Pages

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Section 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance: CBDT Issues Circular To Clarify Stand

Dear Subscriber,

S. 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance: CBDT Issues Circular To Clarify Stand

The CBDT has issued a Circular No. 10/DV/2013 dated 15.12.2013 in which it has analyzed the controversy created by recent judgements on the question whether the term "payable" in s. 40(a)(ia) includes the amounts that have already been paid during the year or it refers only to the amounts outstanding as at the year end. It is noted that while the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB) and the Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping has taken the view that the disallowance in s. 40(a)(ia) does not apply to amounts that are already paid, a contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Crescent Export Syndicate/ Md. Jakir Hossain Mondal and the Gujarat High Court in Sikandarkhan Tunvar.

The CBDT has expressed the view that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) would apply even to the amounts that have already been paid during the year. It is also clarified that if the High Court takes a view contrary to that taken by the CBDT, the CBDT's view would not apply in that jurisdiction though steps should be taken to decide whether a SLP should be filed or legislative amendments made.


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

CAG Exposes Defects In Law And Procedure Of Taxation Of Charitable Trusts


Monday, December 16, 2013

CBDT Orders Extending Due Date For Advance-tax Payment + Work Allocation Of Top Brass

Dear Subscriber,

CBDT Order U/s 119 Extending Due Date For Paying Advance-tax

The CBDT has issued an Order dated 13.12.2013 under section 119(2)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 extending the last date of payment of the December Quarter Instalment of Advance Tax for the financial year 2013-14 from 15th December 2013 to 17th December 2013 for all the assessees, Corporate and other than Corporates.

CBDT Office Orders Reg Work Distribution Amongst Top Level IRS Officials

The CBDT has issued Office Orders dated 06.12.2013, 10.12.2013 and 13.12.2013 specifying particulars of the work allocated amongst the high-level officials such as the Joint Secretary (FT&TR-I), Joint Secretary (FT&TR-II), Director (FT&TR-I), Director (FT&TR-II), Director (APA) etc. 


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

DCIT vs. Allied Investments Housing P. Ltd (ITAT Chennai)

S. 14A & Rule 8D: Onus is on AO to show how assessee's claim is incorrect. AO has to show direct nexus between expenditure & exempt income. Disallowance cannot be made on presumptions


Section 41(1): Unclaimed Liability Assessable As Income Despite No Write-Back In A/cs: ITAT Mumbai

Dear Subscriber,

 

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

ITO vs. Shailesh D. Shah/ Yusuf R Tanwar vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 41(1): Liability outstanding for long period of time is assessable as income (despite no write-back in A/cs) if assessee is unable to prove genuineness of liability

The assessee, engaged in the business of civil construction and labour contractor, had an amount of Rs. 86.25 lakhs shown as outstanding labour charges in his balance sheet that had remained unpaid for more than three years. The AO held that the fact that the amount was outstanding for so many years was abnormal. As the assessee was unable to give the addresses and labour bills of the labourers, he held that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the liability and that it had ceased to exist. He therefore assessed the said sum as income u/s 41(1). On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that the fact that the amount was outstanding for a long period and that the assessee was unable to furnish confirmations did not mean that there was a remission or cessation of liability during the assessment year so as to attract s. 41(1). On appeal by the department to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:

It is very improbable that payments to labour can remain outstanding for more than three years. The assessee has not been able to produce the records relating to the name, addresses and bills of the labour etc to prove that the liability continues to exist. It is accordingly a case of cessation of liability. The assessee has just continued the entry of the same in his books of account without any intention to pay back the same. The view that such sums shown as liability is assessable to tax is sanctioned by Chipsoft Technology 210 Taxman 173 (Del) (attached) where the view was taken that it would be illogical to say that a debtor or an employer, holding on to unpaid dues, should be given the benefit of his showing the amount as a liability, even though he would be entitled in law to say that a claim for its recovery is time barred, and continue to enjoy the amount. This view is not contrary to the view taken in Vardhaman Overseas Ltd 343 ITR 408 (Del) where the law was laid down that s. 41(1) does not apply if the amount of liability is not written back in the accounts. If both judgements are read in harmony, it can be observed that the assessee cannot be allowed to show an amount as a liability even though he has no intention to pay it back but to enjoy the same for an unlimited period without being added to his income only on the excuse that he has not written off the same in his books of accounts. However, if the facts of the case establish that the liability has been genuinely shown by the assessee and his subsequent conduct shows that he has paid back the said credits and his intention was not to enjoy the amount for unlimited period without any intention to pay back the same, then it cannot be said to be a case of cessation of liability. On facts, not only is the existence of outstanding liability of labour charges for so many years improbable in the normal course of business but the assessee has also failed to give any evidence regarding the identity & genuineness of the creditors. Accordingly it is a case of cessation of liability and s. 41(1) applies (Yusuf R. Tanwar vs. ITO followed (attached)).

Note: The view in Chipsoft Technology that an outstanding liability can be assessed as income u/s 41(1) is contrary to Vardhaman Overseas Ltd where it was held (after considering Sugauli Sugar Works 236 ITR 518 (SC)) that s. 41(1) does not apply in the absence of a write-back of the liability (one of the judges (Easwar J.) is common). Also, the view taken in Chipsoft is contrary (as noted in that judgement itself) to the law laid down in J.K. Chemicals Ltd 62 ITR 34 (Bom), Sadabhakti Prakashan 125 ITR 326 (Bom), etc, that the mere fact that an amount is outstanding for a long time does not mean that there is a remission or cessation of liability. Also, it is not clear how the amount is assessable in the present AY given that there is no event of the year.

(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

CBDT Order U/s 119 Extending Due Date For Paying Advance-tax


Saturday, December 14, 2013

Section14A + Rule 8D Disallowance For Investments Made Out Of Commercial Expediency

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

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

CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 14A & Rule 8D: Expenditure on acquiring shares out of "commercial expediency" & to earn taxable income cannot be disallowed

The assessee borrowed funds and invested Rs 6 crore in shares of subsidiary companies. It claimed that the said subsidiaries were Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) formed out of "commercial expediency" in order to obtain contracts from the NHAI and that the SPVs so formed engaged the assessee as contractor to execute the works awarded to them (i.e. SPVs) by the NHAI. It was pointed that the turnover from the execution of the contracts was shown in the P&L A/c. It was claimed that the interest attributable to the investments made by the assessee in the SPVs could not be disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D because it could not be termed as expense /interest incurred for earning exempted income. The CIT(A) and Tribunal (order attached) upheld that assessee's claim and held that as the investments in the shares were made out of "commercial expediency" the expenditure incurred for that purpose could not be disallowed u/s 14A and Rule 8D. On appeal by the department to the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:

This is merely a question of fact and does not involve any question of law much less a substantial question of law, as the Tribunal held that the expenses which have been claimed by the assessee were not towards the exempted income


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

Lala Harbhagwan Das/ Laksons vs. CIT (ITAT Delhi)

CIT-DR's behaviour termed "totally irresponsible, contemptuous and malicious". Costs imposed & action for contempt of court to be initiated


Section 14A + Rule 8D Disallowance: Onus On AO To Show Direct Nexus Between Exempt Income And Expenditure

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

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

DCIT vs. Allied Investments Housing P. Ltd (ITAT Chennai)

S. 14A & Rule 8D: Onus is on AO to show how assessee's claim is incorrect. AO has to show direct nexus between expenditure & exempt income. Disallowance cannot be made on presumptions

In AY 2009-10 the AO made a disallowance of Rs 58 lakhs u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee claimed that the disallowance was not permissible on the grounds that (i) the AO had not recorded any satisfaction as to the correctness of the assessee's claim that it had not incurred expenditure of more than 2% of the dividend income earned, (ii) it had not made any fresh investment during the year and the dividend was received from an unlisted company out of an investment made in an earlier year & (iii) the AO had not pointed out any direct nexus between the interest expenditure incurred and the exempt income earned during the year. The CIT(A) accepted the claim & restricted the disallowance to Rs 50,000 On appeal by the department to the Tribunal HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) A disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made without recording satisfaction as to how the assessee's calculation of s. 14A disallowance is incorrect. It is a prerequisite that before invoking Rule 8D, the AO must record his satisfaction on how the assessee's calculation is incorrect. The AO cannot apply Rule 8D without pointing out any inaccuracy in the method of apportionment or allocation of expenses. Further, the onus is on the AO to show that expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for earning tax-free income. Without discharging the onus, the AO is not entitled to make an ad hoc disallowance. A clear finding of incurring of expenditure is necessary. No disallowance can be made on the basis of presumptions, (ii) the mere fact that some interest expenses were incurred cannot be the reason for disallowance unless the nexus between the expense and the exempt income is established, (iii) the assessee did not make any fresh investment during the year which could generate exempt income in forthcoming years, (iii) the exempt income earned during the year comprised of dividend received from an investment made in an earlier year, (iv) the interest expenditure of the year is not directly related to the earning of exempt income & (v) the AO has not pointed out any direct nexus between the interest expenditure incurred and the exempt income earned during the year (Hero Cycles Ltd 323 ITR 518 P&H) & Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR 81 (Bom) followed)


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 14A & Rule 8D: Expenditure on acquiring shares out of "commercial expediency" & to earn taxable income cannot be disallowed

Thursday, December 12, 2013

CBEC VCES Clarification On ‘Frivolous/Unnecessary’ Queries By Designated Authority

Dear Subscriber,

CBEC VCES Clarification On 'Frivolous/Unnecessary' Queries By Designated Authority

In connection with the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), the CBEC has issued Circular F. No. B1/19/2013-TRU dated 11.12.2013 cautioning the Designated Authority against raising "frivolous/unnecessary queries" as to various aspects of the VCES.

(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

S. 132: A Practical Guide To The Law And Procedure Of Search And Seizure


Section 132: A Practical Guide To The Law And Procedure Of Search And Seizure

 

Dear Subscriber,

S. 132: A Practical Guide To The Law And Procedure Of Search And Seizure

The power of search & seizure is a potent tool for the department to unearth unaccounted income. However, to mitigate the possibility of its misuse by over-zealous officials, the law has incorporated several safeguards. The author, an eminent advocate with rich experience in the subject, has explained the entire law in a succinct manner. His check list will ensure that the department and the taxpayers are always on the right side of the law


(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

CIT vs. Orient Instrument Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

Loss from shares dealing cannot be deemed to be from "speculation" under Explanation to s. 73 if company is not engaged in the "business" of shares dealing