CBDT to I-T officers: make proper tax assessments

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has directed supervisory officers to play a more proactive role in ensuring that high-pitched assessments without proper basis are not made by the Income-Tax Department.

Also, such officers should ensure that lengthy questionnaires or summons without due application of mind are avoided, CBDT said in a circular to its field officers.

This instruction is seen as yet another effort on part of the CBDT in moving towards a non-adversarial tax regime.

Though less than one per cent of returns filed are selected for scrutiny, this area of work has often drawn adversarial comments.

Supervisory officers have now been directed to ensure inspections and reviews are undertaken in accordance with guidelines issued. This must be done to enable capacity building within the department and accountability of the officers.

The CBDT has highlighted that enquiries arising in limited scrutiny cases selected on the basis of AIR/CIB/26AS information will ordinarily be restricted to that information.

Senior officers have been directed to ensure that appeals are filed only on the merits thereof and not merely on the tax effect involved.

It has also been decided that in multi-CCIT Charges, reference before High Court would be taken by two CCITs.

The CBDT circular also lays emphasis on cleanliness in office, punctuality, timeliness in appointment and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

All supervisory authorities have been directed to enable an effective grievance redressal system in their jurisdictions.

CBDT to create non-adversarial tax regime

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has directed supervisory officers to play a more proactive role in ensuring that high-pitched assessments without proper basis are not made by the income tax department.

Also, such officers should ensure that lengthy questionnaires or summons without due application of mind are avoided, CBDT said in a circular to its field officers.

This instruction is seen as yet another effort on part of the CBDT in moving towards a non-adversarial tax regime.

Though less than 1 per cent of the returns filed are selected for scrutiny, this area of work has often drawn adversarial comments.

Supervisory officers have now been directed to ensure inspections and reviews are undertaken in accordance with guidelines issued. This must be done to enable capacity building within the department and accountability of the officers.

Senior officers have been directed to ensure that appeals are filed only on the merits thereof and not merely on the tax-effect involved. All supervisory authorities have also been directed to enable an effective grievance redressal system in their jurisdictions.

The CBDT circular also lays emphasis on cleanliness in office, punctuality, timeliness in appointment and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

  

Kerala High Court on Service tax on Restaurants

Division Bench of Kerala HC upholds Single Judge order, service tax levy on serving food & beverages in AC restaurant, hotel, inn, guest house, club or camp-site u/s 65(105)(zzzzv) & (zzzzw) of Finance Act unconstitutional; Post 46th Constitutional amendment, supply of food & other articles for human consumption in restaurants a 'deemed sale' under Art 366(29-A) and no service involved therein; Said activity enumerated in Entry 54 of List II of Seventh Schedule and States alone have legislative competence to impose tax on whole consideration received; Further, relies on SC decision in Godfrey Philips India Ltd to hold that hotels, inn, clubs, guest-house enumerated in Entry 62 of List II, taxable as 'luxuries' by State legislature; Rejects Revenue's reliance on SC ruling in Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapan Assn. to contend that Art. 366(29-A)(f) only permits State to impose tax on supply of food & drink, conceptually, supply of services not included within definition of "sale and purchase of goods"; Said judgment deals with mandap-keeper's liability to service tax, cannot be equated with supply of food & beverages by a restaurant; Vide introduction of Art. 366(29-A), characteristics of restaurant transaction have changed for the purpose of imposition & levy of tax, hence European Court's ruling in Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S vs. Finanzamt Flensburg cannot be relied upon; Differs from Bombay HC ratio in Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association & Anr., since whole consideration for supply of food (including service part of transaction) is exigible to State tax by virtue of constitutional definition, Union cannot characterise the same transaction as 'service' for levy of service tax  : Kerala HC

CPE requirement for 2014-2016

CPE HOURS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD OF 3 YEARS (1-1-2014 TO 31-12-2016) TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF MEMBERS

A. All the members (aged less than 60 years) who are holding Certificate of Practice (except all those members who are residing abroad) are required to: 

a) Complete at least 90 CPE credit hours in a rolling period of three-years. 

b) Complete minimum 20 CPE credit hours of structured learning in each calendar year. 

C) Out of the 90 CPE Credit Hours as mentioned above, 30 CPE credit hours can be completed either through Structured or Unstructured learning (as per Member’s choice). 

 

B. All the members (aged less than 60 years) who are not holding Certificate of Practice and all the members who are residing abroad (whether holding Certificate of Practice or not) are required to: 

(a) Complete at least 45 CPE credit hours either structured or unstructured learning (as per Member’s choice) in rolling period of three-years 

b) Complete minimum 10 CPE credit hours of either structured or unstructured learning (as per member’s choice) in each calendar year. 

 

 C. All the members (aged 60 years & above) who are holding Certificate of Practice, are required to: 

a) Complete at least an aggregate of 70 CPE credit hours of either Structured or Unstructured Learning (as per member’s choice) in a rolling period of three years 

b) Complete minimum of 10 CPE credit hours being an aggregate of either Structured or Unstructured Learning in the first calendar year i.e. 2014. 

c) Complete minimum of 20 CPE credit hours being an aggregate of either Structured or Unstructured Learning (as per member’s choice) in the second and third calendar years i.e. 2015 & 2016 

Non Submission of C Form-Interest

Interest chargeable from 'Return Date' on Form "C" non-production, not 'Assessment' under CST Act

 

HC quashes Tribunal order, interest chargeable from the date of furnishing monthly returns in case of default in furnishing 'C' Form declarations claiming concessional rate under Central Sales Tax (CST) Act; Tribunal misread SC judgement in J. K. Synthetics wherein liability to pay tax and interest thereon was held to arise only after adjudication and not earlier to it; In instant case, assessee aware of liability on inter-state sale, hence tax paid pursuant to assessment order ought have been paid alongwith return, as prescribed under CST Act; Having failed to do so, State deprived of revenue and hence, interest payable from the date when assessee became liable to pay tax to compensate the delay; Rejects assessee's contention that no interest payable absent provision in CST Act, Sec 9(2B) r/w Sec 36 & 37 of Karnataka VAT Act makes it very clear that power conferred to levy interest flows from statutory provision  : Karnataka HC

04/11/2014

The ruling was delivered by Justice N. Kumar and Justice B. Manohar.

Ms. S. Sujatha appeared on behalf of the Revenue, while assessees were represented by Ms. H. Vani, Mr. T. Surya Narayana and Mr. T. Rajaram. 

[TS-499-HC-2014(KAR)-VAT]

Interest U/s 234 A Stayed

Madras High Court Stays Clause 7 of CBDT Order dated 26-09-2014 regarding Extension of ITR Due Date AY 2014-15 with Levy of Interest u/s 234A

 

 

Earlier on 26-09-2014 CBDT, following the direction of the Gujarat High Court had extended the due date for Income Tax Returns (ITR) filing from 30th September, 2014 to 30th November, 2014 for assessee covered under tax audit us 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961.

However, the clause 7 of CBDT order dated 26-09-2014 provided that assessee shall have to pay interest under section 234A for the period of the extension granted.

Clause 7 of CBDT Order is reproduced hereunder:

7. There shall be no extension of the "due date" for the purposes of Explanation 1 to section 234A (Interest for defaults in furnishing return) of the Act and the assessees shall remain liable for payment of interest as per the provisions of section 234A of the Act.

Now, it is reported that the Madras High Court has granted a stay on the operation of the clause 7 of the said order of CBDT and has issued a direction to Income Tax to accept returns without interest.

The full details of the order are awaited.

CBDT on Non filers

CBDT Directive On Calling For Returns Of Non-Filers For AY 2014-15

October 29th, 2014

The Joint Director of Income-tax Systems has issued a letter dated 29.10.2014 stating that 5,09,898 taxpayers who had submitted an e-return in the earlier AYs with returned income of Rs. 10 lakhs and more have not filed a return for AY 2014-15. It has been stated that as a measure of revenue augmentation, a notice must be sent to the non-filers to furnish their returns for AY 2014-15.

Amendment to seventh Schedule (CSR)

Amendment to seventh Schedule (CSR):
to add sanitation and 'Swachh Bharat Mission' MCA today vide its notification dated 24th October, 2014 amended Seventh Schedule to include
'sanitation', 'Swachh Bharat Mission', 'cleaning of water and
Ganga' as a part of CSR activity.

ST3 Return Due Date Extended to 14th Nov,2014

Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise & Customs

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2014

ORDER NO 02/2014-SERVICE TAX

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3 for the period from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014, from 25th October, 2014 to 14th November, 2014.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3 for the period from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014, from 25th October, 2014 to 14th November, 2014.

The circumstances of a special nature, which have given rise to this extension of time, are as follows:

"Natural calamities in certain parts of the country."

F.No.137/99/2011-Service Tax

Himani Bhayana
Under Secretary (Service Tax)
Central Board of Excise and Customs

e Form ADT-1

New e-Form ADT-1

New features/ Options of e-form ADT-1 introduced by Ministry of Corporate Affairs

·         Provide whether company is falling  under any class of Companies as per Section 139(2).

·         Whether Joint Auditors have been appointed - Provide Whether joint auditors have been appointed. If yes is selected then provide the value for Number of auditor(s) appointed shall be greater than 1.

·         Period of account for which appointed - Please mention the "From" and "To" date for the period for which auditor is appointed.

·         Number of financial year(s) to which appointment relates - Please provide the Number of financial year(s) to which appointment relates.

·         Whether the appointment of auditor is within the limits of twenty companies as specified in sub section 3(g) of section 141 - Please provide Whether the appointment of auditor is within the limits of twenty companies.

·         Specify the tenure of previous appointment(s) of the auditor or auditor's firm or its member in the same company in which audit was conducted or is functioning (excluding previous years having break of five or more years as specified in Rule 6) - Please provide the tenure of previous appointment(s) of the auditor or auditor's firm or its member in the same company in which audit was conducted or is functioning in number of financial year(s). Please provide details as Person appointed as auditor, financial start date and financial end date of his tenure

·         Manadatory Attachmetns:

Ø  Copy of the intimation sent by company

Ø  Copy of written consent given by auditor;

Ø  Copy of resolution passed by the company;

NOTE:

v  The e-Form will be auto approved (STP).

v  Now it's mandatory for the companies to attach the above mentioned documents with e-form ADT-1.

v  Its mandatory to mention Number of financial year(s) to which appointment relate.

IndianCAs: Wish you a very Happy Diwali!!

 

| Ashwin Nagar | FCA and SAP-Finance & Consolidations |+919833015352

Success is not permanent and failure is not final

 

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: Ashwin Nagar <ashwin.nagar@gmail.com>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (3)

Note: All messages posted by members including me on this group are sent in their personal capacity. No official position held anywhere by them have nothing to do with this email group. The group does   not accept any responsibility with regards to accuracy or the mistakes in the material circulated on this group. Please confirm from your independent source before using the information or material posted on this group.
*************************************************************************
Further, your attention is invited:

The messages on this group are approved only when the moderator finds it of immense importance to the members at general, otherwise, this group is not used for discussion or as discussion forum.

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Extension of CLSS till November 15, 2014

Extension of CLSS till November 15, 2014. General Circular No 40/2014 dated 15/10/2014.

Wef FY 2015-16, Co Audit Report to state about existence of Adequate Internal Financial Controls System & its Operating Effectiveness. Notification of 14-10-14.

Restructuring of CBEC

Alert on Re-oganisation of CBEC Officer

 

Although the reorganization of formations under CBEC will take effect from 15th October 2014, to avoid inconvenience to the existing Central Excise and Service Tax assessees, they will continue to be mapped in ACES to the existing location codes (Commissionerate, Division and Range). Applicants for new registration can also apply to the existing formations. After migration of the assessees to the new formations, information will be sent to the assessees via email informing them of their new locations. Facility will also be provided in ACES for assessees to ascertain their new location codes, on their own, without visiting the Range offices, through "know you location code" on ACES website and filling of the registration number.

Vodafone TP Case

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Neither the capital receipts received by the Petitioner on issue of equity shares to its holding company, a non-resident entity, nor the alleged short-fall between the so called fair market price of its equity shares and the issue price of the equity shares can be considered as income within the meaning of the expression as defined under the Act. The assessee, an Indian company, issued equity shares at the premium of Rs.8591 per share aggregating Rs.246.38 crores to its holding company. Though the transaction was reported as an "international transaction" in Form 3 CEB, the assessee claimed that the transfer pricing provisions did not apply as there was no income arising to it. The AO referred the issue to the TPO without dealing with the preliminary objection. The TPO held that he could not go into the issue whether income had arisen or not because his jurisdiction was limited to determine the ALP. He held that the assessee ought to have charged the NAV of the share (Rs. 53,775) and that the difference between the NAV and the issue price was a deemed loan from the assessee to the holding company for which the assessee ought to have received 13.5% interest. He accordingly computed the adjustment for the shares premium at Rs. 1308 crore and the interest thereon at Rs. 88 crore. The AO passed a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) in which he held that he was bound u/s 92-CA(4) with the TPO's determination and could not consider the contention whether the transfer pricing provisions applied. The assessee filed a Writ Petition challenging the jurisdiction of the TPO/AO to make the adjustment. The High Court directed the DRP to decide the assessee's objection regarding chargeability of alleged shortfall in share premium as a preliminary issue. Upon the DRP's decision, the assessee filed another Writ Petition. HELD by the High Court allowing the Petition: (1) A plain reading of Section 92(1) of the Act very clearly brings out that income arising from a International Transaction is a condition precedent for application of Chapter X of the Act. (2) The word income for the purpose of the Act has a well understood meaning as defined in s. 2(24) of the Act. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in s. 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. However, what is bought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed is capital not received from a non-resident i.e. premium allegedly not received on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express legislation, no amount received, accrued or arising on capital account transaction can be subjected to tax as Income (Cadell Weaving Mill Co. vs. CIT 249 ITR 265 approved in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros 273 ITR 1 followed); (3) In case of taxing statutes, in the absence of the provision by itself being susceptible to two or more meanings, it is not permissible to forgo the strict rules of interpretation while construing it. It was not open to the DRP to seek aid of the supposed intent of the Legislature to give a wider meaning to the word 'Income'; (4) The other basis in the impugned order, namely that as a consequence of under valuation of shares, there is an impact on potential income and that if the ALP were received, the Petitioner would be able to invest the same and earn income, proceeds on a mere surmise/assumption. This cannot be the basis of taxation. In any case, the entire exercise of charging to tax the amounts allegedly not received as share premium fails, as no tax is being charged on the amount received as share premium. (5) Chapter X is invoked to ensure that the transaction is charged to tax only on working out the income after arriving at the ALP of the transaction. This is only to ensure that there is no manipulation of prices/consideration between AEs. The entire consideration received would not be a subject-matter of taxation; (6) The department's method of interpretation indeed is a unique way of reading a provision i.e. to omit words in the Section. This manner of reading a provision by ignoring/rejecting certain words without any finding that in the absence of so rejecting, the provision would become unworkable, is certainly not a permitted mode of interpretation. It would lead to burial of the settled legal position that a provision should be read as a whole, without rejecting and/or adding words thereto. This rejecting of words in a statute to achieve a predetermined objective is not permissible. This would amount to redrafting the legislation which is beyond/outside the jurisdiction of Courts. (7) In tax jurisprudence, it is well settled that following four factors are essential ingredients to a taxing statute:- (a) subject of tax; (b) person liable to pay the tax; (c) rate at which tax is to be paid, and (d) measure or value on which the rate is to be applied. Thus, there is difference between a charge to tax and the measure of tax (a) & (d) above; (8) The contention that in view of Chapter X of the Act, the notional income is to be brought to tax and real income will have no place is not acceptable because the entire exercise of determining the ALP is only to arrive at the real income earned i.e. the correct price of the transaction, shorn of the price arrived at between the parties on account of their relationship viz. AEs. In this case, the revenue seems to be confusing the measure to a charge and calling the measure a notional income. We find that there is absence of any charge in the Act to subject issue of shares at a premium to tax. (9) W.e.f. 1 April 2013, the definition of income u/s 2(24)(xvi) includes within its scope the provisions of s. 56(2) (vii-b) of the Act. This indicates the intent of the Parliament to tax issue of shares to a resident, when the issue price is above its fair market value. In the instant case, the Revenue's case is that the issue price of equity share is below the fair market value of the shares issued to a non-resident. Thus Parliament has consciously not brought to tax amounts received from a non-resident for issue of shares, as it would discourage capital inflow from abroad. (10) Consequently, the issue of shares at a premium by the Petitioner to its non resident holding company does not give rise to any income from an admitted International Transaction. Thus, no occasion to apply Chapter X of the Act can arise in such a case.

 

 

 

 

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

October 10th, 2014

COURT:	Bombay High Court
CORAM:	M. S. Sanklecha J, Mohit Shah CJ
SECTION(S):	92CA
GENRE:	Transfer Pricing
CATCH NOTE:	Neither the capital receipts received by the Petitioner on issue of equity shares to its holding company, a non-resident entity, nor the alleged short-fall between the so called fair market price of its equity shares and the issue price of the equity shares can be considered as income within the meaning of the expression as defined under the Act.
CATCH WORDS:	share premium, Transfer Pricing
COUNSEL:	Harish Salve
FILE:	http://laws4.us/wp-content/uploads/vodafone_transfer_pricing3.pdf
DATE:	October 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE:	October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)

The assessee, an Indian company, issued equity shares at the premium of Rs.8591 per share aggregating Rs.246.38 crores to its holding company. Though the transaction was reported as an "international transaction" in Form 3 CEB, the assessee claimed that the transfer pricing provisions did not apply as there was no income arising to it. The AO referred the issue to the TPO without dealing with the preliminary objection. The TPO held that he could not go into the issue whether income had arisen or not because his jurisdiction was limited to determine the ALP. He held that the assessee ought to have charged the NAV of the share (Rs. 53,775) and that the difference between the NAV and the issue price was a deemed loan from the assessee to the holding company for which the assessee ought to have received 13.5% interest. He accordingly computed the adjustment for the shares premium at Rs. 1308 crore and the interest thereon at Rs. 88 crore. The AO passed a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) in which he held that he was bound u/s 92-CA(4) with the TPO's determination and could not consider the contention whether the transfer pricing provisions applied. The assessee filed a Writ Petition challenging the jurisdiction of the TPO/AO to make the adjustment. The High Court directed the DRP to decide the assessee's objection regarding chargeability of alleged shortfall in share premium as a preliminary issue. Upon the DRP's decision, the assessee filed another Writ Petition. HELD by the High Court allowing the Petition:

(1) A plain reading of Section 92(1) of the Act very clearly brings out that income arising from a International Transaction is a condition precedent for application of Chapter X of the Act.

(2) The word income for the purpose of the Act has a well understood meaning as defined in s. 2(24) of the Act. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in s. 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. However, what is bought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess of the fair market value of the shares. In this case what is being sought to be taxed is capital not received from a non-resident i.e. premium allegedly not received on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express legislation, no amount received, accrued or arising on capital account transaction can be subjected to tax as Income (Cadell Weaving Mill Co. vs. CIT 249 ITR 265 approved in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros 273 ITR 1 followed);

(3) In case of taxing statutes, in the absence of the provision by itself being susceptible to two or more meanings, it is not permissible to forgo the strict rules of interpretation while construing it. It was not open to the DRP to seek aid of the supposed intent of the Legislature to give a wider meaning to the word 'Income';

(4) The other basis in the impugned order, namely that as a consequence of under valuation of shares, there is an impact on potential income and that if the ALP were received, the Petitioner would be able to invest the same and earn income, proceeds on a mere surmise/assumption. This cannot be the basis of taxation. In any case, the entire exercise of charging to tax the amounts allegedly not received as share premium fails, as no tax is being charged on the amount received as share premium.

(5) Chapter X is invoked to ensure that the transaction is charged to tax only on working out the income after arriving at the ALP of the transaction. This is only to ensure that there is no manipulation of prices/consideration between AEs. The entire consideration received would not be a subject-matter of taxation;

(6) The department's method of interpretation indeed is a unique way of reading a provision i.e. to omit words in the Section. This manner of reading a provision by ignoring/rejecting certain words without any finding that in the absence of so rejecting, the provision would become unworkable, is certainly not a permitted mode of interpretation. It would lead to burial of the settled legal position that a provision should be read as a whole, without rejecting and/or adding words thereto. This rejecting of words in a statute to achieve a predetermined objective is not permissible. This would amount to redrafting the legislation which is beyond/outside the jurisdiction of Courts.

(7) In tax jurisprudence, it is well settled that following four factors are essential ingredients to a taxing statute:- (a) subject of tax; (b) person liable to pay the tax; (c) rate at which tax is to be paid, and (d) measure or value on which the rate is to be applied. Thus, there is difference between a charge to tax and the measure of tax (a) & (d) above;

(8) The contention that in view of Chapter X of the Act, the notional income is to be brought to tax and real income will have no place is not acceptable because the entire exercise of determining the ALP is only to arrive at the real income earned i.e. the correct price of the transaction, shorn of the price arrived at between the parties on account of their relationship viz. AEs. In this case, the revenue seems to be confusing the measure to a charge and calling the measure a notional income. We find that there is absence of any charge in the Act to subject issue of shares at a premium to tax.

(9) W.e.f. 1 April 2013, the definition of income u/s 2(24)(xvi) includes within its scope the provisions of s. 56(2) (vii-b) of the Act. This indicates the intent of the Parliament to tax issue of shares to a resident, when the issue price is above its fair market value. In the instant case, the Revenue's case is that the issue price of equity share is below the fair market value of the shares issued to a non-resident. Thus Parliament has consciously not brought to tax amounts received from a non-resident for issue of shares, as it would discourage capital inflow from abroad.

(10) Consequently, the issue of shares at a premium by the Petitioner to its non resident holding company does not give rise to any income from an admitted International Transaction. Thus, no occasion to apply Chapter X of the Act can arise in such a case.

Date for rectification in case of rejected Co-op Empanelment application

Date for rectification in case of rejected Co-op Empanelment application of Maharashtra is from 11.10.14 to 16.10.14.Circular coming soon.

CBEC on Excise Audit

CBEC Circular - Excise Audit has 'statutory backing', Officers can verify records; HC ratio inapplicable

Earlier, in Travelite (India) case [TS-310-HC-2014(DEL)-ST], Delhi HC struck down Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules requiring production of records to audit party on demand and CBEC Circular dated January 1, 2008 pertaining to general audit, as ultra vires the Finance Act. It held that Parliament had clear intention to provide for only special audit u/s 72A of Finance Act on fulfilment of special circumstances, and it did not contemplate a general audit that "every assessee" may be subjected to "on demand".  

However, now the CBEC has issued Circular clarifying on powers of Central Excise Officers to conduct audit. Clarifies that the above refereed Judgment does not deal with issue of audit in Central Excise and there is adequate statutory backing for conducting audit by Excise officers.

 Therefore, Central Excise Officers to continue conduct of audit, as provided in statute.

Check Your MEF Status

Check Your MEF Status
Multipurpose Empanelment Form 2014-15

Click Here <http://www.meficai.org/FinancialDocumentsReceived.html> to
view Financial Documents Received.
Click Here <http://www.meficai.org/FinancialDocumentsNotReceived.html> to
view Financial Documents Not Received.
Click Here <http://www.meficai.org/letterforFD.html> for Applicants from
whom Financial Documents are being called for.
Click Here to fill Multipurpose Empanelment Form 2014-15.
Click Here <http://www.meficai.org/DeclarationReceived.html> to view
Declaration Received.
Click Here <http://www.meficai.org/DeclarationNotReceived.html> to view
Declaration Not Received.

or

http://www.meficai.org/ <http://www.meficai.org/>

Notification on Transfer Pricing

SECTION 92C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - TRANSFER PRICING - COMPUTATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE - NOTIFIED TOLERABLE LIMIT FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP

NOTIFICATION NO. 45/2014 [F.NO.500/1/2014-APA-II]/SO 2478(E), DATED 23-9-2014

In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies that where the variation between the arm's length price determined under section 92C and the price of which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter. In all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be the arm's length price for assessment year 2014-15.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this notification, "wholesale trading" means an international transaction or specified domestic transaction of trading in goods, which fulfils the following conditions, namely :—

(i)		purchase cost of finished goods is eighty percent or more of the total cost pertaining to such trading activities; and
(ii)		average monthly closing inventory of such goods is ten percent or less of sales pertaining to such trading activities.

Judgement on CM Jayalalitha

S. 68 Helps Nail Jayalalitha's Corruption Cash Credits

The Hindu has made available a copy of the judgement of John Michael Cunha J. in the case of State vs. Selvi. J. Jayalalitha (pdf). The judgement exposes the intricate arrangements that were made to launder the huge amount of cash credits that were received by J. Jayalalitha (former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) from alleged corrupt means. The judgement also raises disturbing questions as to the role of the auditors of the front companies in seeking to camouflage the true nature of the transactions. A few passages from the judgement are noteworthy.

(i) As in s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, the onus is on the accused to explain the nature and source of the investment & cash credits because he has special knowledge about how a particular asset was acquired or an investment therein was made. Such proof includes proof of the identity of the person who according to the accused provided the source, capacity of such person to advance or spend the money, and lastly, the genuineness of the transaction. On facts, the accused have failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as to the enormous unexplained credits entered into their bank accounts. Whatever explanation offered by the accused by way of confirmatory letters are proved to be false and bogus. The identity of the persons who provided the source is not proved. The transactions which resulted in the cash credit is also not established (Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) followed);

(ii) The auditors examined by the accused are found to be propped up to support the false defence set up by the accused. It is proved in evidence that the auditors examined by the accused did not handle their accounts during the check period and they were not conversant with the true facts. It is also proved in evidence that, the returns and the balance sheet and the profit and loss account were maneuvred solely with a view to offer an explanation to the huge unexplained credits entered in their respective bank accounts;

(iii) Mere declaration of property in the Income Tax returns does not amount to showing the same was acquired from the known source of income. The prosecution could show that, there was no real source of income with the assessees and the public servant is the real source. In the instant case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the only source for the acquisition of the large assets is A-1 (J. Jayalalitha) herself.

Extension of the due date of deposit of TDS

F.No. 385/10/2014-IT(B) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes

PRESS RELEASE

1st October, 2014

Extension of the due date of deposit of tax deducted at source/tax collected at source during the month of September, 2014.
Considering the consecutive holidays owing to the festive season and weekend during the first week in the month of October, 2014, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued an order to extend the last date of deposit of tax deducted at source/tax collected at source during the month of September, 2014 from 7th October, 2014 to 10th October, 2014 without entailing any consequential interest.
2. However, the due date for filing of TDS/TCS statements for the 2nd Quarter of the F.Y. 2014-15 shall remain the same.

(Rekha Shukla) Commissioner of Income Tax
(Media & Technical Policy) Official Spokesperson, CBDT

CBDT amends Rule to prescribe Form No 13

No deduction of tax certificate u/s 197 - CBDT amends Rule to prescribe Form No 13

CBDT amends rule 28AA to provide issue of nil TDS certificate to deductor and lower TDS certificate to recipient of income.

MEF Update...

MEF Update...
List of applicants who have submitted their MEF online but declaration is yet to be received from them. This list is  available on http://www.meficai.org​ .​

Breaking news: CBDT issues Press release to extend due date to 30th November.

In Compliance with Gujarat High Court decision, CBDT extended the due date for furnishing return of income from 30th September to 30th November 2014 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for all purposes of the Act in the case of an assessee, who is required to file his return of income by 30th September 2014, and is also required to get his accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act or is a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under section 44AB of the Act.

There shall be no extension of the due date for the purpose of charging of interest under section 234A of the Act for late filling of return of income and the assessee shall remain liable for the payment of interest as per the provisions of section 234A of the Act.

See the link:
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=110071

CBEC on Service Tax on Joint Ventures

FinMin clears air on service tax levy on joint ventures

The Finance Ministry has made it clear that "taxable services" provided by members of a joint venture (JV) to a JV and vice-versa will attract service tax. This will be the case when the "taxable services" are provided for a consideration, the Finance Ministry said in a circular on Wednesday.

The same treatment will hold good when taxable services are provided between members of a JV for a consideration, says the circular.

India is currently adopting the concept of negative list for services taxation and except for a specified set of services in this list, all other services are subject to service tax.

As regards taxation of cash calls or capital contributions made by the members to the JV, the Ministry said that detailed and close scrutiny of the terms of JV agreement may be required in each case.

If "cash calls" are merely a transaction in money, they are excluded from the definition of service and, therefore, will not attract tax, says the circular.

Tax authorities at the field level have been advised to carefully examine the leviability of service tax with reference to the specific terms/clauses of each JV agreement.

---

India is currently adopting the concept of negative list for services taxation and except for a specified set of services in this list, all other services are subject to service tax.

National Taxation Tribunal law is unconstitutional, rules apex court Terms it the ultimate encroachment on the exclusive domain of superior courts The Supreme Court on Thursday declared as unconstitutional a law under which a national tribunal was to be set up to decide tax-related cases by taking away the jurisdiction of High Courts in such matters. A five-Judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice RM Lodha and Justices JS Khehar, J Chelameswar, AK Sikri and Rohinton Nariman held that the law, the National Tax Tribunal Act, was the ultimate encroachment on the exclusive domain of the superior Courts of Record. The UPA-I had enacted the law paving the way for the creation of National Tax Tribunals, which would have helped reduce pendency of tax cases before High Courts. Tax experts say this decision could impact speedier disposal of pending cases that run into thousands of crores of rupees. The Bench passed the order on a batch of petitions filed by the Madras Bar Association and others challenging the constitutional validity of the NTT Act contending that there was a grave danger that the judiciary would be substituted by quasi-judicial tribunals functioning as departments of ministries. Writing the main judgment, Justice Khehar said: "The Parliament has the power to enact legislation and to vest adjudicatory functions, earlier vested in the High Court, with an alternative court/tribunal. Exercise of such power by the Parliament would not per se violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Conform to standards "The basic structure of the Constitution will stand violated if, while enacting legislation pertaining to transfer of judicial power, the Parliament does not ensure that the newly created court/tribunal conforms with the salient characteristics and standards of the court sought to be substituted…" "The National Tax Tribunal encroaches upon the power of higher judiciary, which can only decide issues involving substantial laws and not a tribunal." Justice Nariman wrote in a separate but concurring judgment. The Bench said: "It is obvious that substantial questions of law which relate to taxation would also involve many areas of civil and criminal law… It is therefore not correct to say that taxation, being a specialised subject, can be dealt with by a tribunal. All substantial questions of law have, under our constitutional scheme, to be decided by the superior courts and the superior courts alone. "Indeed, one of the objects for enacting the National Tax Tribunals Act, as stated by the Minister on the floor of the House, is that the National Tax Tribunal can lay down the law for the whole of India which then would bind all other authorities and tribunals. This is a direct encroachment on High Courts' power under Article 227 of the Constitution to decide substantial questions of law which would bind all tribunals." Verdict on tax tribunal law may delay cases The Supreme Court's move to strike down the National Tax Tribunal as "unconstitutional" will impact speedier disposal of appeals before High Courts, say tax experts. This verdict is certainly a legal victory and in the bargain may turn out to be a loss for taxpayers, as huge number of tax cases are pending before High Courts, Aseem Chawla, Partner, MPC Legal, a law firm, told BusinessLine . R Sekar, Partner, Deloitte, Haskins & Sells LLP, said the ruling may be appreciated for upholding Constitutional principles and judicial hierarchy. However, the verdict will go against the concept or intention of setting up of tribunals by the Government for speedy disposal of appeals, he said. Now the Government will have to find a way of ensuring the speedier disposal of appeals, Sekar said, adding that the creation of NTT and constitution of NTT was a step in the right direction. The Apex Court on Thursday held that NTT cannot decide on the matters involving substantial questions of law and also that Tribunals cannot take away the power of High Court. Pallavi Bakhru, Director-Grant Thornton Advisory, said striking down the NTT does create a void of expectations in taxpayers' minds who were looking forward to an alternative to the judicial process. Judicial delays notwithstanding, the points raised by the Supreme Court are well-noted, and the Central Government could, after careful analysis , propose an alternative institutional set up to cleanse up the pending litigation on central tax laws, she added. Chawla said tribunalisation of justice had always been a contentious matter. Now one needs to see that how judicial reforms in the tax sphere are carried out, he said.     Madras Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court – Full Bench) The NTT Act "crosses the boundary" & is unconstitutional. CAs/CSs are specialists on accounts & facts and are not capable of arguing/ deciding 'Substantial Questions Of Law' The Full Bench of the Supreme Court had to consider whether the National Tax Tribunals Act, 2005, which sought to take away the jurisdiction of the High Courts in tax matters was constitutional. The Full Bench has struck down the entire Act as being unconstitutional on the ground that though "tribunalization" has been allowed subject to safeguards, the NTT Act "crosses the boundary" and "encroaches the exclusive domain" of the High Courts. In the course of the judgement, the Supreme Court had to consider whether Chartered Accountants could be appointed Members of the NTT and whether s. 13(1) of the Act which permitted Chartered Accountants to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT was valid in law. It also had to consider the application by the Company Secretaries that they are equal in all respects to the CAs and should also be permitted to appear and plead before the NTT. HELD by the Full Bench: A perusal of the reported judgements shows that while deciding tax related disputes, provisions of different laws on diverse subjects had to be taken into consideration. The Members of the NTT would most definitely be confronted with the legal issues emerging out of Family Law, Hindu Law, Mohammedan Law, Company Law, Law of Partnership, Law related to Territoriality, Law related to Trusts and Societies, Contract Law, Law relating to Transfer of Property, Law relating to Intellectual Property, Interpretation of Statutes, and other Miscellaneous Provisions of Law, from time to time. The NTT besides the aforesaid statutes, will not only have to interpret the provisions of the three statutes, out of which appeals will be heard by it, but will also have to examine a challenge to the vires of statutory amendments made in the said provisions, from time to time. They will also have to determine in some cases, whether the provisions relied upon had a prospective or retrospective applicability. Keeping in mind the fact, that in terms of s. 15 of the NTT Act, the NTT would hear appeals from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the CESTAT only on "substantial questions of law", it is difficult for us to appreciate the propriety of representation, on behalf of a party to an appeal, through either Chartered Accountants or Company Secretaries, before the NTT. The determination at the hands of the NTT is shorn of factual disputes. It has to decide only "substantial questions of law". In our understanding, Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries would at best be specialists in understanding and explaining issues pertaining to accounts. These issues would, fall purely within the realm of facts. We find it difficult to accept the prayer made by the Company Secretaries to allow them, to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT. Even insofar as the Chartered Accountants are concerned, we are constrained to hold that allowing them to appear on behalf of a party before the NTT, would be unacceptable in law. We accordingly reject the claim of Company Secretaries, to represent a party before the NTT. We simultaneously hold s. 13(1), insofar as it allows Chartered Accountants to represent a party to an appeal before the NTT, as unconstitutional and unsustainable in law.

National tax tribunal unconstitutional

SC: Substantial questions of law to be decided only by superior crts. Basic structure of the constitution has been violated. 

SC: NTT is not endowed with salient features of judicial powers. Separation of powers between executive and the judiciary is critical.
National tax tribunal unconstitutional says SC

EXTENSION OF DUE DATE : STATUS OF VARIOUS COURT

EXTENSION OF DUE DATE : STATUS OF VARIOUS COURT
Madras High Court
Hearing today.
Madras High Court directs CBDT to Extend Due Date of filing ITR to 30/11/2014.

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench - Raj Tax Consultants Vs UO I And Ors, Civil Writ No. 9540/2014
Listing in Rajasthan High Court Today, Case No. 9540/20114...Adjourned for 26/09/2014.

Bombay High Court - The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Others Vs. Union of India -
WRIT PETITION (L)NO.2492 OF 2014
Case adjourned for 24/09/2014 in Bombay High Court. Today Hearing in Bombay High Court. Arguments at 3 PM

High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh - WP 28159/2014, WP 28672/2014
Disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad observing that there is no justification or reason to extend the
date for TAR alone and not to extend the date for ITR and accordingly the Union of India and CBDT were directed to
consider the contents of the representations of AIFTP for extending the date for filing ITRs in tandem with the date for
TAR and dispose of the representations well before the date for filing ITR i.e. 30-09-2014.

Delhi High Court tax Audit case update

LATEST & Most Awaited News from Delhi High Court in case of Mahesh Kr & Co. Vs UOI  & ors WP 5990/14 reg issue of furnishing Tax Audit Report subsequent to filing of ITR & Dt.extension.--
Petitioner's Counsel Ms Rashmi Chopra gracefully seeks permission to withdraw. Court orders "Petition Dismissed as withdrawn."CBDT's counsel urges that case has travelled  so far and CBDT has granted relief by way of affidavits. However,court expresses the view that nothing remains once petition is withdrawn.

However, relief already stands granted to assessees by Gujrat HC. As, it has directed CBDT to extend date of filing ITR to 30th Nov 2014. CBDT yet to issue notification for same.
--Sanjay Sharma(Adv) & Team casansaar from Delhi HC.

Case adjourned for tomorrow in Bombay High Court.

Gujarat High Court date extension issue

Gujarat High Court directs CBDT to extend due date for filing of ITR to 30-11-2014 subject to Sec. 234A interest

The CBDT vide Order [F.No.133/24/2014-TPL], dated 20-8-2014 had extended the due date for filing of tax audit report to November 30, 2014. However, the CBDT had not extended the due date for filing of the Income-tax Return ('ITR'). Consequently, many taxpayers were facing difficulty in filing of ITR without filing the tax audit reports.

In view of this, All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultant filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court contending for the extension of the due date for filing of ITR to November 30, 2014.

On the impugned issue, petitioner argued that ITR is prepared on the basis of information collated and reported in the tax audit report and in absence of tax audit report it would not be possible for a taxpayer to compute his tax liability and file return of income on due date 30-09-2014. On the other side, the Income-tax Department argued that if the blanket extension is given for filing of return of income, the taxpayer would also defer the payment of due taxes to the credit of Central Government which would be prejudicial to interest of revenue. Dept. also gave surety to the Court that no penalty or interest would be levied for revision of return by the taxpayer, if any, pursuant to such tax audit.

However, Gujarat High Court suggested a mid-way which would tackle the practical problem being faced by the taxpayers and which would save the interest of revenue. Gujarat High Court directed the CBDT to extend the due date for filing of return of income for all purposes, inter-alia, carry forward of losses, allowability of deductions under Sections 80-IA, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID, etc.

However, such extension has been granted subject to charge of interest under Section 234A for the period commencing from 01-10-2014 and up to the actual date of filling the return of income.

However, in such cases, the taxpayer will enjoy the option of paying taxes before the due date of 30-09-2014 and to that extent enjoy the exemption from levy of interest under Section 234A.

Gujarat HC tax audit verdict

Gujarat HC asks CBDT to extend due date of ITR to 30th Nov. However,  234A will be applicable. More details awaited.

Gujarat High Court tax Audit update

Guj HCs Remark that TAR is mini Asst & is must before filing of ITR is the Moot point which the HC has Extracted, & that point will become the Gates to the Extension of the date of filing of ITR by Guj HC & followed by all other HCs. It seems Verdict to be announced is Clear now only Official Announcement awaited.

RBI eases FDI norms on issue of equity shares

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has eased foreign direct investment (FDI) norms, allowing Indian companies to issue shares/convertible debentures to a person resident outside India against any payables, subject to certain conditions like entry route, sectoral cap, pricing guidelines and compliance with the applicable tax laws.

As of now an Indian company may issue shares/convertible debentures under the automatic route to a person resident outside India against lump-sum technical know-how fee, royalty, external commercial borrowings (ECBs) (other than import dues deemed as ECB or Trade Credit as per RBI guidelines) and import payables of capital goods by units in Special Economic Zones subject to certain conditions like entry route, sectoral cap, pricing guidelines and compliance with the applicable tax laws.

As per the new norms, such equity shares can be issued against any other funds payable by the investee company, remittance of which does not require prior permission of the government or RBI under FEMA.

The riders being that the shares shall be issued in accordance with the extant FDI guidelines on sectoral caps and pricing guidelines, etc.

Also, the issue of equity shares under this provision shall be subject to tax laws as applicable to the funds payable and the conversion to equity should be net of applicable taxes.

The relevant circular is enclosed for reference.

Hope you find the update useful.

Note: The above update is just for reference and does not constitute an advice or an opinion.  As always, professional assistance is highly recommended before acting on the above.

Warm Regards,

 

CA. Pravesh Kumar M
Pravesh�Kumar & Associates