ICAI - Jan 2012 Newsletter

1 January2012

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

2January2012

3 January2012


CALENDAR OF EVENTS - JANUARY & FEBRUARY 2012Date/Day Topic /Speaker Venue/Time CPE Credit

DISCLAIMER : The Bangalore Branch of ICAI is not in anyway responsible for the result of any action taken on the basisof the advertisement published in the newsletter. The members, however, bear in mind the provision of the code of ethics whileresponding to the advertisements. The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Branch Newsletter are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect that of Bangalore Branch of ICAI.

Note : High Tea at 5.30 pm for programmes at 6.00 pm at Branch Premises.

Advertisement Tariff for the Branch NewsletterColour full pageOutside back ` 30,000/-Inside back ` 24,000/-

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

Inside Black & WhiteFull page ` 15,000/-Half page ` 8,000/-Quarter page ` 4,000/-

Editor : CA. Venkatesh Babu T.R.

Sub Editor : CA. Ravindranath S.N.

2 hrs

2 hrs

6 hrs

2 hrs

2 hrs

2 hrs

2 hrs

2 hrs

2 hrs

2 hrs

04.01.12 LLP as a Business Vehicle Branch PremisesWednesday CA. H Vishnumoorthi 06.00pm to 08.00pm

10.01.12 CPE Teleconference on “Discussion on Companies Branch PremisesTuesday Bill 2011 as introduced in Lok Sabha” 02.30pm to 04.30pm

CA.S. Santhanakrishnan, Central Council Member

11.01.12 Special Purpose Vehicles & Holding Companies Branch PremisesWednesday CA. Pratap G Subramanyam 06.00pm to 08.00pm

17.01.12 CPE Teleconference on “Principles of International Tax” Branch PremisesTuesday CA. Mahesh P. Sarda, Central Council Member 02.30pm to 04.30pm

18.01.12 HUF - Law and Practice Branch PremisesWednesday Mr. H Naginchand Khincha 06.00pm to 08.00pm

21.01.12 One day Seminar on “Practice & Procedures Branch PremisesSaturday before the CESTAT” 10.00am to 06.00pm

Delegate Fee: Rs.500/- Details at Page No: 18

25.01.12 CPE Teleconference on “Recent Developments Branch PremisesWednesday in Peer Review” 11.00am to 01.00pm

CA. Pankaj Jain, Central Council Member

25.01.12 An overview of Information Technology Act - CA perspective Branch PremisesWednesday CA. A Rafeeq 06.00pm to 08.00pm

26.01.12 Republic Day - Flag Hoisting & Celebrations Branch PremisesThursday CA. Shabbeer Pasha, Chief Guest 09.30am onwards ---

Past Chairman, Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI

28.01.12 National Convention for CA Students at Bangalore” Koramangala IndoorSaturday & “U D A A N - fly to future” Stadium, 80 Ft Road, ---29.01.12 Koramangala,Bangalore-95Sunday Details at Page No: 17 09.30am to 05.30pm

01.02.12 Importance of Financial processes including Branch PremisesWednesday Chart of Accounts, Pricing the product 06.00pm to 08.00pm

CA. Ketoki Basu

08.02.12 Proposed Constitutional Amendments, Branch PremisesWednesday its relevance to GST Enactment 06.00pm to 08.00pm

Dr. B V Muralikrishna,DCCT, Commercial Taxes Department,Govt. of Karnataka

4January2012

TAX UPDATES NOVEMBER 2011CA. Chythanya K.K., B.com, FCA, LL.B., Advocate

VAT, CST, ENTRY TAX,PROFESSIONAL TAX

PARTS DIGESTED:

a) 45 VST – 2 to 5

b) 11 GSTR – Part 3 & 4

c) 16 KCTJ – Part 8

d) 71 KLJ – Part 11

Reference / Description

2011 (71) Kar. L.J. 647 (HC) (DB):Sasken Communiation TechnologiesLtd. v. JCCT - In the instant case, theKarnataka High Court dealing withaspect of ‘works contract’ in respect of‘software development’ held thatproviding software service involvingsoftware development to meetrequirements of clients, whereagreement was not for transfer ofsoftware, but for development ofsoftware, and where ownership ofdeveloped software even before itcomes into existence vests, not withassessee, but with the assessee’s clientsand where consideration payable iscalculated in terms of time, such as mandays, man hours, and man months, andnot in terms of value of any goods, suchcontract, was not works contract butcontract for providing servicesimpliciter, not involving any transferof goods deemed to be sale.

The Court concluded that it was anindivisible contract of service onlyand not a sale so as to impose taxunder KarVAT Act.

In a welcome decision, the KarnatakaHigh Court delivered a landmarkjudgement clarifying the issue asregards levy of sales tax in respect ofsoftware development contractswhich do not involve transfer of

property in goods. In most cases, inorder to avoid any litigation, thesoftware developers have beencharging both service tax as well assales tax in respect of the very sameconsideration thereby needlesslyincreasing the cost to the customer. Itis hoped that with the aforesaiddecision, this practice will stop.

2011 (71) Kar. L.J. 726 (Tri.) (DB):Reliable Cashew Company v. Stateof Karnataka - In the instant case,assessee in terms of agreemententered into with job-workers had sentraw cashew nuts to job-workers forextracting kernel and packing same.For the purpose of payment of job-charges at fixed rate per bag, assesseepermitted job-workers to retain withthemselves cashew shells, cashewhusks. The Assessing Authoritytreated the same as ‘sale’.

The Tribunal held that the expression‘sale or purchase of goods’ carrieswith it essential ingredients beingagreement to sell movables for ‘price’and passing of property in goods fromseller to buyer. The Tribunalinterpreting the term ‘price’ held that‘price’ has to be understood as moneyonly, if it is not money, it has to be forsome other consideration, but not‘barter’. Further, the Tribunal heldthat even extended definition of ‘sale’in clause (29-A) of Article 366 ofConstitution does not embrace ‘barter’within its fold. Therefore, the Tribunalheld that the transaction betweenassessee and job-worker does notamount to ‘sale’.

2011 (71) Kar. L.J. 734 (Tri.)(DB):Suresh Enterprises v. State ofKarnataka - In the instant case, the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dealingwith the expression ‘person’ undersection 2(h) of Karnataka Tax onProfessions, Trades, Callings andEmployments Act, 1976 held that theterm ‘person’ covers artificial judicialperson like firm, company or othercorporate body, etc and also everybranch thereof, but the same cannotbe stretched to cover godown orwarehouse of firm, company or othercorporate body, where no business iscarried on.

Therefore, the Tribunal held that inthe instant case, godown maintainedby firm dealing in electrical goods, forstoring goods, cannot be consideredas its branch. It has been accordinglyheld that such godown cannot bedeemed to be person as no sale aremade there. Such place thereforecannot liable to be taxed under theProfessional Tax Act.

The above decision deprecates thepractice of the Department of treatingeveryplace as branch and seeking tolevy professional tax in respect of.

INCOME TAX

PARTS DIGESTED:a) 338 ITR – Part 4 to 6b) 339 ITR – Part 1c) 202 Taxman – Part 5 to 7d) 12 ITR (Trib) – Part 2 to 5e) 133 ITD – Part 1 to 5f) 139 TTJ – Part 4 to 6g) 141 TTJ – Part 6 & 7h) 142 TTJ – Part 1 & 2i) 36 CAPJ – Part 4j) 43-B BCAJ – Part 1 & 2k) 60 TCA – Part 4 & 5l) 5 International Taxation-Part 5

Reference / Description

[2011] 338 ITR 489 (Karn – HC):CIT and another v. Vijaya Bank - Inthe instant case, the Assessing Officer

5 January2012


while giving effect to the order of theAppellate Commissioner, did notgrant interest under section 244A onthe self assessment tax paid by theassessee amounting to Rs. 15.5Crores. Later on, the AssessingOfficer on the direction of theAppellate Commissioner grantedinterest on self-assessment tax paidfrom the date of regular assessment.

The Karnataka High Court observedthat the assessee had paid selfassessment tax even before the dateof filing of return and it was thatamount which was ordered to berefunded as excess payment and thecourt also observed that clause (b) tosection 244A provides that ‘as in anyother case’, the interest is payablefrom the date of payment of the tax.

Therefore, the Court following theCircular No. 549 dated 31.10.1989held that excess payment was to berefunded with interest from the dateof payment of such tax, till the dateof refund. Further, the honourableHigh Court held that Explanationbelow section 244 A (1) does notapply in case of payment of self-assessment tax.

[2011] 338 ITR 533 (Kar. – HC): CITand another v. H.E. MynuddinPasha - The Karnataka High Courtdealing with the aspect of undisclosedincome in respect to block assessmentproceedings held that income inrespect of which advance taxes hadbeen paid, as well as TDS deducted,cannot be construed as undisclosedincome at all and the moment advancetax is paid the taxable income at thatpoint of time stands disclosed to theRevenue by the assessee. When thecreditors pay interest and deduct TDSand show the said payment in theirbooks of account, as well as thereturns filed, the said income due to

the assesses stands disclosed to theDepartment.

The Court applying the same ratio tothe instant case, held that when thepartnership firm pays remuneration interms of the agreement to its partnerand reflects in the books of accountas well as in the returns filed to theDepartment well in time, the saidincome stands disclosed to theDepartment. Merely because therecipient of the income did not filethe returns but filed the return onlyafter the search, that makes nodifference.

[2011] 338 ITR 598 (Del. – HC): CITv. ITC Ltd and another - In the instantcase, assesses were engaged in thebusiness of owning, operating andmanaging hotels. The assessescollected tips and disbursed the sameto the employees without deductingtax at source. The Assessing Officertreated the amounts of tips under thehead ‘Salary’ in the hands of therespective staff and held that theassessees were liable to deduct tax atsource under section 192 of the IT Actand treated them as assesses in defaultunder section 201(1) of the IT Act.

The honourable Delhi High Court didnot agree with the stand of theassessee and held that the tipsconstituted salary in the hands of theemployees and the employer assesseeought to have deducted taxes at sourcewhen he disbursed the same to theemployees. Thus, the Delhi HighCourt did not accept the conduittheory.

However, the Delhi High Courtobserved that assessees had notdeducted tax at source on tips and thispractice had been accepted by theRevenue by accepting theassessments in the form of annualreturns of the assessee in the past.

The Court also observed that theassesses were under bona fide beliefthat the tax was not deductible andtherefore, the Court held that assesseswere not liable to pay interest undersection 201(1) of the IT Act.

[2011] 202 Taxman 454 (Mad. –HC)14 taxmann.com 73 (Mad. - HC):CIT v. Chennai Metropolitan WaterSupply & Sewerage Board - In theinstant case, assessee had engaged theservices of Malaysian company tocarry out certain works. It deducted taxat source at the rate of 2 per cent whilemaking payment to the Malaysiancompany. The Assessing Officer on theground that the same was deductibleat the rate of 40 per cent raised ademand on account of short fall in TDSunder section 201 of the Act as well asconsequential demand of interest undersection 201(1A) of the IT Act. Theassessee contended that the assesseewas a loss making company andtherefore the question of payment ofinterest does not arise.

The Madras High Court held that thepayee company has stated to havefiled a loss return which has to beverified by the Assessing Officer andif it is found to be so, as per thedecision of the Hindustan Coca ColaBeverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293ITR 226, the question of furtherrecovery from the hands of theassessee company does not arise.However, as far as levy of interest isconcerned the fact that the assesseewas loss making company does notexempt from levy of interest.

The Court further held that levy ofinterest is automatic and the same hasto be calculated from the date onwhich tax should have been deductedto the date on which the payee shouldhave filed its return under theprovisions of the IT Act.

6January2012

[2011] 202 Taxman (BN – XV) (Kar.– HC) 15 taxmann.com 78 (Kar. -HC): CIT v. Digital Global Soft Ltd.-In the instant case assessee was notin possession of TDS certificate andtherefore did not claim credit of TDSin return but filed the said TDScertificates within two years from thedate of end of assessment year.

The Karnataka High Court held thatthe assessee would be entitled torefund of said amount.

In the aforesaid interesting decision,the High Court ruled that non-claiming of TDS credit in the returnwould not preclude the assessee fromclaiming it later on by producing theTDS certificates within two yearsfrom the end of the assessment yearunder section 155(14).

[2011] 202 Taxman (BN – XVI) (Kar.– HC) 15 taxmann.com 81 (Kar. -HC): DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide -In the instant case, assessee hadderived income from house property,income from long term capital gainson sale of property for Rs.2,21,00,000/- and had invested anamount of Rs. 49,09,804/- onpurchase of residential property in hername and her husband’s name andclaimed exemption under section 54of the IT Act. Assessee also madesimilar investment for Rs. 50 lakhsin Rural Electrification CorporationLtd. bonds in the names of both andclaimed exemption for the entireamount of Rs. 50 lakhs under section54EC of the IT Act. The AOdisallowed 50% of the investments onthe basis that the part of investmentwas in the name of her husband.

The Karnataka High Court observedthat nowhere in the sections 54 and54EC of the IT Act, it is expresslystated that the investment should bein the name of assessee only.

Therefore, the Court held that it is notnecessary that investment should onlybe in assessee’s name when the saleconsideration is invested for purposementioned in sections 54 and 54ECof the IT Act, assessee would beentitled to benefit under the saidsections.

[2011] 202 Taxman (BN – XX) (Ker.– HC)15 taxmann.com 122 (Ker. -HC): CIT v. Patspin India Ltd.- Inthe instant case, the Kerala HighCourt held that the deduction undersection 10B of the IT Act on exportof profit of EOU has to be computedafter setting off carried forwardunabsorbed depreciation.

It may be noted that the honourableKarnataka High Court has in the caseof Tata Elxi held to the contrary. TheKarnataka High Court held that reliefunder section 10A and 10 B shouldbe allowed before giving effect to thebrought forward business loss anddepreciation whether of the same unitor any other unit.

[2011] 133 ITD 123 (Delhi)14taxmann.com 130 (Delhi – Trib.):ITO v. Tianjin Tianshi India (P.) Ltd.- In the instant case, the DelhiTribunal dealing with the aspect ofwhat amounts to an internationaltransaction held that where atransaction is entered into by AEsbeing a resident and a non-resident,transaction shall amount to aninternational transaction falling undersection 92B(1) of the IT Act and evenwhen either or both of AEs are non-resident, transaction entered intowould also amount to an internationaltransaction within meaning of section92B(1) of the IT Act.

Further the Delhi Tribunal held thatit does not matter whether thetransactions in question are ‘crossborder transactions’ or not. In other

words, even domestic transactionscould be called as internationaltransactions if the same are betweenthe associated enterprises where oneor both of whom is a non-resident.

[2011] 133 ITD 275 (Delhi) 15taxmann.com 144 (Delhi – Trib.):Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd.v. DCIT - In the instant case, the DelhiTribunal dealing with the expression‘any other business or commercialrights of similar nature’ under section32(1) of the IT Act in respect of non-compete fee observed that the saidsection provides for depreciationallowance for (i) an asset beingintangible asset (ii) which should bewholly and partly owned by theassessee (iii) and should be used forthe purpose of business or profession.Further the Tribunal also observedthat the intangible asset falling underthe said expression should belong tosame genus to which know-how,patents, copyrights, trademarks,licenses/franchises belong.

Therefore, the Tribunal in the light ofabove observation held that the by nostretch of imagination, the non-compete fee can be treated to havebelonged to same genus to whichknow-how, patents, copyrights,trademarks, licences/franchisesbelong.

[2011] 139 TTJ (Mumbai) 663:Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT - In theinstant case, assessee was a partnerin the partnership firm and on22.05.2006. The assessee got retiredfrom the partnership firm and waspaid the sum standing to the credit ofhis capital account. The AssessingOfficer treated the same as capitalgain on the ground that the interest ofa partner in the partnership firm wasa capital asset and transfer of such

7 January2012


interest by relinquishing his interestin the firm amounted to transfer of acapital asset which resulted in short-term capital gain.

The Mumbai Tribunal observed thatthe assessee received the amount onretirement from firm, after therevaluation of assets, and prior toretirement, the firm had purchasedproperty on 23.09.2005 for Rs.6,50,00,000 which was revalued on26.03.2006 at Rs. 1,93,90,60,000 andthe surplus on revaluation of Rs.1,54,39,90,435 was shown as profitand was appropriated to the capitalaccount of the partners of the firm ason 26.03.2006 in their profit-sharingratio.

Further, the Tribunal noted that thecapital account of the assessee in thefirm as on 31.03.2006 was35,59,84,050 and the capital accounthad been artificially increased just toensure that the retiring partner waspaid consideration standing to thecredit of his capital account.

Therefore, the Tribunal held that asthe assessee was paid something overand above the sum standing to thecredit of his capital account and theassessee received lump sum paymentin consideration for assigning orrelinquishing his share or right in thepartnership and the assets in favourof the continuing partners, there wasa transfer of interest of the retiringpartner over the assets of thepartnership on retirement whichresulted in capital gain being liableto tax.

The aforesaid decision does notconform to the principles laid downby the Supreme Court in the case ofMohanbai Pamabai in 165 ITR 166and Lingamallu Raghukumar in 247ITR 801.

[2011] 139 TTJ (Ahd) 718: GujaratRoad & Infrastructure Co. Ltd. v.CIT - In the instant case, the assesseewas engaged in the business of settingup of infrastructure facilities byconstructing roads and in theimpugned year constructed toll road.

The Ahmedabad Tribunal observedthat the toll road constructed by theassessee was in the course of carryingout its business activity and was anintegral part of the business activitywithout which the assessee would nothave carried on its business activity.Further the Tribunal also observedthat the toll road was a capital assetowned by the assessee on ‘build-own-operate-transfer’ basis which wasused for the purpose of business andthe ownership also had rest with theassessee.

Therefore, in the light of the aboveobservation, the Tribunal held that theassessee was entitled to depreciationon toll road which is constructed on‘build-own-operate-transfer’ basis.

[2011] 139 TTJ (Luck) (UO) 49:ACIT v. Sunil Kumar Agarwal - Inthe instant case, assessee had paidcertain charges to the society towardsthe use of generator, lift, lighting andcommon area sweeping and deductedthe same from the gross rent. The AOdisallowed the deduction on theground that the payment was towardsmaintenance charges included instatutory deduction of 30% undersection 24 of the IT Act.

The Lucknow Tribunal observed thatthe said charges were paid to thesociety for the facilities/amenitiesprovided by the society and not onaccount of maintenance charges, andtherefore, the Tribunal deducted thesame from the gross rent received bythe assessee.

[2011] 139 TTJ (Luck) (UO) 49:ACIT v. Sunil Kumar Agarwal - Inthe instant case, assessee had raised aloan from HDFC Bank against RBIBonds for the purpose of purchasingthe house property. The said RBIBonds were maturing, therefore,assessee to get these bond realizedfrom HDFC Bank, raised another loanfrom the relatives and IDBI Bank andclaimed deduction under section24(1)(vi) of the IT Act on the intereston loan in respect of subsequent loan.The AO disallowed the said deduction.

The Lucknow Tribunal observed thatthe subsequent loans were raised bythe assessee to repay the original loanraised to purchase the house propertyand as such, those loans partook thecharacter of original loan as there wasdirect nexus between the loan and thepurchase of the house property.

Therefore, the Tribunal allowed thededuction under section 24(1)(vi) ofthe IT Act by following the CBDT’sCircular No. 28 dated 20.08.1969(F.No. 8/8/69-IT(A-I) wherein theCBDT has clarified that if the secondborrowing has really been usedmerely to repay the original loan andsame was proved to the satisfactionof the ITO, the interest paid on thesecond loan would also be allowed asa deduction under section 24(1)(vi) ofthe IT Act.

[2011] 139 TTJ (Visakha) 252:Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. v.ACIT - In the instant case, theVisakhapatnam Tribunal held thatreassessment made under section 147of the IT Act after completion ofassessment under section 143(3) of theIT Act cannot be termed as regularassessment and consequently, interestunder section 234D of the IT Act is notchargeable in such reassessment.

8January2012

RECENT JUDICIALPRONOUNCEMENTS ININDIRECT TAXESCA. N.R. Badrinath, Grad C.W.A., F.C.A.CA. Madhur Harlalka, B. Com., F.C.A

Central Excise:1. Interest demand beyond period of

one year time barred: Theappellant voluntarily discharged thedifferential duty liability which aroseon account of issue of supplementaryinvoices for price escalation.However, interest to the extent itrelates to the period beyond 1 yearof delay was not remitted. Thedepartment confirmed the demandfor the period in excess of 1 yearunder Section 11AB. Beingaggrieved with the order, an appealpreferred before the Tribunal.Tribunal held that the departmentshould have initiated the proceedingsfor recovery of interest within aperiod of one year from the date offiling of monthly returns. Thereforethe demand notice to the extent ofrecovery of interest beyond of oneyear is barred by limitation and onlyfor the period, less than one year, thedemand for interest can beconsidered to be within thereasonable period. As regards thecontention of the appellant that aseparate notice is required fordemand of interest and principles ofnatural justice are violated if no suchnotice is issued is devoid of merits.Interest liability arises wheneverthere is a delay in payment of dutyand it is automatic andconsequential. Therefore, the saidrecovery of interest beyond periodof one year notice is bad in law.[EMCO LTD Vs CCE, Mumbai,2011-TIOL-1585-CESTAT-MUM]

Service tax:2. Service tax rebate on input

services utilised in export ofservice - Non-registration anddeclaration: The appellant providesI.T. enabled services like technicalsupport services, back officeservices, customer care services etcunder the category of BusinessAuxiliary Services to their clientsabroad and the same are exportedwithout payment of duty under theExport of Service Rules. Theappellant had not obtained servicetax registration during the export ofBusiness Auxiliary services underthe contention that the export ofservices is not liable to service tax.The appellant also filed declarationof input services as required undernotification no. 12/2005-St dated19.04.2005 during the course ofexport of services. The appellantclaimed rebate of service tax paid oninput services which are used forexport of services. The claims wererejected on two grounds that theappellants are not registered and alsodeclaration of input services was notfiled prior to export of services andthe same was upheld as such by thefirst appellate authority. Beingaggrieved by the said order, theappellant has preferred an appealbefore Tribunal. The Tribunal heldas follows:

A person providing taxable serviceswould be liable to obtain service taxregistration only if he was liable topay the service tax. Moreover,

neither in Rule 5 of the Export ofServices Rules nor in the NotificationNo.12/2005-ST issued under this rule,there is any condition that the personclaiming rebate must have service taxregistration. In view of this, the rebateclaim under Rule 5 of the Export ofServices Rules or in the NotificationNo.12/2005-ST cannot be rejectedjust because the assessee did not haveservice tax registration which, hewould not be required to obtain, if hisoutput services was being exclusivelyexported and as such, he was notliable to pay any tax on the servicesbeing provided to his offshore clients.

Insofar as it relates to rebate filingof declaration, though therequirement is that the same shouldbe filed prior to export of theservices and needs to be verified bythe jurisdictional Assistant / DeputyCommissioner is a proceduralrequirement, the purpose of thisprocedure is to ensure that there isno evasion of duty by misuse of thisfacility. The Apex Court in the caseof Indian Aluminium Company Ltd.vs. Thane Municipal Corporationhas held that not observing even aprocedural condition is not to becondoned if such non-observancefacilitates commission of fraud andintroduces administrativeinefficiency and inconvenience. Inthis case, according to thedepartment, the appellant has notfiled any declaration, howeveraccording to the appellant, since itwas not it was not possible to filethe detailed declaration regardinginputs and input services requiredto be used prior to date of export,such declaration was filed everymonth, though after some delay.However, this aspect can be verifiedonly by the original adjudicatingauthority for which this matter hasto be remanded. Accordingly, the

9 January2012


impugned order is set aside and thematter is remanded back to theoriginal adjudicating authority.[Wipro BPO Solutions Limited VsCST, DELHI, 2011-TIOL-1592-CESTAT-DEL]

CENVAT CREDIT:3. Interest on CENVAT credit

availed but not utilized: In thepresent case, issue before Hon’bleHigh Court of Karnataka waswhether interest is payable onCENVAT credit availed but notutilised. The Hon’ble High Courtheld that on reading of theprovisions relating to CENVATcredits, it is very clear that the saidprovision is attracted where theCENVAT credit has been taken orutilized wrongly or has beenerroneously refunded. In view of thejudgment of the Apex Court in caseof Union Of India vs. Ind-SwiftLaborites Limited (2010-TIOL-21-SC-CX), the question of reading theword ‘and’ in place of ‘or’ wouldnot arise. It is also to be noticed thatin the aforesaid Rule, the word‘avail’ is not used. The words usedare ‘taken’ or ‘utilized wrongly’.Further, the said provision makesit clear that the interest shall berecovered in terms of Section 11Aand 11B of the Act.”The High Court further observed thatcredit availed might be utilised laterfor payment of excise duty on theexcisable product. Thus, actually, thecredit is taken, at the time of theremoval of the excisable product. Itis in the nature of a set off or anadjustment. Instead of paying exciseduty, the CENVAT credit is utilized.This is a procedure whereby themanufacturers can utilize the creditto make payment of duty or dischargethe liability. Therefore, where theentry has been reversed beforeutilization of such credit, the same isequivalent of not taking credit.

Interest is compensatory incharacter and is imposed onwithheld payment of any tax as andwhen it is due and payable. The levyof interest is on the actual amountwhich is withheld and the extent ofdelay in paying tax on the due date.If there is no liability to pay tax,there is no liability to pay interestunder Section 11 AB of the Act.Therefore, interest cannot beclaimed from the date of wrongavailment of CENVAT credit andthat the interest would be payablefrom the date CENVAT credit istaken or utilized wrongly.Further, it was held that thejudgment of the Apex Court in caseof Union Of India vs. Ind-SwiftLaborites Limited (2010-TIOL-21-SC-CX) has no application to the factsof this case. CENVAT credit shall bedeemed as taken only if he had notpaid the duty which is legally due tothe Government. The Governmentwould have sustained loss to thatextent. In order to compensate theGovernment which was deprived ofthe duty on the date it became duethat interest is payable. Without theliability to pay duty, the liability topay interest would not arise. [CCE &ST, Bangalore Vs Bill Forge PrivateLimited 2011-TIOL-799-HC-KAR-CX]

4. Reversal of CENVAT credit ondestroyed capital goods in case ofinsurance claim prior to13.11.2007: In the present case, theappellant had availed CENVATcredit on various inputs and capitalgoods received in their factory. Thesaid goods were destroyed in aheavy flood and were subsequentlydisposed as scrap for a value bydischarging a duty liability. Further,the appellant had receivedinsurance claim towards the loss ofsubject goods excluding VAT andCENVAT. The said claim includes

an amount on account of loss ofcapital goods on which CENVATwas availed. Revenue issued ashow-cause notice for recovery ofCENVAT credit on the depreciatedvalue of the capital goods in termsof Notification No.39/2007-CE (T)dated 13.11.2007 on the ground thatinsurance company has paidCENVAT credit amount and the firstappellant authority has alsoconfirmed demand of revisedCENVAT credit amount based ondepreciated asset value,consequential interest and also anequivalent penalty under theCENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC. Beingaggrieved by these orders, theappellant preferred an appeal beforethe Tribunal. Tribunal held thatthere is no provision in theCENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 forreversal of credit taken when thecapital goods are lost on account ofnatural calamities. As regards thequantification done by thejurisdictional AssistantCommissioner based on thedepreciation for determining thevalue of capital goods when clearedafter usage was introduced in theCENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by aNotification No.39/2007-CE (N.T)dated 13.11.2007. As the saidnotification was not in force whenthe subject capital goods weredestroyed, the same is notapplicable for the given facts. [TotalOil India Private Limited Vs CCE,Belapur, 2011-TIOL-1600-CESTAT-MUM]

5. Utilization of CENVAT Credit ofsubsequent month for payment ofduty relating to the previousmonth: In the present case, theappellant has paid excise duty ofSeptember month by using theCENVAT credit of 1st October to 5th

October. The department and first

10January2012

appellant authorities has demandedthe reversal of CENVAT credit duty,interest and penalty on ground thatCENVAT credits available upto thelast date of month can be utilisedfor the payment of duty of the samemonth. Such wrong utilization as adefault in payment and the firstappellate authority upheld the same.Being aggrieved, the appellant haspreferred an appeal before theTribunal. Tribunal held that it is mereinfringement of legal provision thana default in payment of duty as thisis a case of wrong utilization ofCENVAT credit which was not duefor utilization. The penalty should belevied in case of wrong utilizationof CENVAT Credit on account ofsuppression, fraud etc under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Thus, the provisions of Rule 15(1)of the CENVAT Credit Rule, 2004is applicable and the provisions ofRule 15(2) of the CENVAT CreditRules, 2004 is not applicable. Hencethe penalty to the extent of 10% canbe levied as per Rule 15(1) alongwith the interest on the amountwrongly utilized. [CCE, Salem VsSri Krishna Smelters Limited, 2011-TIOL-1596-CESTAT-MAD]

6. Refund of unutilized CENVATcredit: The appellant has exportedsoftware services under thecategory of “InformationTechnology Software Services”.The service tax paid on inputservices availed as CENVAT Creditand unutilized such CENVAT creditwas claimed as refund andaccordingly the refund wassanctioned. However, thedepartment preferred an appealagainst the refund order before theCommissioner (Appeals) who hasreversed the order of refund on theground that the services used haveno close and direct nexus inproviding output services which

have been exported. The appellantbeing aggrieved with orderpreferred an appeal before theTribunal. Tribunal held that theCommissioner Appeals has simplystated that a close and direct nexusbetween the input service and outputservices has not been established andthe benefits provided by theadjudicating authority on above saidservices are not legally correct andmerits rejection. The order stated thatthe said professional services have nouse in providing output serviceswhich have been exported and that aclose and direct nexus between theseservices and output services was notestablished without giving anyreasons for arriving for at the above-mentioned findings. In view of this,the impugned order is set aside andthe matter is remanded toCommissioner (Appeals) for denovodecision strictly in accordance withthe directions contained in the BoardCircular No.120/01/2010-S.T. dated19/1/2010 and also after hearing theappellants. [Vichara TechnologyIndia Private Limited Vs. CST, Delhi,2011-TIOL-1662-CESTAT-DEL]

7. Debit note is prescribeddocument for availing CENVATcredit: The “debit notes” containall the details which are requiredviz. the name and registrationnumber of the service provider, thenature of the service provided,service tax payable, service taxcharged etc. or in other words allthe details which are required to bementioned in the invoice except forits name under Rule 9 of CENVATCredit Rules, 2004. Therefore, it canbe treated as invoice and theCENVAT credit on the basis of debitnote is correct. [CCE, Indore Vs.Grasim Industries Limited, 2011-TIOL-1660-CESTAT-DEL]

8. Debit note cum bills is aprescribed document to avail

CENVAT credit: The CENVATcredit was availed on documentscalled debit notes cum bills issuedby the service providers. The debitnotes cum bills are not in the natureof supplementary invoices, but areof the nature of invoices andAssistant Commissioner in theorder-in-original has given a clearfinding that the debit note cum billcontains all the requisiteinformation viz., the name andregistration number of the serviceprovider, the nature of the serviceprovided, service tax payable,service tax charged etc as per theprovisions of Rule 9 (1) of theCENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, thatthe service provider has alsocharged the service tax and hasdeposited the taxes to the exchequerand that the debit notes cum billsare in the name of the respondent.[CCE, Indore Vs. GwaliorChemicals Industries, 2011-TIOL-CESTAT-DEL]

9. Transfer of unutilized CENVATcredit in case of amalgamation oftwo Companies: The assessee is anEHTP Unit and engaged in thebusiness of manufacture of personalcomputers in Bangalore and anotheris a Company of the appellant inPondicherry which is engaged in thebusiness of manufacture ofcomputers and printers. The abovetwo companies were amalgamatedwith the approval of the High Courtof Karnataka. The Pondicherry unithas stopped production andtransferred the unutilized credit tothe Bangalore Unit. The appellantrequested for permission to transferthe available CENVAT credit toBangalore factory to the Pondicherryauthorities and informed the same tothe jurisdictional AssistantCommissioner of Customs,Bangalore. However, the DeputyCommissioner of Customs,

11 January2012


Bangalore has directed the assesseenot to transfer the balance ofCENVAT credit in view of the factthat there was neither shifting of thefactory building nor there was anytransfer of inputs / raw materials orfinished goods. The Tribunal heldthat the Rule provides for transfer ofCENVAT credit lying unutilized inthe event of transfer of a factory toanother factory on account ofamalgamation and therefore legallyentitled for the transfer under Rule10(1). It was further held that sub-

Rule (1) of Rule 11 provides forutilization of unutilized CENVATcredit by the transferee Company onsuch amalgamation. However, Rule11(2) speaks of a situation when amanufacturer opts for exemptionunder a Notification based on valueor quantity of clearances in a financialyear, in which event the benefit of thetransfer of the unutilized CENVATcredit is not available. As the instantcase does not come within Rule 11(2)the Appellate Commissioner was intotal error in denying the benefit of

IMPORTANT DATES TO REMEMBER DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 20125th January 2012 Payment of Excise Duty for December 2011 by Corporates

Payment of Service Tax for December 2011 by CorporatesPayment of Service Tax for October –December 2011 for Non-Corporates

6th January2012 E-Payment of Excise duty for December 2011 by Corporates

E-Payment of Service Tax for December 2011 by CorporatesE-Payment of Service Tax for October– December 2011 for Non-Corporates

7th January 2012 Deposit of TDS/TCS Collected during December 2011

STPI Returns for the month of December 2011

10th January 2012 Monthly Returns for Production and Removal of Goods and CENVAT Credit for December 2011

Monthly Return of excisable Goods Manufactured & Receipt of Inputs & Capital Goods by Units inEOU,STP,HTP for December 2011

Monthly Returns of Information relating to Principal Inputs for December 2011 by Manufacturer ofSpecified Goods who Paid Duty of Rs.1 Crore or More during Financial Year 2010-11 By PLA/CENVAT/BothSTPI Quarterly report for the period of October 2011 to December 2011

15th January 2012 Payment of EPF Contribution for December 2011Return of Labour Welfare Fund for period of January2011 to December 2011

Return of Employees Qualifying to EPF during December 2011

Monthly Return (VAT 120) and Payment of VAT/COT for the month of December 2011.

Quarterly Return and Payment of CST and VAT Collected During October 2011 to December 2011

Quarterly e-TDS for the period October 2011 to December 2011 (Form 24Q, 26Q, 27Q and 27EQ)

Filing of Belated Annual Accounts & Annual Return to Registrar of Companies for Corporates underCLSS Scheme.

20th January 2012 Monthly Return and Payment of Profession Tax Collected During December 2011

Monthly Return (VAT 100) and Payment of CST and VAT Collected During December 2011

21st January 2012 Deposit of ESI Contributions and Collections for December 2011

25th January2012 Monthly Returns of Employees Joined & Left the organisation during December 2011 under EPF

Monthly Returns of Employees Joined & Left the organisation during December 2011 underESIConsolidated Statements of Dues and Remittances Under EPF and EDLI for the December 2011

30th January 2012 Quarterly TDS and TCS certificates (Form 16A/ Form 27D) as per section 203

Rule 11(c) to the assessee. Therefore,the appellant was entitled to thebenefit of transfer and utilization ofunutilized CENVAT credit. Being,aggrieved by the said order therevenue preferred the appeal beforeHigh Court which held in favour ofthe appellant by upholding thedecision of Tribunal. Assessee legallyentitled for transfer of unutilizedcredit. [CC, Bangalore Vs HewlettPackard India Sales Limited, 2011-TIOL-777-HC-KAR-CX]

12January2012

Tax on services was firstintroduced in the year 1994

through insertion of Chapter V inFinance Act, 1994. Initially only 3services were subjected to service tax.Thereafter, the number and scope ofservices under the tax net has beengradually increasing with more than115 services under the tax net on thecurrent date. Unlike other transactiontax laws, the service tax law followsthe ‘selective principle of tax’,whereunder only identified servicesare liable to tax. Taking a far reachingstep, the Government appears to bemoving away from this selectiveprinciple of taxation. In the UnionBudget 2011, the Honourable FinanceMinister stated that “many expertshave argued that it will be desirableto tax services based on a smallnegative list, so that many untappedsectors are brought into the tax net.Such an approach will be veryconducive for a nationwide GST. Ipropose to initiate an informed publicdebate on the subject to help usfinalize the approach to GST”.

Pursuant to this announcementmade by the Honourable FinanceMinister, a concept paper on negativelist of services was circulated on31.08.2011 to initiate public debate.Thereafter, based on comments /inputs from various chambers, serviceproviders, associations and others theMinistry of Finance has published arevised concept paper on ‘negative listof services’ in November 2011. In therevised concept paper, while retainingsome concepts as proposed in theoriginal paper, various changes havebeen made to the original proposals.

SERVICE TAX: NEGATIVE LISTCA. N.R. Badrinath, B.Com., Grad C.W.A., F.C.A.Siddeshwar Yelamali, B.Com., A.C.A

This article highlights the conceptsand discussions around the revisedpaper on ‘negative list of services’.

What is negative list? It is a listof services which would not betaxable as “supply of services” underthe GST regime. In other words, allthe services other than the servicesmentioned in the negative list wouldbe taxable. As indicated supra, this isa step away from the current ‘selectiveprinciple of taxation’.

Need for taxation byprescribing the ‘negative list ofservices’: Under the current schemeof taxation, viz., selective principle(positive list), the levy has theadvantage of definitiveness.However, the advantage of positivelist could get diluted as the numberof services increases on account ofoverlapping definitions. Further, withmany services remaining outside thetax net, the CENVAT scheme isdisconnected. However, with thetaxation based on ‘negative list’, theambiguity in overlapping of servicesand breakage of input tax chain willprima facie be addressed.

Under the current scheme, thelaw defines the expression ‘taxableservices’, which represents theidentified list of services which areliable to service tax. However, theexpression ‘services’ simplicitor is notdefined. The concept paper nowattempts to define the expression‘service’. The same is as follows –

“Service means anything which doesnot constitute supply of goods, moneyor immovable property- andincludes-

A. right to use an immovableproperty;

B. construction of a complex,building, civil structure or a partthereof, including a complex orbuilding intended for sale to abuyer, wholly or partly, exceptwhere the entire consideration isreceived after issuance ofcertificate of completion by acompetent authority;

C. temporary transfer or permittingthe use or enjoyment of anyintellectual property right;

D. obligation to refrain from an act,or to tolerate an act or a situation,or to do an act;

E. service in relation to lease or hireof goods; and

F. right to enter any premises

but excludes a supply -A. by an employee to an employer in

the course of or in relation to theemployment of the person;

B. by a constitutional authority underthe Indian Constitution or amember of an Indian legislatureor a local self-government in thatcapacity;

C. that amounts to manufacture ofexcisable goods or is chargeableas part of the value of goods to aduty in terms of the provisionsof Central Excise Act, 1944.

While the above definition is astep forward, it is relevant to note thatwhere goods and service aspectsoverlap, the Central Governmentshould define the same with moreclarity. Typical examples would beservice element involved in the workscontract, restaurants, outdoorcatering, sim cards, downloadableonsite software and similar suppliesthrough internet etc.

A Comparison: The European VATsystem is based on the dichotomy of

13 January2012


goods and service. The place oftaxation depends on the object oftransaction i.e. whether it is goods orservice. With the advancement oftechnology the European law makershave considered the virtual goods asservice (electronically suppliedservice). In this context, theexpression ‘virtual goods’ means suchgoods which could be supplied in aphysical form which can now besupplied in an ‘virtualised’ or‘dematerialised’ form, example;newspaper and magazines which canbe supplied physically can now bedownloaded electronically. Thus,though software is considered asgoods if supplied on a CD physically,the same is considered as a service ifsupplied electronically.

Under the proposed GST model,the scheme of taxation for both,‘goods’ and ‘services’ would besimilar and hence it is expected thatwhether a transaction is one of supplyof goods or supply of services, theimplications from a GST point ofview would be the same. Hence, oneschool of thought could be that thedifferentiation between goods andservices may not be required.However, the proposals anddiscussions around the GST proposedto be implemented suggest that therate of tax between goods and serviceswould be different and further, thebasic exemption thresholds andcomposite schemes would be

different and operate distinctly forsuppliers of services and suppliers ofgoods. In this backdrop, clarity for themeaning of the expression ‘services’,becomes important.

Constructing the ‘negative list’: ThePrimary exclusions are supply ofgoods, money and immovableproperty. Further, supply ofelectricity, power, heat, refrigerationand ventilation may also not be treatedas “supply of services. Broadly theconsideration which will be taken inpreparing the negative list is as under:

1. Administrative considerations:Taxation of Government, Difficultto tax sectors such as margin-based financial services.

2. Under contractual obligations:Services provided by specifiedinternational bodies anddiplomatic missions.

3. Welfare considerations: Welfare ofvulnerable sections of society,essential education, public health,public transport, services by non-profit entities, religious services,promotion of art, culture and sports.

4. Economic considerations:transport of export goods, servicesmeant for agriculture, animalhusbandry and infrastructuredevelopment.

5. Explicit activities in the nature ofservices, which are within thetaxing powers of States: Betting,lotteries, tolls.

Taxable person: In the concept papercirculated, the expression ‘Taxableperson’ is defined as “any person whoindependently carries out anyeconomic activity, whether or not forpecuniary profit”. This definitionproposes to tax transactions inservices carried out with anotherperson by a person engaged in aneconomic activity on his own account.

In this context, economicactivities are such activities as arecarried out for consideration, whetheror not the consideration is adequateor provided by the recipient of theservice, or leads to profit at the endof a period. The taxable activities willthus exclude transactions carried outfree of charge or gratis, without anydirect or indirect commercialadvantage, or as recreation or hobby.Statutory fines and penalties will alsonot constitute “economic activities.Further, a taxable person will notinclude wage earners as employees orothers under a contract to theiremployers while acting in thatcapacity and members of legislature.

In terms of the above, theconcept paper initially listed outcertain services / activities as‘negative list’, which implies thatsuch services would remain outsidethe tax net. Based on representationsmade or comments submitted, therevised concept has amended the list.A comparison of the same is furnishedin the table below:

First Revised Particulars Concept Concept

Paper – Paper -31.08.2011 Nov. 2011

1. By specified persons

All services other than notified servicesprovided by government

A) Proposed notified services:

(i) Business promotion or businesssupport services

(ii) Construction/works contract

(iii) Insurance services

(iv) Port or airport services

(v) Postal services other than underuniversal service obligations (postcard,inland letter and money order)

(vi) Renting of an immovable propertyor right to enter or use animmovable property

(vii)Security

(vii)Trade fairs and exhibitions

14January2012


Paper – Paper -31.08.2011 Nov. 2011

(viii)Transport of goods and passengers

(ix) Warehousing

B) Notified services provided by:

(i) Government and judiciary

(ii) RBI

(iii) Government regulatory bodies

C) Services by international bodies anddiplomatic missions under diplomaticand consular arrangements asper laid down conditions

D) Services provided by individuals togovernment in relation to theirrepresentation on any council,commission or similar bodyset up by the government

E) Service by un, internationalbodies, diplomatic missionsunder diplomatic and consulararrangements as per laid downconditions (details to bespecified)

3. Agriculture &animal husbandry

Services directly used for growing,cultivation, harvesting of the agriculturalproduce, horticulture, animal husbandry,forestry, dairy, poultry farming andpisciculture (including renting of vacantland exclusively or predominantlyfor any such purpose)

4. Financial sector

A) Sale, Purchase or Acquisition ofSecurities, Debts, Mutual funds andActionable claims on principal-to-principal basis excluding(1)services in relation to suchtransactions and (2) when acquiredin lieu of a service

B) Sale, Purchase or Acquisition ofSecurities and Debts onprincipal-to- principal basis

C) Interest or discount on cheques,promissory notes, bills of exchangeor debt instruments

D) Dividend on investments

E) Sale and purchase of foreign currencyamongst banks and/or authorizeddealers of foreign exchange

F) Transport of passengers withaccompanied belongings by:

(i) Non-AC second class of passengertravel by railway and any class bymetro and mono-rail;


Paper – Paper -31.08.2011 Nov. 2011

(ii) Public transport buses on a point-to-point basis (except tourist buses)and stage-carriage basis

(iii) Public transport in ship or vessel ofless than 15 net tonnage on a point-to- point basis (except tourist purposes)

(iv) Metered cabs or three-wheelerauto-rickshaw

(v) By metered taxis or three-wheelerauto rickshaw plying within theprecincts of a city

(vi) Transport of goods to a destinationoutside india by any means oftransport

(vii)Supply of goods carriage to a personengaged in the business oftransportation of goods

5. Construction & Real estate A) Construction, works-contract, repair,

alteration, renovation or restoration of:(i) Specified infrastructure for larger

public good

(ii) Residential building comprising asingle dwelling unit

(iii) Renting of personal dwelling forresidential use of a person below athreshold (to be finalized after debate)and when used otherwise as a hotel,inn, guest house, club or campsite orsimilar accommodation

(iv) Roads, airports, railways, transportterminals, bridges, tunnels, dams,canals, irrigation and flood controlwaterworks including watersheddevelopment and water-bodies,water treatment plants and watersupply pipelines;

(v) Buildings owned by government,other than meant predominantly forindustrial or commercial use,including government hospitals andeducational institutions

(vi) Homeless shelter, orphanage, old-agehome, rehabilitation & de- addictioncentre, child day-care home or placeof worship

B) Renting of personal dwellings inexcess of Rs. 1 lakh per monthper dwelling

6. Education Pre-school, school and recognizededucation** and vocational trainingrecognized by NCTV except placementservices and donations or similar chargesin relation to admission

15 January2012



Paper – Paper -31.08.2011 Nov. 2011

D) Services provided by a trade unionto its members

E) Representational services providedby an advocate to individuals

F) Services to own members by anexempt entity by way ofreimbursement of charges

G) Tolls except services in relationto collection of tolls

H) Betting and gambling except servicesin relation to promoting, marketingor organizing games of chance,including lottery services

I) Advertisements other thanadvertisements published innewspapers or broadcast by radioor tv or displayed in otherelectronic media

J) Services provided by a politicalparty recognized by electioncommission of India

K) National or international prize/awardin recognition of achievement in thefield of art, literature, science, sport,economics or public life

L) Religious services providedby any person.

indicates that the service was listed in the negative list indicates that the service was not listed in the negative list


Paper – Paper -31.08.2011 Nov. 2011

7. Health

A) Services by clinical establishmentsexcept in relation to health & fitness,weight reduction programmes,health check-up and cosmetic orplastic surgery

B) Option 1: Services provided by aclinical establishment with a turnoverbelow Rs. 4 crore in the previous year(services to specified sections and bypublic hospitals may be exemptedunder option 1.)

C) Option 2: Hospital, medical care,diagnostic, paramedical servicesexcept in relation to preventive healthcheck-up within the precincts of aclinical establishment, cosmetic orplastic surgery

8. Others

A) Copyright services of original literary,dramatic, musical and artistic works.

B) Services provided by independentjournalists, PTI & UNI forproviding news

C) Services provided by sportspersons,as a player, coach or referee/umpireand performing artists in that capacity(excluding as brand ambassadors)

As indicated above, the scheme oftaxation based on ‘negative list ofservices’ is a step towards GST. Whileit addresses the concerns on breakageof CENVAT chain and brings in clarityon overlapping services / excludedservices, as under the current regime, itis reiterated that in respect of

transactions involving a bundle / mixof services and goods, the definitionshould provide more clarity. Lastly, therevised concept paper also states that itwill be necessary to move towards Placeof Taxation / Supply Rules that willdetermine the principles for thedetermination of location at which

services shall be deemed to be provided.The Central Board of Excise andCustoms in this regard has indicated thata concept paper on the same would alsobe circulated for public debate.This views expressed in this article arethose of the authors and notnecessarily of the publisher.

SICASA Annual Sports MeetDate & Timing Event Venue

7th January 2012, Saturday Indoor Games Karnataka Badminton Association (KBA),09:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. 1. Chess 3. Carom Near ICAI Bhavan,

2. Shuttle Badminton 4. Table Tennis Bangalore.

15th January 2012, Sunday Outdoor Games BEL Play Ground,07:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. 1. Athletics 2. Cricket BEL Circle, Bangalore.

For Registration Contact: Ms. Geethanjali: 080-3056 3513, Ms. Rajalaksmi: 080-3056 3509For registration fee & further details visit: www.bangaloreicai.org

16January2012

Adv

t.

Adv

t.

List of Holidays for the Calendar Year - 2012

Makar Sankaranti - 14th Jan, Saturday

Republic Day - 26th Jan, Thursday

Maha Shivratri - 20th Feb, Monday

Gudi Pada - 23rd Mar, Friday

Good Friday - 6th April, Friday

Independence Day - 15th Aug, Wednesday

Idu’l Fitr – Ramzan - 20th Aug – Monday

Ganesh Chaturthi - 19th Sep, Wednesday

Mahatma Gandhi’s Birthday - 2nd Oct, Tuesday

Mahalaya Amavasya - 15th Oct, Monday

An Additional day forDussehra-Ayudh Pooja - 23rd Oct, Tuesday

Idu’l Zuha- Bakrid - 27th Oct, Saturday

Kannada Rajyotsava - 1st Nov, Thursday

Naraka Chaturdarshi - 12th Nov, Monday

Diwali (Deepavali) - 13th Nov, Tuesday

Christmas - 25th Dec, Tuesday

International ConferenceAccountancy Profession: Leveraging

Emerging Challenges For Inclusive Growthon 6th – 8th January, 2012at Chennai Trade Centre, Chennai

Foreign Delegates US$ 125 (Online payment)On the spot Registration Members - Rs.3000/-

Demand Draft in favour of “Secretary ICAI, ChennaiInternational Conference 2012 A/c”, Payable at ChennaiFor online payment please visit: www.icai.orgFor registration and other details please contact:Shri T. V. Srinivasan, Deputy Secretary (044 -30210320),email: [email protected] D. Vijayaragavan, Deputy Secretary (044-30210325),email: [email protected] Bhawan, 122, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Post Box No. 3314, Nungambakkam, CHENNAI-600 034

CPE Hrs.12 hour

CONGRATULATIONS

CA. Rajeshwari S. Patil, AssistantManager, Bosch Ltd, Bangalore for beingawarded “The Best Young Manager for2011” at 37th National Competition forYoung Managers conducted by All IndiaManagement Association, New Delhi.

17 January2012


18January2012

For schedule of classes and list of speakers please visit:www.bangaloreicai.org

One day Seminar on

“Practice and Procedures before the CESTAT”On Saturday, 21st January 2012

between 09.30am and 05.30pm at Branch Premises

Timings Topics Speakers

09.30am Inaugural & Keynote Address Mr. K S Ravi Shankar,FCA, Advocate, Bangalore

10.15am Drafting of Appeal, Stay Petition & Miscellaneous: Mr. B.N. Gururaj,Applications before CESTAT Advocate, Bangalore

11.45am TEA BREAK

12.00pm CESTAT Rules and submission of CA. Anand N,additional evidence / additional grounds Advocate, Bangalore

01.15pm LUNCH BREAK

02.15pm Representation before CESTAT Mr. K.S. Naveen Kumar,including written submissions Advocate, Bangalore

03.45pm TEA BREAK

04.00pm Mock Tribunal by practicing CAs & Advocates : CA.Rajesh Kumar T.R, Mr. K. S. Naveen Kumar,CA. Anand N, CA. B G Chidanand Urs, Mr. Anirudha R J Nayak

Delegate Fees: Rs.500/-DD/Pay order/Cheque should be drawn in favour of “Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI” payable at Bangalore.

Please mention your name, membership number and contact details at the back of the cheque/demand draft.

For further details please contact:Ms. Geethanjali D, Tel: 080-30563500 / 3513, Email: [email protected]

6 HrsCPE

Kind Attention: CA Students

ADMISSIONS OPEN FOR SUBJECTWISE COACHING CLASSESAT BANGALORE BRANCH OF SIRC OF ICAI

IPCC / PCC & FINAL for May 2012 Examinations and CPT for June 2012 Examinations:

Fees Timings Duration

CPT Rs.4500/- 05.30pm to 07.30pm(Monday to Friday) 09th January 2012 to03.00pm to 07.30pm(Saturday) 15th May 201207.30am to 12Noon (Sunday)

IPCC / PCC Rs.2000/- for Single Subject 06.30am to 09.30am (Monday to Saturday) Till 31st March 201206.00pm to 09.00pm(Monday to Saturday)07.30am to 05.30pm (Sunday)

Note: Depending on the availability of faculty members there may be change in timings on Saturdays & Sundays.

FINAL Rs.2000/- for Single Subject 06.30am to 09.30am (Monday to Saturday) Till 31st March 201206.00pm to 09.00pm(Monday to Saturday)07.30am to 05.30pm (Sunday)

Note: Depending on the availability of faculty members there may be change in timings on Saturdays & Sundays.

19 January2012


20January2012

ICAI - Jan 2012 Newsletter

Documents

Transcript of ICAI - Jan 2012 Newsletter