Indian Statutes

New Delhi, India (PressExposure) July 14, 2009 -- Direct Tax Laws Speech of Finance Minister - Finance (No.2) Bill, 2009 - Notes on Clauses -

Memorandum explaining the provisions in The Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2009 -

Procedure for representation before BIFR and AAIFR - Circular No. 5/2009, dated 2-7-2009

Fema [http://www.taxmann.net/FEMAOnlineWeb/NewHomePage/Home.aspx?pId=80]

Master Circular on Direct Investment by Residents in Joint Venture (JV)/Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS) Abroad - Master Circular No. 01/2009-10, dated 1-7-2009

Securities Laws

Amendments to SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 - Circular No. CFD/DIL/DIP/36/2009/09/07, dated 9-7-2009

Revision in Filing Fees - Amendments to SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 - Circular No. IMD/CIR No. 5/169030/2009, dated 8-7-2009

Case Laws

Direct Tax Laws

From Aar

AAR on taxability of an American company for allowing use of its database located abroad to customers in India against subscription fees - The subscription fee received by the American company from the licensee (user of database) does not fall within the scope of clause (v) of Explanation (2) to section 9(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the same is not taxable in India as royalty; it is liable to be taxed only as business income if at all it is found by the Revenue that an agency PE exists of the American Company - FactSet Research Systems Inc., In re [AAR No. 787 of 2008]

From Itat

Leviability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance of expenses under section 40A(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961 - The disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Jhavar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No. 3136/M/2006]

Propriety of levy of penalty for declaration of ingenuine gift in revised return under section 139(5) of IT Act, 1961 - Section 139(5) has not been enacted for providing an escape route to the assessee when he is caught in the penal provisions relating to evasion of tax and AO is in the process of collecting evidence to nail him down; it is not the intention of law to give a right to file a revised return to those assessees who know very well at the time of filing original return that gifts taken by them are not genuine, but are only an arranged affair and when investigations are started then they came forward and declare them as their income in their revised return - ACIT v DEEPAK AGARWAL [ITA NO. 176/Luc/08]

Scope for refusal of recognition under section 80G(5) of IT Act, 1961 or continuation thereof on ground of non-submission of PAN details of donors by assessee-society - There is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder to refuse recognition under section 80G(5) or continuation thereof only on the ground that the particulars of donors are not provided by Institution or fund - Kalyanam Karoti v. CIT [ITA No. 682/Luc/08]

Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 for non-disclosure of deemed dividend income on account of ignorance of law - The tax laws in this country are so complicated that even a person specializing in this field, including tax administrators, may not understand the law in the correct perspective or a particular provision may go unnoticed because of the number of amendments made to the tax enactments from year to year; therefore, it would be a travesty of truth and justice to hold that an assessee ought to have known the correct law and comply therewith, even though he was not aware of the provisions - Sunilchandra Vohra v. ACIT [ITA No. 4963/Mum/2006]

From Sc/Hc

Supreme Court on taxability of sale proceeds of 100 per cent depreciated and written off assets as balancing charge under section 41(1) of IT Act, 1961 - Each of the sub-sections to section 41 deal with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another; the depreciation recovered on sale of the capital asset was includible in the total income as balancing charge only under section 41(2); that concept was foreign to the scheme of section 41(1) - Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [Civil Appeal No. 5291 of 2004]

Service Tax [http://www.taxmann.net/STOnlineWeb/NewHomePage/Home.aspx?pId=160]

From Sc/Hc

Supreme Court on applicability of section 11A or section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 for levy of interest on payment of differential duty - Under the scheme of the four sections 11A, 11AA, 11AB, and 11AC – interest is leviable on delayed or deferred payment of duty for whatever reasons; where differential duty was paid by the assessee as soon as it came to learn about the upward revision of prices of goods sold earlier, it was clearly a case of short payment of duty though indeed completely unintended and without any element of deceit, etc.; the payment of differential duty thus clearly came under sub-section (2B) of section 11A and attracted levy of interest under section 11AB - Commissioner of Central Excise v. SKF India Ltd. [Civil Appeal Nos. 5190-5191/2008]

About Taxmann Technologies (P) Ltd.

View More Details For - http://www.taxmann.net


Taxmann Technologies (P) Ltd.
10/43 West Punjabi Bagh
New Delhi - 110026
Fax: +91-45074342, +91-25220777

Press Release Source: http://PressExposure.com/PR/Taxmann_Technologies_(P)_Ltd..html

Press Release Submitted On: July 14, 2009 at 1:11 am
This article has been viewed 15698 time(s).