and exclude such discount in computing taxable

turnover. Right of dealer to deduct amounts allowed as discount from his total turnover in

arriving at the Turnover is a right given in Act. The same cannot be denied for reason that

discounts allowed are not reflected in original invoices issued to buyers. When Act permits

dealer to give discount within six months from date of sale by issuing credit note, and when he

has satisfied this condition, he cannot be denied benefit.

VAT, CST, ENTRY TAX, PROFESSIONAL TAXPARTS DIGESTED:a) 2009 14 KCTJ 3

b) 2009 (66) KLJ – Part 6

c) 2009 VST Vol. 22 Part 6 to 7

d) 2009 VST Vol.23 Part 1 to 2

Happiness comes when your work and words are of benefit to yourself and others.

5


August2009Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful

INCOME TAXa) 313 ITR – Part 1 to 5 e) 123 TTJ – Part 1 to 3

b) 180 Taxman – Part 3 to 6 f) 26 CAPJ – Part 5 to 6

c) 118 ITD – Part 5 to 8 g) 41-A BCAJ – Part 3

d) 122 TTJ – Part 7 h) 57 TCA – Part 12

Reference Description

[2009] 313 ITR 2 Canoro Resources Ltd., In Re (AAR)In this case, it was held that, the provisions of Partnership Act

of Alberta were substantially similar to those of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The proposed

partnership of the applicant would also be a partnership firm as understood under the Indian Act. The

requirements of the section 184(1) are satisfied. The firm registered in Canada will be assessed to tax

in India as firm.It may be noted that the aforesaid decision may not apply to the case of a limited

liability partnership in view of section 2 (23) defining limited liability partnership in a manner different

from that of a partnership firm.It was held that, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 45 would

yield to section 92 dealing with transfer pricing provisions. As such, when a transaction referred to in

section 45 (3) is in the nature of international transaction, the value of consideration shall not be the

value as recorded in the firm’s account books, but the same shall be determined on the basis of the

arm’s length price in accordance with the transfer pricing provisions contained in Chapter X of the

Act.With due respect, the ruling given in the above case may not be right in view of the fact that

section 45 (3) would be in the nature of a special provision dealing with particular type of transaction

by way of transfer of the capital asset by a partner to the firm whereas transfer pricing Provisions are

general in nature. Further, section 45 (3) creates a legal fiction of accepting the book value of the full

value consideration and such section cannot be undone by resorting to section 92.

[2009] 313 ITR 26 CIT v. Sirmour Truck Operators Union (No. 1) (SC)In this case, M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.

entered into a contract with M/s. Sirmour Truck Operators Union, the respondent herein. The

respondent-assessee is a society. Its members consist of truck operators. The question which arose

before the High Court in the income-tax appeal under section 260A was whether the assessee was

liable or not liable to deduct TDS under section 194C of the Income-tax Act. The High Court dismissed

the appeal as not giving rise to any question of law.On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that,

the aforesaid question is a substantial question of law and the High Court ought to have decided the

said question. It ought not to have dismissed the appeals summarily.

[2009] 313 ITR 74 Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd., In re (AAR)In this case, the learned AAR distinguished its earlier

ruling in the case of Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd., In Re (No. 1) (2009) 312 ITR 273 (AAR) wherein

it was ruled that, the word “services” should be confined to a single contract where there is more

than one with the same party and the number of days specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (c) should

be counted contract-wise. Based on the current facts of the case, it was held that, there is no warrant

to understand the expression “services” in such a truncated manner. Firstly, various contracts involving

rendering of services in India were with one party, namely, ONGC. Secondly, the contracts related to

redevelopment of the Bombay High South and North off-shore oil fields aimed at stepping up the

recovery of oil and gas. The activities in connection with the contracts were to be carried out in and

around Mumbai. Moreover, broadly, the nature of work and services are of the same pattern. Thus,

from the geographical and commercial point of view, the services cannot be dissociated from each

other for the purposes of article 5 (3) (c). Accordingly, it was held that it is reasonable to take the view

that the duration of the totality of services furnished under various contracts between the same

parties during the 12 months period has to be taken into account. If so, the yardstick of 91 days

stands satisfied.

6


August2009 We all live with the objective of being happy; our lives are all different and yet the same.

[2009] 313 ITR 94 U.A.E Exchange Centre Ltd. v. Union of India and another (Delhi-HC)In this case, it washeld that, even though the provisions of section 245S provides that the orders of the Authority

would be binding, this, by itself, cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the courts by implication orotherwise, as it does not provide for any adequate remedy to mitigate or deal with the grievanceof the aggrieved party. Therefore, it was held that, the courts would have jurisdiction to entertain

actions under article 226 of the Constitution impugning the ruling given by the Authority undersection 245R of the Act. Thereafter, ruling on merit, the honourable Delhi High Courtdisagreed with the ruling of the AAR and held that the activities of the appellant’sliaison Office did not create a permanent establishment in India.

[2009] 313 ITR (AT) 55 Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT (Delhi-ITAT)In this case, the assessee was engaged in the business

of providing cellular mobile telephone services to subscribers. The subscribers used the cellulartelephone network through a SIM card. The pre-paid or post paid connections were provided tothe subscribers through distributors called pre-paid market associates appointed by the assessee.

The assessee offered discount for pre-paid calling services to its distributors. The agreementsuggested that the nature of contract was of sale and not a contract of agency.It was held byTribunal that, the discount allowed by the assessee to the pre-paid market associate would not

fall within definition of commission or brokerage. The assessee was not liable to deduct tax atsource under section 194H.

[2009] 313 ITR (St.) 3 CIT v. Rajendra Y. Shah (S.L.P. (C) No. 8364 of 2009)In this case, it was held that, the assesseewas entitled to claim deduction if the debt had been written off as irrecoverable in the books ofaccount and there was no obligation on the assessee to establish that the debt had become bad.

[2009] 313 ITR 187 DIT (International Taxation) v. NGC Network Asia LLC (Bombay) HCIn this case, it was heldthat, when a duty was cast on the payer to deduct the tax at source, on failure of the payer to do

so, no interest could be imposed on the assessee.

[2009] 313 ITR (AT) 146 ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. (Mumbai-ITAT) (SB)In this case, it was held by the special

Bench that, the deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is ashareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder.The expression shareholder referred to in section 2 (22) (e) refers to both a registered shareholder

and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial shareholderthen the provisions of section 2 (22) (e) will not apply. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholderbut not a registered shareholder then also the provisions of section 2 (22) (e) will not apply.

[2009] 313 ITR (AT) 196 DCIT v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (Hyderabad-ITAT)In this case, assessee had paidcertain amount as tax in USA and claimed it as advance tax in India under the double taxation

avoidance agreement. The Assessing Officer treated it as self-assessment tax in the order passedunder section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the amount was notadvance-tax but self-assessment tax. Accordingly, interest was levied on the basis that the advance

tax was short paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount paid was in the nature ofadvance tax and had to be treated as such.It was held by the Tribunal that, the amounts paid bythe assessee in USA for the financial years relevant to the assessment years 1998-99 and 2005-

06 were in the nature of advance tax and had to be treated as advance tax in India.

[2009] 313 ITR 231 CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd (Raj-HC)In this case, the assessee company had leased out

certain plant and machinery to another company and claimed depreciation on such plant andmachinery under section 32. The lessee had claimed revenue expenditure for the lease rent paidby the assessee but the assessing officer had allowed depreciation on the capital value of the

plant and machinery. On noticing this fact, the assessing officer of the assessee initiated theproceedings under section 147.It was held that the basic distinguishing feature between thelease being finance lease and operating lease would be that in the case of finance lease, at some

point of time, the ownership transfers to the lessee, or the lessee has the option to purchase the

7


August2009Unhappiness is best defined as the difference between our talents and our expectations.

hired assets in consideration of a token price. Obviously, in that event, the lease rent or hire

charges called by whatever name with passage of time partake of the character of the price ofthe asset in possession of the lessee or hirer under the finance lease agreement as distinct fromthe lease in question where there is a very specific stipulation in clause 8 that on termination of

the lease the leased plant and machinery are to be returned to the lessor in the condition as theywere taken except normal wear and tear. Therefore lessor is allowed to claim depreciation undersection 32.It was further held that the assessing officer is not permitted to reopen the assessment

on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, that is, of another assessing officer.

[2009] 313 ITR 267 DIT v. Sheraton International Inc. (Delhi-HC)In this case, the assessee, a non resident, was

engaged in providing service to hotels in various parts of the world. On 27.01.1979, it enteredinto one such agreement with ITC for providing services to there of its hotels. The scope ofservices envisaged in the agreement was publicity, advertisement and sales including reservation

services. The assessee had given permission to use trade mark, brand name as well as the stylized“S” to attain the main objective of the agreement to its client-hotels. Assessing officer concludedthat the payments received by the assessee were fees for included service as provided in article

12 (4) (b). The Delhi High Court upheld the views of the Tribunal that, the main service renderedby the assessee to its clients-hotels was advertisement, publicity and sales promotion keeping inmind their mutual interest and, in that context, the use of trade mark, trade name or the stylized

“S” or other enumerated services referred to in the agreement with the assessee were incidentalto the said main service. Therefore, the payments received were neither in the nature of royaltyunder section 9 (1) (vi) red with Explanation 2 or in the nature of fee for technical services under

9 (1) (vii) read with Explanation 2 or taxable under article 12 of the DTAA. Accordingly thepayments received were to be in the nature of business income. Since the assessee admittedlydoes not have a permanent establishment under article 7 of the DTAA “business income” received

by the assessee cannot be brought to tax in India.

[2009] 313 ITR (St) 28 CIT v. Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation (S.P.L. (C) No. 8156 of 2009)In this case, theSupreme Court dismissed the departmental appeal holding that, the assessee did not, in

constructing buildings on leasehold land, acquire a capital asset but had only put up a constructionof the building for business advantage, with the result that the entire construction cost wasadmissible as revenue expenditure.

[2009] 313 ITR 406 CIT and another v. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills (All) HCIn this case, assessee was a firmconstituted with 13 partners, 2 partners retired and by mutual consent; the partnership was

treated as dissolved. On the same day, 2 other persons jointed as partners along with the elevenremaining partners of the firm and a new partnership deed was executed. Business was thereaftercontinued under the same name.It was held that, the execution of deed of the dissolution where

2 partners had retired and 2 partners had come in would not make any difference and it wouldbe a reconstitution of the firm even though the same was termed as dissolution by the partners.It was accordingly held that the department was justified in making one single assessment on

the firm

[2009] 313 ITR 411 Mrs. Meera Jacob v. ITO (Ker) HCIn this case, it was held that, investment in expansion of

existing residential house will not be entitled to the deduction under Section 54F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.However, the honourable High Court did not notice its own decision to the contraryin the case of CIT versus AR Mathavan Pillai reported in 219 ITR 696.

[2009] 313 ITR (AT) 346 ITO v. Smt. Rohini Reddy (Hyderabad-ITAT)In this case, assessee had sold a plat which wasnot meat for habitation of the assessee and invested the proceeds in the purchase of another

residential house property.It was held that, it can be noticed from the marginal heading of thissection that the original intention in inserting the provisions of section 54 of the Act and theamendments made from time to time to mitigate the unintended hardship by originally using

the expression used by the “assessee or parent of his…” without changing the expression “used

8


August2009

for residence” in the marginal heading and also by specifying the nature of building by use ofthe expression “being a residential house”. Accordingly, it was held that the intention of theLegislature was to extend the benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Act only when theproperty sold as well as property purchased by the assessee were intended to be used as residentialhouses. It was held that otherwise, the deduction under section 54 cannot be claimed.

[2009] 180 Taxman Dr. Rahul Tugnait v. ITO (Chd-ITAT)In this case, it was held that, sections 15, 16, 17 of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 nowhere include scholarships or stipend which have been mentioned insection 10 (16) of the Act; therefore, it can be said that stipend or scholarship has been specificallyprecluded from the mischief of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of section 17.

[2009] 180 Taxman Dawood Sons v. ACIT (Chennai-ITAT)In this case, it was held that, when there is a change inthe constitution of a firm, it is for the assessee to seek again the status of the “firm” for thepurpose of assessment by filing a certified copy of the revised deed of partnership. It was heldthat it is for the assessee to choose whether to be assessed as a “firm” or to be assessed as anAssociation of Persons (AOP) on the constitution of a firm or on the reconstitution of a firm. Ifthe assessee has satisfied provisions of section 184 of the Income-tax Act, it shall be assessed asa “firm” and if not, it shall be assessed as an AOP; neither the Assessing Authority nor theassessee can to go beyond this.

[2009] 180 Taxman 335 CIT, Chennai v. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. (Mad.-HC)In this case, it was held that, MAT creditunder section 115JAA should be given effect to before charging interest under section 234B and234C. If there is a conflict between a rule and a substantial provision of Act, rule must pave wayto provision of Act and, therefore, rule 12 (1) (a) and Form No. 1 cannot go beyond provisions ofAct and Form No. 1 cannot lay down order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance tax andMAT credit under section 115JAA as it would be contrary to provisions of Act.

[2009] 180 Taxman 357 DIT v. Galileo International Inc. (Delhi-HC)In this case, assessee-company was incorporatedunder laws of US and carried on business of maintaining and operating system for providingelectronic global distribution services to airlines, hotels and tour and cab operators by connectingthem to travel agents utilizing a Computerized Reservation System (CRS). In that behalf, assesseehad entered into an agreement with various participants known as ‘participating carrieragreement’. It had also entered into a separate agreement known as distribution agreementwith travel agent in India. For services rendered by said agent under agreement, assessee waspaying to it 1 Euro for each booking from airlines, etc. Assessee was, however, paid 3 Euro foreach booking. Assessing Officer held that assessee’s income generated in India was chargeableto tax in India under Section 5 (2), read with section 9 (1) (i).The Delhi High court upheld decisionof Tribunal that, since assessee was charging 3 Euro per booking, 15 per cent thereof wouldcome to 0.45 Euro and after paying commission of 1 Euro per booking to travel agent, there wasno income or profit which was chargeable to tax in India. It was held that, since Tribunal’s orderwas based on relevant material, no question of law did arise therefrom.The Delhi High Court hasapproved the ruling of the tribunal that in the case of a dependent agency permanentestablishment (DAPE), if the dependent agent has been adequately remunerated, nothing remainsto be attributable to the DAPE.

[2009] 118 ITD 494 Frontier Offshore Exploration (India) Ltd. v. DCIT, Company Circle 11 (1), Chennai(Chennai-ITAT)In this case, it was held that, whenever an assessee making payment to non-resident finds that only a particular portion is chargeable to tax, in view of provisions of section195 (2), assessee has to go before taxing authorities and get such appropriate proportiondetermined and, accordingly deduct tax. Since in instant case, assessee did not make such anapplication under section 195 (2), disallowance made by Assessing Officer by invoking provisionsof section 40 (a) (i) was to be affirmed.

[2009] 122 TTJ 902 Jindal Stainless Ltd. vs. ACIT (Delhi-ITAT)In this case, it was held that, there being no searchon the assessee as there was no warrant of authorization in its name, prerequisite of assessmentunder section 153A was not fulfilled. Further, no satisfaction having been reached by the AO ofthe person searched that the undisclosed income revealed in the search belonged to assessee

(BN) iv [PART- 3]

(BN) iv [PART- 3]

The true way to render ourselves happy is to love our work and find in it our pleasure

9


August2009

Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort

and procedure prescribed under section 153C having not been followed, assessment could notbe one under section 153C and was also invalid. Such defects were jurisdictional and could notbe cured by recourse to section 292B.

[2009] 122 TTJ 957 T. Two International (P) Ltd vs. ITO (Mumbai-ITAT)In this case, it was held that, section 10A(1) allows deduction in respect of profits and gains derived by an eligible undertaking “from theexport of articles or things or computer software”. The latter part of this sub-section providesthat this deduction is available for a period of ten consecutive assessment years starting with the“assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufactureor produce such articles or things or computer software”. The reference to manufacture orproduction of eligible articles is only for the purpose of settling the first year of the ten consecutiveassessment years in which the assessee will be entitled to deduction under this section. Thequalifying amount for deduction is the “profits and gains as are derived by an undertaking fromthe export of articles or things or computer software”. Such eligible articles are not restricted toonly those which are produced or manufactured by the assessee. The material consideration isthe export of the eligible goods and not whether these are manufactured or purchased by theassessee. Section 10A is akin to section 80HHC in some respects, and the latter section alsoprovides for deduction in respect of profits from the export of the goods or merchandisemanufactured by the assessee as well as from the export of trading goods. Thus profits fromboth the self-manufactured as well as trading in goods have been made eligible for deduction. Ifthe intention the legislature had been to restrict the deduction only from the manufacturingactivity, then it would have been provided so in unambiguous terms in the section itself. Sincethe benefit has been granted to the profits and gains derived ‘from export of eligible articles,without further restricting it to the articles manufactured by the assessee in its industrialundertaking, it was held by the Tribunal that the learned CIT (A) was not justified in excludingthe export of trading in goods worth Rs. 3.23 crores from the qualifying exports. In other words,it was held that the trading activity also qualifies for the purpose of relief under section 10A.Further,it was held that, the First proviso to section 80HHC (1) states that if the assessee, being an exporthouse or a trading house, issues a certificate that in respect of the amount of the export turnoveras specified in the certificate, the deduction be allowed to a supporting manufacturer, then thededuction under s. 80HHC is made available to the supporting manufacturer instead of theexport house or trading house to that extent notwithstanding the fact that such supportingmanufacturer had sold the goods to the export house or trading house in India. No analogousprovision has been inserted in section 10A. If the intention of the legislature had been to providededuction on the line argued by the learned Authorised Representative, then suitable stipulationhad been made accordingly. In the absence of such provision, section 10A (3) shall have fulleffect and resultantly domestic sales of finished goods cannot be equated with the exportsmerely on the basis that the goods were eventually exported though not by the assessee.

[2009] 123 TTJ 77 Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (Pune-ITAT)In this case, it was held that, the license granted bythe State Government for collection of toll on a road which was constructed and maintained bythe assessee on build, operate and transfer basis in terms of an agreement with the StateGovernment for fixed period of 16 years and 9 months is an intangible asset eligible fordepreciation as prescribed under s. 32 (1) (ii).

[2009] 123 TTJ 97 ITO vs. Smt. Satyawati Devi Verma (Delhi-ITAT)In this case, the agreement dated 19.10.1995only contained the terms and conditions to be adhered to and complied with at the time of saleof the property by the vendor and purchaser of the property at specified future date without anyaddition or modification of the conditions. There was neither transfer nor extinguishment of anyrights, vendor remained lawful owner of the property and paid all the municipal taxes from theyear of the agreement to all subsequent years till date. The Tribunal held that, sec. 2 (47) (v)applies only in those cases where the transferor has performed or is willing to perform his part ofthe contract and the transferee has no part to perform in respect of the contract and has takenpossession of the property or any part thereof. Agreement executed between the assessee andpurchaser NS on 19th Oct. 1995 only contemplated sale of the property at a future date on

10


August2009

stipulated terms and conditions. There was neither transfer nor extinguishments of any right.Assessee remained lawful owner of the property and paid all municipal taxes even after theagreement. NS did not acquire any right of ownership, use or possession in the corpus or theincome arising from such property as sale deed was not executed. Correspondence between theDepartment and the parties also shows that the assessee had not conveyed the said property toNS. The fact that the registered sale deed dt. 20th Dec., 2007, has been executed by and betweenthe same parties indicates that the earlier agreement was only an agreement to sell and not asale deed transferring the capital asset in favour of the buyer. Hence, the transaction of sale ofproperty was not completed in terms of provisions of s. 2 (47) (v) of IT Act 1961, r/w s. 53A ofTransfer of Property Act, 1882, at the time of execution of agreement dt. 19th Oct., 1995, andthe capital gain was not chargeable in asst. yr. 1996-97.

[2009] 41-A BCAJ 287 Anil Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO, 14 (2) (1) (Mumbai-ITAT)In this case, it was held that, where ashareholder holding more than 10% of the shareholding in a company in which public are notsubstantially interested, is a debenture holder of such a company and also has current accountwith such a company. It was held that while considering whether such a shareholder has takena loan or advance from the said company, aggregate of balance in debenture account and alsocurrent account needs to be considered.

[2009] 41-A BCAJ 290 Shingar India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Mumbai-ITAT)In this case, the assessee was engaged in thebusiness of cosmetics. In view of huge debts payable to one of its suppliers, the assessee transferredits factory building along with other assets to the said supplier. The said factory building wastransferred by ‘exchange of letters’ and there was no formal agreement executed. The Tribunalheld that, the transfer of factory building was by way of book entries. There was neither a saledeed nor was any adoption or assessment by any authority viz., stamp valuation authority forthe purpose of payment of stamp duty. Under such circumstances there was no case for applicationof the provisions of section 50C.

[2009] 26 CAPJ (St.) 610 Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, Chennai, MANU/SC/0785/2009 (SC)In this case, it washeld that, the degree of estimation of the warranty claims and there recognition under section37 for deduction can only be considered when, an enterprise has a present obligation as a resultof a past event, it involves outflow of resources to settle the obligation and involves reliableestimation of obligation and also if the historical trend indicates that large number of sophisticatedgoods were being manufactured in the past and it is established show that defects existed insome of the items manufactured and sold then the provision made for warranty in respect of thearmy of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts underSection 37 of the 1961 Act. In the present case, Assessee is concerned with the manufactureand selling of sophisticated (specialized) goods where warranty is an integral part of the saleprice. Warranty provision needs to be recognized because the appellant is an enterprise havinga present obligation as a result of past events resulting in an outflow of resources and a reliableestimate of the obligation was also possible due to detailed and systematic data maintained byassessee. Therefore, the appellant entitled to deduction under Section 37 of the 1961 Act.

[2009] 26 CAPJ (St.) 625 The ACIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd., MANU/IU/0102/2008 (ITAT-Mumbai)In this case, it washeld that, a contractor who enters into agreement with Government for development ofinfrastructure facility is entitled to the deduction under section 80-IA (4).

CA N Nityananda, has been appointed as a member

of the Sub group of Disciplinary Committee of ICAI.

Congratulations

When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one whichhas been opened for us.

11


August2009

Recent judicial pronouncements in Indirect TaxesNR Badrinath, B. Com.,Grad C.W.A., F.C.A., Madhur Harlalka, B. Com., F.C.A.

The foolish man seeks happiness in the distance, the wise grows it under his feet

CENTRAL EXCISE:Supplementary invoices and interest underSection 11A:1. In the present case, question before the honourable

supreme court was whether interest is payable on dutydue to alteration of prices, i.e., alteration as a higher priceby issuing invoices. The honourable Supreme Court heldthat sub-section (2B) of section 11A provides that assesseein default may, before the notice under-section (1) is servedon him, make payment of the unpaid duty on the basis onhis own ascertainment or as ascertained by Central ExciseOfficer and inform in writing about payment of made byhim. In that event he would not be given the demandnotice under sub-section (1). But Explanation-2 to the sub-section makes it expressly clear that such payment wouldnot be exempt from interest chargeable under Section11AB, that is for the period from first date of the monthsucceeding the month in which the duty ought to havebeen paid till the date of payment of duty. What is statedin Explanation-2 to sub-section (2B) is reiterated in section11AB that where any duty of excise has not been levied orpaid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneouslyrefunded, the person who has paid the duty under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, shall, in addition to the duty,be liable to pay interest. It thus, is to be seen that unlikepenalty that is attracted to the category of cases in whichthe non payment or short payment of duty is “by reasonof fraud, collusion, any wilful misstatement or suppressionof facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of theAct or Rules made thereunder with intent to evadepayment of duty”, under the scheme of four sections (11A,11AA, 11AB & 11AC) interest is leviable on delayed ordeferred payment of duty for what ever reasons.

Further, honourable Supreme Court held that “If the objectof the law is to state clearly and unambiguously theobligations of the person whom the law addresses and tospell out plainly and without any confusion theconsequences of failure to discharge the obligations castby the law then the four sections of the Act (11A, 11AA,11AB & 11AC) fall miles short of the desired objective.Subject to amendments from time to time those provisionshave now become so complicated that in order to discerntheir meaning it becomes necessary to read them backand forth several times. There is no reason why the twoperiods for which interest is leviable may not be puttogether and dealt with in one consolidated provisioninstead of being split up in sections 11AA and 11AB. Also,

there is much scope to reorganise all the differentsubsections of section 11A and to present the scheme ofthat section in a more coherent and readable form. Thehonourable Supreme Court overruled honourable HighCourt decision of Rucha Engineering Private Limited (2007-TIOL-785-MUM-CX). [CEC, Pune Vs. SKF India Limited,2009-TIOL-82-CX]

Due Date for duty remittance:2. The appellant has deposited duty next working day when

the due date for payment was Sunday. Tribunal held thatthis is not a case of default under Rule 8 of the CentralExcise Rules, 2002. Tribunal has followed the decision ofHonorable High court of Indian Seemless steal and AlloysLimited Vs. Union of India (2003-TIOL-06-HC-MUM-CX).[Tiruchirapalli Vs. Suja Rubber Industries, 2009-TIOL-1085-CESTAT-MAD]

CENVAT CREDIT:Exempted and dutiable goods:3. The respondent was engaged in manufacturing exempted

and dutiable goods and was not maintaining separateaccounts in respect of common inputs. The respondentwas liable to pay 8% of value of exempted goods for theperiod December 1997 to March 2008 under Rule 57CCof Central Excise Rules, 1994. Department demandedamount equivalent of 8% value of exempted under Rule12 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Tribunal held that therewas no provision for recovery amount equivalent of 8% ofthe value of exempted goods under Rule 57CC of CentralExcise Rules, 1944. Further, nothing contained in section38A of Central Excise would operate in favour of therevenue. [CCE, Mumbai-II Vs. Hercules Mech Works, 2009-TIOL-1057-CESTAT-MUM]

Pre-deposit and Outward Transportation:4. In the present case issue before honourable High Court

was whether Tribunal is right in not waving pre-depositagainst CENVAT Credit on outward transportationavailment. Honourable High Court held that Tribunal shouldconsider the precedents of High Court order in AmbujaCements (2009-TIOL-100-HC-P&H-ST) and Tribunal inlarger bench in ABB Limited and others (2009-TIOL-830-CESATAT-BANG-LB) both of which are binding. Tribunalhas failed to address itself to the applicability and bindingeffect. Tribunal has to maintain a balance between theinterest of revenue and rights of an individual and shouldnot refrain from itself from exercising the discretionarypower conferred by the Statute, if the facts and

12


August2009 The greatest part of our happiness depends on our dispositions, not our circumstances

circumstances of the case so justify, merely on the pretextthat interest of revenue cannot be jeopardized. [LGElectronics India Private Limited Vs. CCE, Noida 2009-TIOL-333-HC-ALL-ST]

SERVICE TAX:Telecommunication Services:5. In the present case, the issue before the honourable High

Court was whether SIM card supplied as part of service isincludable in the value of service for levy of service tax.Honourable High court held that in order to considerwhether SIM card constitute taxable services, we have toexamine the functioning of SIM in service provided by therespondent. Admittedly, SIM card is a computer chip havingits own SIM number on which telephone number can beactivated. SIM card is a devise through which customergets connection from mobile tower. In other words, unlessit is activated, service provider cannot give serviceconnection to customer. Signals are transmitted andconveyed through towers and through SIM card signalsreach the customer’s mobile instrument. In other words itis integral part required to provide mobile service tocustomer. Customer cannot get service without SIM cardand it is essential part of service. SIM card has no intrinsicvalue or purpose other than use in mobile phone forreceiving mobile telephone service the service provider.Therefore, it was held that the stand taken by BSNL andBPL Mobile services that it is not goods sold or intended tobe sold the customer but supplied as part of service isabsolutely tenable and acceptable. Consequently, the valueof SIM card supplied by respondent forms part of taxableservice on which service tax is payable by the respondent.[CCE Vs. Idea Mobile Communication Limited, 2009-TIOL-HC-KERALA-ST]

Intellectual Property Services:6. The appellant is a pharma company and has entered into

an agreement with a non-resident company for transferof technical knowhow in 1990. Accordingly, a payment isto be made on annual sales basis till the patent right lasts.The Department demanded Service tax on service underIntellectual Property service (IPR). Tribunal held, since theagreement was signed in 1990, the payments being madeon deferred payment basis and no regular update orsupplementary service being provided by the non-residentcompany, it is a one time affair, the royalty paid undersuch agreement does not attract service tax introducedmuch later. [Modi-muipharma Private Limited Vs. CCE,Meerut, 2009-ITOL-968-DEL]

Banking other Financial Services:7.In the present issue before the honourable High Court, the

constitutional validity of levy of service tax on hire purchaseand leasing transactions was challenged. The honourableHigh court has held that the hire purchase / leasingtransactions admittedly include the concept of rendering

services. Service tax is an indirect tax and it is to be paid onall services notified by Government of India. Service tax islevied on service not on sale or purchase of goods. Thesaid tax is on service and not on the service provider. Servicetax is made by parliament under Entry 92C of LIST I andArticle 268-A, which has legislative competence to levyservice tax. Further that, Entry 54 of List II and Entry 92Cof List I operate on different areas.

The orders of the honourable Supreme Court in Larsenand Toubro vs. Union of India as well as Bharat SancharNigam case the transaction relating to supply of goodsand rendering service are followed. The State cannotencroach upon the Union List and services by includingthe same in the value of goods involved. Similarly, theCentre cannot include the value of goods involved in thecost of service. Accordingly Honourable High Court upholdthe constitutional validity of levy of service tax on hirepurchase and leasing. [Madras Hire Purchase AssociationVs. Union of India and others , 2009-TIOL-338-HC-MAD-ST]

Commercial or Industrial Construction Service:8. The appellant is engaged in the business providing of

“Commercial or Industrial Construction Service”. Theappellant was availing CENVAT credit on input services andcapital goods. However, the appellant opted for abetmentunder notification no. 1/2006 dt. 01-03-2006. Further,subsequently the appellant reversed CENVAT credit availedas above. The Department denied the benefit of optingfor abatement under notification no. 1/2006 Dt. 01-03-2006 on the ground that CENVAT credit was availed initially.Tribunal held that the appellant are eligible to opt forabatement under notification no. 1/2006 once CENVATcredit was reversed. [CST, Ahmedabad Vs. Amola HoldingsPrivate Limited, 2009-TIOL-1000-CESTAT-AHM]

Business Auxiliary Services and Cargo HandlingServices:9. he appellant has entered into a contract for providing

integrated services in relation to mining operations (coalmining) including coal extraction and transportation frommine to power plant belonging to client. The appellant isregistered with the service tax department and payingservice tax under site formation services with effect from16.06.2005 and mining services with effect from01.06.2007. However, the department demanded servicetax for prior period under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS)and Cargo Handling Services. Tribunal held that BAS is notapplicable for manufacture of excisable goods and thatcoal is excisable goods. Further, while the transportationwithin the mines are outside the area of service tax, theloading and unloading of goods for the movement outsidethe mining area is covered under the Cargo HandlingServices. [Avian Oversee Private Limited Vs CCESR, BBSR-II, 2009-TIOL-1028-CESTAT-KOL]

13


August2009Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.

Value Add Tax:Sale in the course of Import:10. The appellant entered into an agreement with the client

for supply and setting up radio communications systemsat Karaikkal in the union territory of Pondicherry. Theappellant imported goods for said purpose based on aboveagreement entered into with the client. The goods wereimported from outside India and cleared atThiruvananthapuram in the State of Kerala. Subsequently,the goods were moved to Karikkal. During the movementof goods, the vehicle was intercepted and goods weredetained but later released on furnishing bank guarantee.The department has passed an order by treating the abovesaid transaction as an inter-State sale and also levied penaltyunder Kerala General Sales Tax Act read with Central SalesTax Act, 1956. The same was upheld by Commissioner(Appeals) and the Sales Tax Appellant Tribunal. Thehonourable High Court held that sales under the issue issale of in the course of import into the territory of Indiaunder section 5(2) of Central Sale Tax Act, 1956 sincetransaction in question had all the ingredients necessaryfor the purpose of section 5 (2) of the Central Sales TaxAct, 1956. Further, the import of goods can also be tracedto the agreement entered with the client, which specifiesthe quantity, model and other technical details. [BPLTelecom Limited Vs State of Kerala, (2009) 23 VST264 (Ker) ]

INVESTMENT BANKING COURSE

A u s t a l G r o u p WWW.AUSTALGROUP.NET/EDUCATION

LIVE CLASSROOM TRAINING

COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL MODELING AND VALUATION ANALYSIS COURSE

Class FormatAll sessions are tailored for personalized instruction using the case study approach. Each student follows the bankerteaching the class and builds each financial model along with him. Sessions are 2 to 4 hours long of in-class livetraining. The training model is structured to allow students to also independently pursue investigations and searches ontheir own.Course MaterialsINTRODUCTION AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSISCOMPREHENSIVE VALUATION ANALYSISINTEGRATED CASH FLOW MODELINGCOMPLETE LBO MODELINGMERGER (ACQUISITION) MODELINGINVESTMENT BANKING PROCESS AND BEST PRACTICES, INTERVIEW SKILLS AND RESUME REVISIONCourse Offering in Bangalore:Courses will be conducted on:1. Saturdays between 10am & 2pm over a period of 8 weeks2. Mondays and Wednesdays between 6:30pm and 8:30pm over a period of 8 weeks3. Tuesdays and Thursdays between 6:30pm and 8:30pm over a period of 8 weeksFor More Information:Please email us at [email protected] or sign up on our website at www.austalgroup.net/education. Please visitour website to view all our offerings.

Adv

t.

Sha IrfanMobile : 9880708136

Ph : 65362769, 22352195

DEALERS IN: Toner & Inkjet Refiling

Black Ink Refiling 175/-

Colur Ink Refiling 200/-

Toner Refiling 500/-

ONSITE REFILING

No. 1/2, Dargah New Quarters,O.T.C. Road, Cottonpet,

Bangalore-560 053

Adv

t.

14


August2009

Important Dates to remember during the month of August 2009

Happiness is not so much in having as sharing. We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give

5-Aug-09 - Payment of Central Excise Duty for the month of July 2009.

- Payment of Service Tax for the month of July 2009. (in case of persons other than individual, proprietor& partnership firms)

6-Aug-09 - Payment of Service Tax & Central Excise for the month of July 2009.(In case of e-payment)

7-Aug-09 - Due date for Payment of TDS deducted & TCS Collected, in the month of July 2009.

10-Aug-09 - Filing of monthy returns of Central Excise for the month of July 2009.

15-Aug-09 - Due date for filling of VAT 120 under KVAT Laws for the month of july 2009.

- Payment of Provident Fund for the month of July 2009.

20-Aug-09 - Due date for filling of VAT 100 under KVAT Laws.

- Payment of Professional Tax for the month of July, 2009.

21-Aug-09 - Payment of Employee State Insurance for the month of July 2009.

25-Aug-09 Filing of Monthly returns of Provident Fund for the month of July 2009.

31-Aug-09 - Filing of Annual Information Return in Form No. 61A.

Adv

t.

Required Chartered Accountants / experiencedsemi-qualified candidates / Article clerks looking forchallenging careers

We are a CA firm having corporate and multinationalclients. We offer excellent exposure in corporateaccounting, statutory audits, internal audits, SoX audits,income-tax, international tax, transfer pricing, servicetax, VAT and other indirect taxes.

We require smart, brilliant and hard-working CharteredAccountants / experienced semi-qualified candidates /Article clerks for immediate recruitment for our firm.The candidate should be able to offer a long-termcommitment.

Our firm offers the advantages of an attractiveremuneration package commensurate with profile andexperience and fast-track career advancementopportunities for committed candidates.

Interested Candidates may please send theirdetailed resumes / bio-data to:

Rishi Madhur & Co. “HVM House”, Ist Floor,# 106, Amarjoti Layout,Off Intermediate Ring Road, Domlur,Bangalore -560 071.www.rishimadhur.comPh: 4114 5757 / 4114 5858 / 25352222Email: [email protected]

Adv

t.

ACTUARIAL SERVICESTO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS

OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS-15

We Maheshwari Datamatrics, have beensuccessfully rendering the services of ActuarialValuation for all kinds of Employee Benefits forlast 10 years to various clients all over India.

We provide Actuarial Valuation for complyingwith Measurement and Disclosure requirementsunder various Accounting Standards – 15 atcompetitive rates for Companies and otherOrganisations.

For further information on these services, please contact:

Mr. S. K. JhawarNo. 6, Mangoe Lane,

(Surendra Mohan Ghosh Sarani) 2nd Floor,Kolkata – 700 001

T: 2230-6029/2248-4092 M: 9830022190 e-mail: [email protected],

[email protected] website: www.mdpl.in

15


August2009

Service

The term service means the act of helping or doing work

for another or for a community, etc. Thus service stands for

assistance or benefit given to someone. Ordinarily for rendering

such service certain payment is made, but it is not so in all the

cases. The amount charged for such service is the

consideration/remuneration of the person providing such

service.

If we look back, tax on services is not new as we have

been paying taxes on services in past also in the form of luxury

tax, entertainment tax, expenditure tax, amusement tax,

gambling tax, commercial tax, interest tax etc.

Mr. Hill, an expert has suggested a way to distinguish

services from goods.

“A service may be defined as a change in the conditions ofa person, or of a good(s) belonging to some economic unitbrought about as a result of the activity of some other

economic unit.” Essential reason for introduction ofService Tax

Before the introduction of service tax, manufacturing sector

accounted for 30-35% of the total GDP of the country where

as services accounted for 65-70% of the GDP. Not taxing the

service sector leads to economic distortion which leads to a

major part of GDP non-taxed. It looked like that the

manufacturing sector was shouldering the responsibility of

taxes. In order to balance the same, it was proposed to tax

Services also.

Service Tax in India

Going back to history of Indian Taxation, the concept of

service tax was there as early as 3000 years during the period

of Kautilya, wherein the taxes on services were levied and

collected.

As far as the present Service Tax is concerned, it is levied

on the recommendations made in early 1990’s by the Tax

Reforms Committee headed by Dr.Raja Chelliah. The

Committee pointed out that the indirect taxes at the Central

level should be broadly neutral in relation to production and

consumption of goods and should, in course of time cover

commodities and services. The Committee felt that we should

move towards full-fledged Value Added Tax (VAT) system

covering services and commodities.

Service Tax – Series – Part IEvolution Of Service Tax And Its Introduction

CA Rajesh Kumar T R, B Com, LLB, FCA & DISA & CA Chandra Shekar B D, B Com. LLB, FCA, DISA

The committee recommended the following:

● Service tax must be a part of VAT at the central level so asto gradually transform into a value added tax at themanufacturing level, service tax would get woven into the

system

● Objective of Service Tax is broadening the tax base andlarger participation of citizens in the economic developmentof the nation.

● The Committee recommended charging of tax on servicessuch as advertising, insurance, share broking and telecometc. to begin with.

● Widening the tax base by covering exempted commodities

● Making the system of indirect taxation broadly revenue

neutral in relation to production and consumption

Dr. Manmohan Singh, the then Union Finance Minister, inhis Budget speech for the year 1994-95 introduced the newconcept of Service Tax.

Service tax initially covered 3 categories:

a) Service rendered by the telegraph authorities to the

subscribers in relation to telephone connections;

b) Service provided by the insurer to the policy holder inrelation to general insurance business (non-life insurance);and

c) Service provided by stockbroker.

Authority

Service tax was introduced in India for the first time in1994 by bringing in Chapter V in the Finance Act, 1994covering Sections 64 to 96. In terms of the Finance Act, 1994,

notification no. 1/94 dt. 28.06.1994 was notified to start thelevy and collection of service tax with effect from 1st July 1994.Later on Chapter VA was added to the Finance Act, 1994 vide

Finance Act, 2003.

In the said Finance Act, 1994 the Authority of levy of

Service Tax on specified services is contained in

Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended.

At present this, section stipulates a rate of tax of 10% onthe taxable value of these services. Due to world economic

downturn which had an impact on India also, as a stimulus tothe industry exemption/concession was given by way ofexemption Notification by reducing the rate from 12% to the

present rate of 10%.

Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly,may alight upon you.

16


August2009

In addition to the service tax, there is also levy of Education

Cess @2% and Secondary/Higher Education Cess @1% on

the Service Tax. Effectively the rate of tax is 10.30% considering

the concession in tax rate.

Features of Service Tax in India

❖ The provision of service tax is contained in Chapter V of

Finance Act 1994 and there is no separate enactment

covering service tax;

❖ The term service has not been defined. Taxable service is

defined to cover different types of individual services;

❖ Service tax is payable only on receipt of payment for services

rendered;

❖ There is no fees for registration;

❖ If registration is not granted within 7 days then registration

for the same is deemed to be given;

❖ Half yearly returns have been prescribed;

❖ It vastly relies on Self Compliance;

❖ The Service Tax is administrated more by way of

notifications and circulars;

❖ No tax needs to be paid for export of services;

❖ There is a uniform tax rate of 10.3% at present on all

services notified;

❖ There is a facility for electronically filing of return for

selective services;

❖ Payment of Tax on Quarterly basis for non-corporate

assessee and monthly for corporate assessee;

❖ Simple interest @ 13% per annum on delay in payment

of tax;

❖ Cenvat Credit facility i.e. off-setting of Central Excise duties

and service tax paid on inputs, input services and capital

goods is available;

❖ Self adjustment of excess service tax paid in some cases;

❖ Self Assessment;

❖ Refund of Service Tax and Appeal against the rejection of

refund.

Constitutional Validity

Article 265 of the constitution asserts that no tax will be

levied or collected except by the authority of law. Schedule

VII divides this subject in to 3 categories:

a) Union List- Only Central Government has got power to

levy the tax;

b) State List - Only State Government has power to levy the

tax;

c) Concurrent List – Both Central and State Governments can

levy tax;

Taxation of Services was not specifically covered under any

of the lists mentioned above. However it was held that

parliament, by virtue of residuary Entry No.97 of List 1 in the

Seventh Schedule was empowered to impose any fiscal levy

provided the Special tax is not covered under the State List or

there is no specific prohibition against such levy.

Later Entry 92C was introduced specifically to cover ‘Taxes

on services’. Though this Bill has since been passed by both

the houses of parliament the same has not been notified so

far for the enforcement. The levy will have to take shelter under

Entry 97 of List 1 of Union List.

The constitutional validity of levy of Service Tax has been

upheld by various courts including Supreme Court in various

cases some of which are cited below:

■ Chartered Accountants Association Vs Union of India

(2001)115 Taxman 543 (Gujarat High Court)

■ Tamilnadu Kalyana Mandapam Association Vs Union of

India & others (2004) 267 ITR 9 (Supreme Court)

■ Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Union of India & other (2006)

4 STJ 1045 (Supreme Court) (2006) 2 STR 161,

■ All India Federation of tax Practitioners Vs. Union of

India(2007) 10STJ 201 (Supreme Court) (2007) 10 STT 16

(SC),(2007) 7 STR 625 (SC)

Provisions governing the levy and collectionof Service Tax:

■ Finance Act, 1994

■ Service Tax Rules, 1994

■ Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

■ Export of Service Rules, 2005

■ Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006

■ Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of

Service Tax) Rules, 2007

■ Taxation of Services(provided from outside India and

received in India) rules, 2006

■ Service Tax(Advance Rulings) Rules, 2003

■ Authority for Advance Rulings(Customs, Central Excise &

Service Tax) Procedure Regulations, 2005

■ Service Tax(Removal of Difficulty) Order, 2002

■ Service tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2008

■ Service tax (Publication of names) Rules, 2008

■ Service tax (Registration of Special category of Persons)

Rules, 2005

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.

17


August2009

RANK HOLDERS INCOMMON PROFICIENCY TEST (CPT) HELD ON 28th June-2009

FROM BANGALORE

ALL INDIA FIRST RANK

Name : Praseeda Pandit

Marks : 192/200 (96%)

ALL INDIA EIGHTH RANK

Name : Venkat Rajath. V

Marks : 185/200 (92.5%)

Congratulations

BANGALORE BRANCH OF SICASASicasa is happy to announce one day seminar on income tax and vat audit to be held on the 16th of August2009 at branch premises.

The seminar is aimed at providing pratical exposure to students in tax & vat audit.

We request the chartered accountants to encourage & sponsor the article assitants to attendthe seminar.

Speakers:

Income tax audit : C.A. D.S.VivekVat audit : C.A Naveen Raj PurohitDay & date : Sunday, 16th August 2009Timing : 10 am to 4 pmFees : Rs.100/- onlyContact person : Ms.Roopashree (ph: 30563500)

OBITUARY

We deeply regret to inform

SAD DEMISE of CA Ramachandra Ramaiyaon 22.07.09

M. No. 001658

May his soul rest in peace.

STUDENTS CORNER:

“Most successful men have not achieved their distinction by having some new talent or opportunity presented to them.They have developed the opportunity that was at hand.”

18


August2009

Cultural Programme / Talent Show on the occasion ofIndependence Day

Members / Family Members and Students can take part in Talent Show on the occasion ofIndependence Day on 15th August, 2009 at the Branch Premises. Interested members can registertheir names at the Institute.

Events Subject

1. Singing Patriotic Songs2. Solo Dancing Patriotic Songs3. Group Dance Patriotic Songs4. Skit Based on Independence or Freedom Fighter5. Monoacting Based on Independence or Freedom Fighter

Request members and their families to participate in large numbers and make this a memorableIndependence Day.

This can even be a Inter Firm Competetion, Kindly ensure your firm participates.

Advertisement Tariff for the Branch NewsletterColour full pageOutside back Rs. 20,000/-Inside front Rs. 15,000/-Inside back Rs. 15,000/-

Advt. material should reach us before 22nd of previous month.

Inside Black & WhiteFull page Rs. 10,000/-Half page Rs. 6,000/-Quarter page Rs. 3,000/-

Corporate Accountants Meet 2009

On Friday , the 21st August 2009

At Hotel Le-Meridian, Sankey Road, Bangalore

Between 5 pm to 8 pm

High Tea : 6.30 pm

Topics

1. XBRL – Extensible Business Reporting Language – The future of Business.

2. Convergence with IFRS- Road Map

CA.VIJAYKUMAR GUPTAChairman-CMII

CA.K RAGHU Central Council Member andMember- CMII

Cotha S SRINIVASChairman- Bangalore Branch

Note : 1. Members are requested to register inadvance since participation is restricted to200 delegates on first –come-first basis

2. No registration fee.

2 hoursCPE CREDIT

Second ISA MEETOn Saturday, the 22nd August 2009

At Hotel Le-Meridian, Sankey Road, Bangalore

Between 5 pm to 8 pm

High Tea : 6.30 pm

Topics

1. Initiatives of Committee on IT

2. IS Audit-The Road Ahead

3. ISA- Professional Opportunities

CA.K RAGHU Chairman- IT Committee, ICAI

CA.COTHA .S. SRINIVAS Chairman- Bangalore Branch

Note : This programme is restricted to 200 delegateson first –come-first basis and there is no registrationfee.

2 CPEHOURS

Total Members of Bangalore Branch

as on 31-07-2009 is 7,549.

Pity the man who inherits a million and isn’t a millionaire. Here’s what would be pitiful , if your income grew and you didn’t.

19


August2009

20


August2009

think differently act perfectly - bangalore branch of … the high court in the income-tax appeal...

Documents