Pages

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Local Body Tax Penalty and filling of appeal

Dear All,


I have observed that, the local body tax (LBT) authorities are imposing 2-5 times penalty on dealers for non-registration, delay in registration and delay in payment of LBT. And also taking corrosive action to recover the same.


The dealers shall not pay the penalties and shall opt to file appeal against the order imposing the penalty. There are very good changes of waiver or reduction in penalty amount in appeal.

 

Regards,

-------
CA.C.V.PAWAR
PATIL DAWARE GIRASE PAWAR & ASSOCIATES
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
0253-2319641. M-9423961209

Monday, December 30, 2013

Section 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance Controversy Must Go To The Assessee: ITAT Chennai

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

ITO vs. M/s.Theekathir Press (ITAT Chennai)

S. 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance: View in favour of the assessee should be followed

The assessee paid an amount without deducting TDS. The AO held that as there was no TDS, the deduction for the amount could not be allowed u/s 40(a)(ia). However, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that the word "payable" in s. 40(a)(ia) did not apply to amounts that had already been "paid" during the year. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal HELD dismissing the appeal:

There is a judicial controversy on whether s. 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts that have already been "paid" or it is confined to amounts that are "payable" as at the end of the year. The Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping and Transports 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Vizag) and the Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping Services have taken the view that s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts remaining "payable" at the end of the previous year and does not apply to amounts already "paid" before the close of the relevant previous year. However, the Calcutta High Court in Crescent Export Syndicates & Md. Jakir Hossain Mondal and the Gujarat High Court in Sikandarkhan N.Tunvar have taken a contrary view that even amounts already "paid" have to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). In such circumstances, the rule of Judicial Precedence demands that the view favourable to the assessee must be adopted as held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192. Following the said fundamental rule declared by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed and it has to be held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts "payable" and not to amounts "paid".

Note: In Pradip J. Mehta 300 ITR 231 (SC) it was held that the benefit of doubt should invariably go to the taxpayer. This has been followed in Eskay Designs (attached). Contrast with the view taken in Rishti Stock and Shares (ITAT Mumbai) and the Department's Circular No. 10/DV/2013 dated 15.12.2013

(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Transfer Pricing: CBDT Issues Important Directives On Safe Harbour Rules


Sunday, December 29, 2013

Fwd: Shifting of Institute's (WIRC,WRO ICAI) Office from "ICAI Bhawan" Cuffe Parade to "ICAI Tower" BKC, Mumbai



Shifting of Institute's Office from "ICAI Bhawan" Cuffe Parade to "ICAI Tower" BKC, Mumbai
 
"THE INSTITUTE IS SHIFTING ITS DECENTRALISED OFFICE AND WIRC OFFICE FROM 'ICAI BHAWAN' CUFFE PARADE TO 'ICAI TOWER' BKC, MUMBAI. THE SHIFTING OF RECORDS HAS BEEN STARTED FROM 27TH DECEMBER 2013 AND EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY 12TH JANUARY 2014. DURING THE SAID PERIOD IT WILL BE OUR ENDEAVOUR TO SERVE THE MEMBERS AND STUDENTS UNINTERRUPTED AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES WILL BE FUNCTIONAL, HOWEVER SOME INCONVENIENCES MAY BE CAUSED ON ACCOUNT OF SYSTEM STABILITY/ MOVEMEMNT / PLACEMENT OF RECORDS APPROPRIATELY. ALL STUDENTS AND MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO BEAR WITH US FOR THIS ONE TIME INCONVENIENCE."

Information Source

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Handbook on Service Tax VCES, 2013 by ICAI


As you are aware, the Indirect Taxes Committee of ICAI had organised a live webcast on Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encourage Scheme, 2013 on 16th December, 2013, the recording of which is available at http://icaitv.com/?p=5073 and http://icaitv.com/?p=5130. The Committee has also published e-newsletter on Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encourage Scheme, 2013 which was inaugurated by Hon'ble Finance Minister during the said webcast. The same can be downloaded from http://220.227.161.86/31643idtc21782.pdf 

Further, the Committee, continuing with its efforts to update the members and also to partner the Government in its initiative, has come out with Handbook on Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encourage Scheme, 2013. The Handbook has been hosted on Indirect Taxes Committee page of ICAI website and can be downloaded from http://220.227.161.86/31675idtc-STVCES-2013.pdf.

We once again request you all to give wide publicity of the Scheme and complement the efforts of the Government by sensitizing the assessees and the various service providers with the benefits of the Scheme.

Let us join hands and work together to make the Scheme successful.

Sincerely Yours

CA. Sanjay Agarwal
Chairman
Indirect Taxes Committee

Source- ICAI
 
 
 
 
 

Online Registration Portal for GMCS, ITT and Orientation Programme on All India Basis


 
We are happy to announce that the Board of Studies and IT Directorate has developed an Online Registration Portal for GMCS, ITT and Orientation Programs on All India Basis for Registration/ Allocation of Batches for GMCS, ITT and Orientation Programs to facilitate the students to register from anywhere for any centre. However, in the First Phase "Faculty Module" of online registration portal is launched on 20th December, 2013:

The key features of this module are as under:-

  • Online registration facility of existing as well as new faculties for ITT, OP & GMCS courses at POU.
  • Creation of user name and password for faculty login ids.
  • Edit / Modify facility for faculty to register themselves for specific topic/subject/Course.
  • Indication of Approval / Disapproval of faculty by concerned POUs.
  • Data of faculty registered through online Portal.

We are attaching the "USER MANUAL" for faculty registration which would help you to understand the process of faculty login ids, registration, modification etc. Only those members would be allowed to take sessions who are registered through Online Portal. Kindly register through the following link.

Link:                www.icaionlineregistration.org

For any query related to faculty registration/online portal, member can send their mail to CA. Atul Gupta, Central Council Member & Member BOS atul@servicetax.net ,9810103611/ ranjit.sarmah@icai.in, mannadey@icai.in and mitali.khosla@icai.in with a copy to Director, BOS at vijaykapur@icai.in and Head, IT Directorate at indu@icai.in.

With Best Regards,

Yours Sincerely,

(CA. Vijay Garg)
Chairman, Board of Studies

Source- ICAI

 

List Of Closed And Restricted Holidays For The ITAT In 2014

Dear Subscriber,

List Of Closed And Restricted Holidays For The ITAT In 2014

The Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal has released a list of closed and restricted holidays for the Tribunal. 


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

DCIT vs. Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

Severe strictures passed on the AO for acts of "malfeasance by pleading apparent ignorance and acting in subterfuge and an underhand manner". CBDT requested to train officers properly to avoid them taking the law into their own hands with complete impunity and disregard for the law


Section 153A: High Court Explains Importance Of Search Warrant And Panchnama In Search Assessments

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 132: Copy of search warrant should be given to the searched person. Defects in the panchnama do not invalidate the search or the s. 153A assessment proceedings

A search u/s 132 was conducted on the premises of the assessee and its group concerns. Though a panchnama was prepared, the assessee's name did not appear therein. An assessment order u/s 153A was passed to assess the alleged undisclosed income. The assessee claimed that as s. 153B imposed a limitation for passing of a s. 153A order by reference to the last panchnama drawn in relation to the searched person, the absence of the assessee's name in the panchnama meant that the s. 153A assessment order could not be passed. A Writ Petition was filed to challenge the assessment. HELD by the High Court dismissing the Petition:

S. 153A(1) does not make any reference to panchnama or the date of panchnama. A panchnama is not a pre-condition for invoking s. 153A. As regards the argument that the time limit u/s 153B is calculated with reference to the date of the last panchnama, a panchnama was drawn up on the occasion of the search and it referred to documents belonging to the assessee though it did not refer to the assessee by name. The panchnama also does not refer to the conclusion of the search. The non-reference to the name of the assessee and the suspension/ conclusion of the search is a lapse and failure to comply with the requirements of the search and seizure manual. However, this does not affect the validity of the search or the assessment order u/s 153A. The department should take remedial steps and ensure that such lapses do not occur in future. Also, the department should give a copy of the search warrant to the person searched so as to curtail allegations of interpolation, addition of names etc



Transfer Pricing: CBDT Issues Important Directives On Safe Harbour Rules

Dear Subscriber,

Transfer Pricing: CBDT Issues Important Directives On Safe Harbour Rules

Pursuant to the Safe Harbour Rules in Rules 10TA to 10TG, the CBDT has issued a letter dated 20.12.2013 in which it has laid down important directives and clarifications on the manner in which the Safe Harbour Rules are meant to be implemented. The directives and clarifications are as follows:

(i) AOs should carefully verify and provide to the CBDT in writing the details of all Form 3CEFA received by them relating to Safe Harbour Options;

(ii) There should be no confusion between Safe Harbour Option filed in paper format in Form 3CEFA and the Form 3CEB (detailing international transactions) which is filed electronically. The AO has to examine the form and decide within 2 months of the end of the month in which the option is filed as to whether to accept the Safe Harbour option or to make a reference to the TPO. If no action is action, the Safe Harbour option will be considered as having been accepted and it will remain valid for 5 years;

(iii) If there are minor defects in Form 3CEFA, the AO has to provide an opportunity to the taxpayer to rectify the same. However, the statutory time limit of 2 months provided in Rule 10TE (14)(i) cannot be exceeded;

(iv) The AO has to verify the eligibility of the assessee and the international transactions. Under Rule 10TF, the Safe Harbour Rules will not apply to a country notified in s. 94A (e.g. Cyprus);

(v) If the taxpayer has opted for Safe Harbour but has reported rates or margins less than the Safe Harbour rates or margins, the income has to be computed on the basis of the Safe Harbour rates or margins;

(vi) The Safe Harbour rates or margins are not a benchmark for cases not covered by the Safe Harbour Rules. In such cases, a regular transfer pricing audit should be carried out without regard to the Safe Harbour rates or margins.


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 132: Copy of search warrant should be given to the searched person. Defects in the panchnama do not invalidate the search or the s. 153A assessment proceedings


Tuesday, December 24, 2013

ITR VOL 359 PART 4


INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)--PRINT AND ONLINE EDITION

ONLINE EDITION

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED

HIGH COURTS

Penalty --Concealment of income--Claim for deduction rejected--Tribunal finding that there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income--Penalty could not be imposed--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- CIT v. Dabwali Transport Co. (P&H) . . . 577

Reassessment --Notice after four years--Reasons based on verification of material already on record during original assessment--No allegation that there was any failure on part of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts--Notice not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Patel Alloy Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (OSD) (Guj) . . . 580

 

PRINT EDITION

ITR Volume 359 : Part 4 (Issue dated : 23-12-2013)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

HIGH COURTS

Appeal to High Court --Powers of court--Findings of fact--When can be disturbed--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 260A-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

Assessment --Notice under section 143(2)--Limitation--Service of notice impossible on last day of limitation--Service of notice on the very next day--Not barred by limitation--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 143-- Gujarat State Plastic Manufacturers Association v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemption) (Guj) . . . 516

----Notice under section 143(2)--Service of notice--Expressions â€Å“service†and â€Å“issue†are interchangeable--Issue of notice within prescribed period--Notice valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 143(2)-- V. R. A. Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. Union of India (P&H) . . . 495

Authority for Advance Rulings --Jurisdiction--Authority admitting application for purposes of giving ruling--Cannot at final hearing refuse to give a ruling on ground of suspicion that an illegality had taken place--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 245R(2)-- Mahindra BT Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) (Bom) . . . 485

Business expenditure --Bad debts--Amounts incurred by assessee for wholly owned subsidiary companies--Business nexus between assessee and subsidiary companies--Amount written off as bad debts--Allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 1 ) (Mad) . . . 612

----Buyer̢۪s commission--Genuineness of payment made to agent established--Commission deductible--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v. E. Ramachandran (Mad) . . . 671

----Disallowance--Assessee by availing of service benefits from group resource company, availing of valuable benefit, for its business operations--Payment of licence fee towards its share of actual expenses incurred by group company--Legal expenses--Retainer fee--Allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 2 ) (Mad) . . . 630

----Licence fee--Deductible--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

Business income --Development of property--Agreement providing for allotment of specified car parking spaces to assessee and provision of air-conditioning equipment free of cost by developer--Car parking spaces not included in sanctioned built-up area and not included in saleable area--No sale or transfer of car parking spaces to assessee--Assessee allowed to park cars in open space against refundable security deposits--Notional value of benefits towards allotment of car parking spaces--Not income--Developer failing to provide air-conditioning equipment free of cost till transfer of property to assessee--Notional addition on account of provision of air-conditioning does not arise--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

Capital gains --Computation--Cost of improvement--No obligation on assessee to settle claim of tenants for getting vacant possession--Compensation paid to tenants for delivering vacant possession--Not transfer of development rights but cost of improvement--Entitled to indexation benefit--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 48(ii)-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

Capital or revenue receipt --Non-compete fee--Assessee selling profitable running retail business to a new company--Restrictive covenant prohibiting assessee from carrying on competing business in retail--Amount received as non-compete fee--Capital receipt--Not taxable--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 1 ) (Mad) . . . 612

----Non-compete fee--Restrictive covenant--Tribunal finding amount received for intangible assets under a separate agreement constituted non-compete fee not containing any element of goodwill--Capital receipt--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Real Image Pvt. Ltd. (Mad) . . . 606

Cash credits --Scope of section 68--Meaning of â€Å“any sum†--No explanation regarding particular amount--Addition of sum in excess of such particular amount--Not permissible under section 68--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 68-- D. C. Rastogi v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 513

Dividend --Deemed dividend--Loan to shareholder having voting power exceeding 10 per cent.--Assessee claiming that shares settled upon trust--Trust deed created on a stamp paper four years before date of search and duly notarised--No inquiry with notary public to establish non-genuineness of trust deed--Finding of Tribunal that trust was genuine and assessee did not hold beneficial interest in company exceeding 10 per cent.--Finding of fact not perverse--No question of law--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 2(22)(e)-- CIT v. Krupeshbhai N. Patel (Guj) . . . 504

Interest on borrowed capital --Investment in shares utilising borrowed capital for strategic business purposes--Companies promoted as special purpose companies to strengthen and promote assessee̢۪s existing business by combining different business segments--Interest allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 36(1)(iii)-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

Loss --Loss on account of sale of shares--Assessee producing copies of bills, contract notes, receipts for sale consideration and share particulars--Tribunal finding transaction genuine and loss occurred in course of business--Loss allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

Penalty --Concealment of income--General principles--Addition to income agreed to by assessee--Not a proof of concealment of income--Concealment discovered in appellate proceedings--Penalty proceedings should be initiated by appellate authority--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Karn) . . . 565

----Concealment of income--Search and seizure--Expenses on renovation of residence--Assessee admitting expenses out of business income but expenses not reflected in books of account--Immunity from penalty--Scope of clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--Sufficient if disclosure is made and tax is paid before completion of assessment--Assessee need not specify manner in which income was earned--Tribunal deleting penalty justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c), Expln. 5(2) -- CIT v. Sidh Nath Goel (All) . . . 481

----Concealment of income--Search and seizure--Immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--Scope of clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--No return filed under section 153A--Amount surrendered in revised return-- Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) not applicable--Imposition of penalty--Valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 153A, 271(1)(c)-- Shourya Towers P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 523

Precedent --Effect of decision of Supreme Court in Mohd. Ayub v. State of U. P. [2009] 17 SCC 70-- Gujarat State Plastic Manufacturers Association v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemption) (Guj) . . . 516

Recovery of tax --Garnishee proceedings--Assessee must be given opportunity to be heard--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Amul Research and Development Association v. ITO (Guj) . . . 549

----Reduction of period for payment of tax--Condition precedent--Reason to believe grant of full period would be detrimental to Revenue and prior permission of Joint Commissioner--Budget deficit of Income-tax Department--Not a ground for reduction of period--Prior permission of Joint Commissioner not obtained--Order of reduction of period--Not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 220-- Amul Research and Development Association v. ITO (Guj) . . . 549

Search and seizure --Block assessment--Generally--No requirement that every seized document should be corroborated--Seized documents can be in any form including loose papers on which notings made--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 158BC-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

----Block assessment--Validity--Appellate Tribunal--Procedural lapses on part of Assessing Officer while making assessment--Proper course not to invalidate assessment or delete additions but to remand assessment to Assessing Officer--Document pertaining to firm recovered from possession of partner--Merely because partners not examined at time of assessment, reliance on documents for making additions not precluded--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 158BC-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

----Block assessment--Validity--No warrant in name of assessee--Block assessment not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 158BC-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

----Presumption as to seized documents--Available for purpose of block assessment--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 292C-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

Writ --Existence of alternative remedy--Appeal preferred by assessee--Not a bar for issue of writ--Constitution of India, art. 226-- Amul Research and Development Association v. ITO (Guj) . . . 549

 

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Constitution of India :

Art. 226 --Writ--Existence of alternative remedy--Appeal preferred by assessee--Not a bar for issue of writ-- Amul Research and Development Association v. ITO (Guj) . . . 549

Income-tax Act, 1961 :

S. 2(22)(e) --Dividend--Deemed dividend--Loan to shareholder having voting power exceeding 10 per cent.--Assessee claiming that shares settled upon trust--Trust deed created on a stamp paper four years before date of search and duly notarised--No inquiry with notary public to establish non-genuineness of trust deed--Finding of Tribunal that trust was genuine and assessee did not hold beneficial interest in company exceeding 10 per cent.--Finding of fact not perverse--No question of law-- CIT v. Krupeshbhai N. Patel (Guj) . . . 504

S. 36(1)(iii) --Interest on borrowed capital--Investment in shares utilising borrowed capital for strategic business purposes--Companies promoted as special purpose companies to strengthen and promote assessee̢۪s existing business by combining different business segments--Interest allowable-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

S. 37 --Business expenditure--Bad debts--Amounts incurred by assessee for wholly owned subsidiary companies--Business nexus between assessee and subsidiary companies--Amount written off as bad debts--Allowable-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 1 ) (Mad) . . . 612

----Business expenditure--Buyer̢۪s commission--Genuineness of payment made to agent established--Commission deductible-- CIT v. E. Ramachandran (Mad) . . . 671

----Business expenditure--Disallowance--Assessee by availing of service benefits from group resource company, availing of valuable benefit, for its business operations--Payment of licence fee towards its share of actual expenses incurred by group company--Legal expenses--Retainer fee--Allowable-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 2 ) (Mad) . . . 630

----Business expenditure--Licence fee--Deductible-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

S. 48(ii) --Capital gains--Computation--Cost of improvement--No obligation on assessee to settle claim of tenants for getting vacant possession--Compensation paid to tenants for delivering vacant possession--Not transfer of development rights but cost of improvement--Entitled to indexation benefit-- CIT v. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (No. 3 ) (Mad) . . . 644

S. 68 --Cash credits--Scope of section 68--Meaning of â€Å“any sum†--No explanation regarding particular amount--Addition of sum in excess of such particular amount--Not permissible under section 68-- D. C. Rastogi v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 513

S. 132 --Penalty--Concealment of income--Search and seizure--Immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--Scope of clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--No return filed under section 153A--Amount surrendered in revised return-- Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) not applicable--Imposition of penalty--Valid-- Shourya Towers P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 523

----Search and seizure--Block assessment--Generally--No requirement that every seized document should be corroborated--Seized documents can be in any form including loose papers on which notings made-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

----Search and seizure--Block assessment--Validity--Appellate Tribunal--Procedural lapses on part of Assessing Officer while making assessment--Proper course not to invalidate assessment or delete additions but to remand assessment to Assessing Officer--Document pertaining to firm recovered from possession of partner--Merely because partners not examined at time of assessment, reliance on documents for making additions not precluded-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

----Search and seizure--Block assessment--Validity--No warrant in name of assessee--Block assessment not valid-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

S. 143 --Assessment--Notice under section 143(2)--Limitation--Service of notice impossible on last day of limitation--Service of notice on the very next day--Not barred by limitation-- Gujarat State Plastic Manufacturers Association v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemption) (Guj) . . . 516

S. 143(2) --Assessment--Notice under section 143(2)--Service of notice--Expressions â€Å“service†and â€Å“issue†are interchangeable--Issue of notice within prescribed period--Notice valid-- V. R. A. Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. Union of India (P&H) . . . 495

S. 153A --Penalty--Concealment of income--Search and seizure--Immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--Scope of clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--No return filed under section 153A--Amount surrendered in revised return-- Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) not applicable--Imposition of penalty--Valid-- Shourya Towers P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 523

S. 158BC --Search and seizure--Block assessment--Generally--No requirement that every seized document should be corroborated--Seized documents can be in any form including loose papers on which notings made-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

----Search and seizure--Block assessment--Validity--Appellate Tribunal--Procedural lapses on part of Assessing Officer while making assessment--Proper course not to invalidate assessment or delete additions but to remand assessment to Assessing Officer--Document pertaining to firm recovered from possession of partner--Merely because partners not examined at time of assessment, reliance on documents for making additions not precluded-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

----Search and seizure--Block assessment--Validity--No warrant in name of assessee--Block assessment not valid-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

S. 220 --Recovery of tax--Reduction of period for payment of tax--Condition precedent--Reason to believe grant of full period would be detrimental to Revenue and prior permission of Joint Commissioner--Budget deficit of Income-tax Department--Not a ground for reduction of period--Prior permission of Joint Commissioner not obtained--Order of reduction of period--Not valid-- Amul Research and Development Association v. ITO (Guj) . . . 549

S. 245R(2) --Authority for Advance Rulings--Jurisdiction--Authority admitting application for purposes of giving ruling--Cannot at final hearing refuse to give a ruling on ground of suspicion that an illegality had taken place-- Mahindra BT Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) (Bom) . . . 485

S. 260A --Appeal to High Court--Powers of court--Findings of fact--When can be disturbed-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Concealment of income--General principles--Addition to income agreed to by assessee--Not a proof of concealment of income--Concealment discovered in appellate proceedings--Penalty proceedings should be initiated by appellate authority-- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Karn) . . . 565

----Penalty--Concealment of income--Search and seizure--Immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--Scope of clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--No return filed under section 153A--Amount surrendered in revised return-- Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) not applicable--Imposition of penalty--Valid-- Shourya Towers P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 523

S. 271(1)(c), Expln. 5(2) --Penalty--Concealment of income--Search and seizure--Expenses on renovation of residence--Assessee admitting expenses out of business income but expenses not reflected in books of account--Immunity from penalty--Scope of clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)--Sufficient if disclosure is made and tax is paid before completion of assessment--Assessee need not specify manner in which income was earned--Tribunal deleting penalty justified-- CIT v. Sidh Nath Goel (All) . . . 481

S. 292C --Search and seizure--Presumption as to seized documents--Available for purpose of block assessment-- CIT v. Sonal Constructions (Delhi) . . . 532

 

 

Monday, December 23, 2013

ITAT Passes Severe Strictures On AO For Malfeasance And Subterfuge

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

DCIT vs. Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

Severe strictures passed on the AO for acts of "malfeasance by pleading apparent ignorance and acting in subterfuge and an underhand manner". CBDT requested to train officers properly to avoid them taking the law into their own hands with complete impunity and disregard for the law

The AO made a transfer pricing adjustment for the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee and raised a demand of Rs. 210 crore. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and a stay application. The Tribunal granted a stay on recovery of the demand on the condition that the assessee would not seek an adjournment of the hearing. When the matter came up for hearing, the assessee pointed out that a similar issue was pending before the Special Bench (now decided as L. G. Electronics 152 TTJ 273) and so the Bench adjourned the appeal to await the judgement of the Special Bench. The AO took the view that the assessee had sought an adjournment and violated the stay order and so he attached the bank account u/s 226(3) and recovered some part of the demand. The assessee filed an application before the Tribunal and claimed that it had not sought an adjournment and that the AO had acted in defiance of the stay order and should be directed to vacate the attachment and refund the moneys recovered. The Tribunal accepted the plea that the assessee had not sought an adjournment and directed the AO to refund the sums collected (order attached). The AO filed a MA against the order and also a Writ Petition before the High Court. In the Writ Petition, the AO did not disclose the fact that the MA had been filed. The High Court granted an interim stay (now finally decided) against the Tribunal's order directing refund. During the pendency of the Writ petition, the AO argued in the MA that the recovery of the demand was justified and that as the appeal was "in the process of final hearing", "judicial propriety demanded that the interim order directing a refund should not have been passed". HELD by the Tribunal dismissing the MA:

(i) "It alarms us that unfortunately with complete impunity and disregard of the factual position, the AO repeatedly makes apparently naive misplaced, mis-guiding and factually incorrect assertions that the Tribunal was in the process of final hearing of the appeal". These assertions indicate either a gross ignorance or ineptitude of the Department or a deliberately calculated belief that even misstatement of facts before the Tribunal could be accepted as gospel truth on a mere assertions of the government officers. Both or either of these situations are equally dangerous and fraught of dangers as vast powers have been given by the Act to the AO in order to exercise its powers and discharge the functions under the Income Tax Act;

(ii) An AO cannot claim to be in constant and perpetual ignorance nor can the officers under whom she was functioning themselves feign ignorance of this actual factual position on the issue where on the grounds of judicial propriety the Department was constantly seeking adjournments in almost all stay granted appeals on the said issue over the years;

(iii) Being ignorant of relevant facts shows a pattern which needs to be considered before such laxity becomes endemic and plays havoc with "the interest of the revenue" which the AO most vociferously seeks to uphold;

(iv) The actions of the AO, which earlier appeared to be wrongful acts of misfeasance by a public official were actually serious acts of malfeasance. In our adversarial system, one or the other side will probably be lying, if only to exaggerate their position and hence perjury is likely to be far more common place then we would choose to admit. In either case and especially in the case of the Revenue, apparently when swearing falsely or referring to wrong facts, the concerned officers may be under the belief that he or she is doing so in a good cause that is "protecting the interest of revenue." Judges and judicial authorities are not so unrealistic that they do not recognize that a substantive portion of the population displays a lack of respect for or otherwise merely pays lip service on oath to tell the truth. But unlike in the Courts having "lay litigants", the litigants in tax matters are invariably of a class which recognize the solemnity of the occasion and understand the consequences of swearing to an affidavit or affirmation as a serious act outside the course of their everyday lives and it is hoped that the deponents understand the sanction for breach of such oath and the seriousness with which such a breach will be normally regarded by adjudicating authorities. In the present case, the acts of malfeasance by pleading apparent ignorance or acting in a subterfuge and underhand manner in apparently trying to achieve their objectives and targets of higher tax collection are required to be understood and addressed by the appropriate authorities;

(v) The CBDT is requested to ensure that proper legal knowledge and training is imparted to the officers addressing the appropriate interpretation of orders of higher forums and instead of resorting to underhand manner in achieving the targets set. Such an exercise will go a long way in addressing identical situations where the AO may be tempted to take matters in his or her own hands with complete impunity and disregard for the laws of the land.

For more such unfortunate incidents of conflict between the Bench and the department see Lala Harbhagwan Das (ITAT Del) & Simoni Gems (ITAT Mum)

(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Li And Fung India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Transfer Pricing: TNMM under Rule 10B(1)(e) contemplates ALP determination with reference to the relevant factors (cost, assets, sales etc.) of the assessee and not those of the AE or third party. Assessee's study report cannot be discarded without showing how it is wrong. Finding that assessee is a risk bearing entity should be based on tangible material


Section 2(22)(e): Inter-corporate Deposits Are Not Taxable As Deemed Dividend

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

IFB Agro Industries Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

S. 2(22)(e): Inter-corporate deposits ("ICDs") are not "loans and advances" and are not assessable to tax as "deemed dividend"

The assessee received an inter-corporate deposit of Rs.11.20 cr from IFB Automotive Pvt. Ltd, a company in which it held 18% of the shares. The AO and CIT(A) held that the said ICD constituted "loans and advances" and was assessable as "deemed dividend" in the assessee's hands u/s 2(22)(e). On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:

S. 2(22)(e) refers to 'loans' and 'advances' and does not refer to a 'deposit'. The fact that the term 'deposit' does not mean a 'loan' and that the two terms are two different & distinct terms is evident from the Explanation to S. 269T and S. 269SS of the Act where both the terms are used. Further, the second proviso to S. 269SS recognises the term 'loan' taken or 'deposit' accepted. Once it is accepted that the terms 'loan' and 'deposit' are two distinct terms which have distinct meaning then if only the term 'loan' is used in a particular section the 'deposit' received by an assessee cannot be treated as a 'loan' for that section. The Companies Act, 1956 also makes a distinction between a "loan" and a "deposit" in s. 58A, 269 & 370. The distinction between a "loan" and a "deposit" is that in the case of a "loan", the needy person approaches the lender for obtaining the loan. The loan is lent at the terms stated by the lender. In the case of a "deposit", the depositor goes to the depositee for investing his money primarily with the intention of earning interest. Also, s. 2(22)(e) enacts a deeming fiction and cannot be given a wider meaning than what it purports to cover. It has to be interpreted strictly. Thus, the view of the AO & CIT(A) that an Inter-corporate deposit is similar to a loan is not correct (Gujarat Gas & Financial Services 115 ITD 218 (Ahd)(SB), Housing & Urban Development Corp 102 TTJ (Del)(SB) 936 & Bombay Oil Industries 28 SOT 383 (Bom) followed)

Note: In DCIT vs. P.C. Chandra Holdings (Kol) (attached) it was held that the fact that the "deposit" is shown as a "loan" in the books is not relevant

(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

List Of Closed And Restricted Holidays For The ITAT In 2014



Law Ministry Takes Stern View Of Defective Filings By Profesionals


Dear Subscriber,

Law Ministry Takes Stern View Of Defective Filings By Professionals

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has addressed a letter dated 19.12.2013 to all the professional bodies stating that the Ministry has taken serious view of the pendency of eforms in various offices of the MCA in South East Region caused due to defective filings by the certifying professionals (CA / CS / CMA).

The Ministry has pointed out that complete attachments are not being made or several attachments to eforms are found to be not legible and some times contain cut & paste signatures instead of clear scanned image of original documents. It is also stated that certifying professionals are not attaching the search report(s) to the application form for name availability before certifying the name availability in eform 1A.

It is emphasized that all these defects amount to non-compliance and defective/wrong filings (which are wrongly certified by the professionals) is causing high levels of pendency.

The Ministry has asked professionals to ensure that the filing of all forms is defect free and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rules/Regulations/guidelines/Circulars, as applicable.

A warning has been given that defaulting professionals can be debarred from submitting any document on MCA21 and necessary action can be taken against them under the Companies Act, 1956 for making wrong filings/ submissions in MCA21 portal.


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

IFB Agro Industries Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

S. 2(22)(e): Inter-corporate deposits ("ICDs") are not "loans and advances" and are not assessable to tax as "deemed dividend"


Saturday, December 21, 2013

Maharashtra Co-operative Rules:- MCS Rules, 2013 issued





Dear All,

The draft Maharashtra Cooperative Society Rules , 2013 are available at following links. 
The suggestion and objection need to be given by 31.12.2013.

Draft Audit Report N-1 and N-2 is also given the Rules.








Transfer Pricing: High Court Clarifies Important Aspects Of The Law

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

Li And Fung India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Transfer Pricing: TNMM under Rule 10B(1)(e) contemplates ALP determination with reference to the relevant factors (cost, assets, sales etc.) of the assessee and not those of the AE or third party. Assessee's study report cannot be discarded without showing how it is wrong. Finding that assessee is a risk bearing entity should be based on tangible material

The assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary in India of Li & Fung (South Asia) Ltd., Mauritius, was set up as a captive offshore sourcing provider. It entered into an agreement with Li & Fung (Trading), Hong Kong, an associated enterprise, for rendering "sourcing support services" for the supply of high volume & time sensitive consumer goods. The assessee was entitled to receive cost plus a mark up of 5% for the services rendered to the AE. The assessee claimed that it was a low risk captive sourcing service provider performing limited functions with minimal risk. It adopted the TNMM and computed the PLI at operating profit margin/total cost. Since the operating profit margin at 5.17% exceeded the weighted average operating margin of 26 other comparable companies, the assessee claimed that its remuneration was at arms' length. The TPO did not dispute the TNMM or the comparables but held that the assessee ought to have received 5% on the FOB value of the goods sourced through the assessee (i.e. the exports made by the Indian manufacturers to overseas third party customers). He also held that the assessee was a risk bearing entity and an independent entrepreneur and it could not be said that the assessee is a risk-free entity. The DRP upheld the TPO's order though it reduced the mark up to 3% of FOB value of exports. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal (143 TTJ 201) upheld the stand of the TPO. On further appeal by the assessee HELD by the High Court reversing the Tribunal:

(i) The assessee's compensation model is based on functions performed by it and the operating costs incurred by it and not on the cost of goods sourced from third party vendors in India. Allotting a margin of the value of goods sourced by third party customers from Indian exporters/vendors to compute the assessee's profit is unjustified. To apply the TNMM, the assessee's net profit margin realized from international transactions had to be calculated only with reference to cost incurred by it, and not by any other entity, either third party vendors or the AE. Rule 10B(1)(e) does not enable consideration or imputation of cost incurred by third parties or unrelated enterprises to compute the assessee's net profit margin for application of the TNMM. Rule 10B(1)(e) contemplates a determination of ALP with reference to the relevant factors (cost, assets, sales etc.) of the enterprise in question, i.e. the assessee, as opposed to the AE or any third party. The approach of the TPO in essence imputes notional adjustment/income in the assessee's hands on the basis of a fixed percentage of the FOB value of export made by unrelated party venders;

(ii) The finding that the assessee assumed substantial risk is not based on any material. The assessee made no investment in the plant, inventory, working capital, etc., nor did it bear the enterprise risk for manufacture and export of garments. It merely rendered support services in relation to the exports which were manufactured independently. Thus, attributing the costs of such third party manufacture when the assessee did not engage in that activity and when those costs were clearly not the assessee's costs, but those of third parties, is clearly impermissible. A contrary conclusion would amount to treating the assessee as the vendor/ exporters' partner in their manufacturing business – a completely unwarranted inference;

(iii) Tax authorities should base their conclusions that the assessee bears "significant" risks on specific facts, and not on vague generalities, such as "significant risk", "functional risk", "enterprise risk" etc. without any material on record to establish such findings. If such findings are warranted, they should be supported by demonstrable reason, based on objective facts and the relative evaluation of their weight and significance;

(iv) Also, as the TPO did not discard the exercise conducted by the assessee of comparing its operating profit margin with that of the comparable companies, and it was not shown that the profit margin and cost plus model adopted by the assessee was distorted, he could not have proceeded to his own determination and calculations. The TPO must first reject the assessment carried out by the assessee before making further alterations. Where all elements of a proper TNMM are detailed and disclosed in the assessee's study reports, care should be taken by the tax administrators and authorities to analyze them in detail and then proceed to record reasons why some or all of them are unacceptable.


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

V. K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 153A/ 153C: Important principles of law relating to search assessments explained


Taxability Of Anonymous Donations Received By Charitable Trusts: ITAT Explains Law

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

Sunder Deep Educational Society vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 11: Law on taxability of voluntary donations as "anonymous donations" u/s 115BBC or as "cash credit" u/s 68 in hands of charitable trust explained

The assessee, a charitable institution, received donations of Rs. 3.55 crore. It maintained a record indicating the name and address of the donors. It claimed that the said donations had been applied for charitable purposes as per s. 11 and nothing was assessable. The AO conducted a test check by sending letters to the donors. To the extent of donations aggregating Rs. 1.96 crore, the letters came back undelivered or were not replied to. The AO held that as the confirmations were not received, the said donations were "anonymous donations" and assessable to tax u/s 115BBC. He held that alternatively, the said sum was assessable as a "cash credit" u/s 68 as the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the alleged donors was not proved. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the said donations could not be treated as "anonymous" u/s 115BBC though he upheld the AO's stand that the said sum was assessable as a "cash credit" u/s 68. On further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:

(i) S. 115BBC which assesses "anonymous donations" does not apply because the assessee has maintained a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making the contribution;

(ii) S. 68 seeks to assess cash credits as income. However, when the non-corpus voluntary donations are already disclosed as income and applied for charitable purposes, s. 68 has no application. The fact that the complete list of donors was not filed and the donors were not produced does not mean that the assessee was seeking to introduce unaccounted money into the trust;

(iii) U/s 12(1) voluntary donations received without a direction that they shall form part of the corpus are deemed to be income derived from property held for charitable purposes and have to be applied towards the objects of the trust to the extent of 85%. If that is done, the donations are not assessable as income (Keshav Social & Charitable Foundation 278 ITR 152 (Del) followed)


Section 260A: Supreme Court Explains Scope Of High Court's Powers

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. Mastek Limited (Supreme Court)

S. 260A(4): High Court has power to hear the appeal on questions not formulated at the stage of admission of the appeal

The department filed an appeal u/s 260A in the High Court in which it raised several questions. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed two substantial questions of law. The Department filed a SLP claiming that by necessary implication, the other questions raised in the memo of appeal before the High Court had been rejected. HELD by the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP:

The Revenue is under some misconception. The proviso following the main provision of Section 260A(4) of the Act states that nothing stated in sub-section (4), i.e., "The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated' shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question". The High Court's power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor.


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Sunder Deep Educational Society vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 11: Law on taxability of voluntary donations as "anonymous donations" u/s 115BBC or as "cash credit" u/s 68 in hands of charitable trust explained


Section 153A/ 153C: ITAT Explains Important Principles Of Search Assessments

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

V. K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 153A/ 153C: Important principles of law relating to search assessments explained

Pursuant to a search u/s 132 conducted on the premises of another person, the AO issued a notice u/s 153C upon the assessee and thereafter passed an assessment order. The assessee claimed that the said assessment was not valid on the ground that (a) no books of account of the assessee were found in the premises of the other person, (b) though the AO of the searched person & the assessee was the same it was not shown that the satisfaction was recorded in the course of the assessment of the searched party and not of the assessee, (c) as no assessment was pending on the date of search, the assessment could be made only for the incriminating material found in the search & (d) as the satisfaction was recorded on 23.7.2010 and the relevant AY was 2011-12, the AO could issue a notice u/s 153C only for six preceding AYs relevant to this AY (i.e. AY 2005-06 to 2010-11) and the notice issued for AY 2004-05 was barred by limitation. HELD by the Tribunal:

(a) & (b) the satisfaction u/s 153C has to be recorded by the AO of the searched person and not by the AO of the assessee. Even if the AO of both parties is the same, he has to go through the formality of separately recording satisfaction and the record has to show that satisfaction was recorded in the assessment of the searched party. Also s. 153C proceedings can be initiated only if books of account etc which are seized from the searched party belong to the assessee. A mere confirmation of account or a copy of the audited accounts or a copy of the return of income does not constitute "books of account" for purposes of s. 153C (DSL Properties (Del) & Therapeutic India (Del) followed);

(c) the scope of assessment u/s 153A & 153C depends on whether the original assessment proceedings are pending or concluded. If a s. 143(1) intimation is passed and the time limit for issue of a s. 143(2) notice has lapsed, the assessment is concluded. In such cases, the s. 153A/ 153C assessment has to be based only on incriminating material found in the search (All Cargo Global 137 ITD 287 (Mum)(SB), Pratibha Industries 141 ITD 151 (Mum) & Gurinder Singh Bawa followed);

(d) S. 153A/ 153C permits the AO to issue a notice for six AYs preceding the AY in which the search took place. As the satisfaction was recorded on 23.7.2010, the relevant AY was 2011-12 and the AO could issue a notice u/s 153C only for six preceding AYs relevant to this AY (i.e. AY 2005-06 to 2010-11). The notice issued for AY 2004-05 is barred by limitation.

For the entire law on s. 153A & 153C assessments see S. 132: A Practical Guide To The Law And Procedure Of Search And Seizure and S. 153A: The Law Of Search Assessments Explained & Scope of search assessments u/s 153A: The unending controversy


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CIT vs. Mastek Limited (Supreme Court)

S. 260A(4): High Court has power to hear the appeal on questions not formulated at the stage of admission of the appeal



Thursday, December 19, 2013

CBDT Circular on 40(a)(ia). CBDT Instruction:- allows 143(1) intimation of Refunds beyond time


CIRCULAR No 10/DV/2013 (Departmental View)

F. No. 279/Misc./M-61/2012-ITJ (Vol.-II)

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Direct Taxes

New Delhi, the December 16th 2013

Subject: Circular on Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961-reg.

It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there are conflicting interpretations by judicial authorities regarding the applicability of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') with regard to the amount not deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession".

2. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act reads as under:

" any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139…':

3. In the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT, it was held by Special Bench of ITAT, Vishakhapatnam, that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply only to the amount which remained payable at the end of the relevant financial year and could not be invoked to disallow the amount which had actually been paid during the previous year without deduction of tax at source. The order of the Special Bench has since been put under interim suspension by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

3.1 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI v. Crescent Exports Syndicate and Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Sikandarkhan N Tunvar respectively, have held that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would cover not only the amounts which are payable at the end of the previous year but also which are payable at any time during the year.

3.2 The Hon'ble High Courts have further held that the intention of the legislation was to disallow certain types of expense, subject to provisions of Chapter XVII-B, which are payable at any time during the year but no tax was deducted at source or if deducted was not paid within the stipulated time. There is no such condition that amount should remain payable at the end of the year.

3.3 The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vector Shipping Service (P) Ltd. has affirmed the decision of the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping that for disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, the amount should be payable and not which has been paid during the year. However, the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat and Calcutta High Courts (supra) were not brought to the attention of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

3.4 In the case of ACIT, Circle 4(2), Mumbai v. Rishti Stock and Shares Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 112/Mum/2012, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in its order dated 02-08-2013 has examined the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (supra) as regards to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and concluded that the same was an 'orbiter dicta' while the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat and Calcutta High Court (supra) were 'ratio decidendi'. The ITAT accordingly applied the view taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat and Calcutta High Court as ratio decidendi prevails over an orbiter dicta.

4. After careful examination of the issue, the Board is of the considered view that the provision of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act would cover not only the amounts which arc payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also amounts which are payable at any time during the year. The statutory provisions are amply clear and in the context of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act the term "payable" would include "amounts which are paid during the previous year".

5. Where any High Court decides an issue contrary to the 'Departmental View', the `Departmental View' thereon shall not be operative in the area falling in the jurisdiction of the relevant High Court. However, the CCIT concerned should immediately bring the judgement to the notice of the CTC. The CTC shall examine the said judgement on priority to decide as to whether filing of SLP to the Supreme Court will be adequate response for the time being or some legislative amendment is called for.

6. The above clarification may be brought to the notice of all officers.

(Priyanka Singh)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (ITJ)


The main reason behind the stand is that 

Dept got favour in following case 

Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping on S. 40(a)(ia) tds disallowance is not good law .HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/special-bench-verdict-in-merilyn-shipping-on-s-40aia-tds-disallowance-is-not-good-law-cit-vs-crescent-export-syndicate-calcutta-high-court.html








Instruction No. 18th/ 2013, dated the 17th of December, 2013

Subject: – Issue of Intimation under section 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond time-regarding.

Several instances have come to the notice of the Board Where due to certain technical or other reasons (which inter-alia included wrong migration of PAN and delayed release of returns by the Centralized Processing Cell to the jurisdictional authorities),intimation in refund cases could not be sent to the concerned assessees within the time-frame as prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). This has caused grievances as assessees are unable to get their legitimate refunds in accordance with provisions of Act, although the delay is not attributable to them.

2. The matter has been examined. Central Board of Direct Taxes, by virtue of power vested in it under section 119(2)(a) of the Act, hereby relaxes the time-frame prescribed in second proviso to sub-section(1) of section 143 of the Act in those cases where the return¬of-income was filed by the assessee in accordance with provisions of section 139/142(1) of the Act, but due to technical or other reasons not attributable to such assessees, the date of sending intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has lapsed before 01-04-2013. In such cases, Central Board of Direct Taxes directs that such returns shall be processed and intimation of processing of such returns shall be sent to the assessee concerned by the Assessing Officer in accordance with provisions of section 143 of the Act notwithstanding the time-limit prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (1) of that section.

3. The progress of disposal of such cases shall be monitored by the Addl./Joint CIT.

4. It its reiterated that this Instruction shall only apply to those cases where a valid return-of-income was filed as per provisions of the Act with refund claim, but the same remained peOing beyond the prescribed date due to reasons not attributable to the assessee. Further, this relaxation shall not be applicable to those cases where either Demand is shown as payable in the return-of-income or as a result of processing beyond the date as prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 143, Demand is determined As payable.

5. This should be immediately brought to the notice of all officers working in your region.

F.No. 225/196/2013-ITA.II

Yours faithfully,

(Rohit Garg)

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India