| GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CIRCULAR NO 990/14/2014-CX-8, Dated: November 19, 2014 To, Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners of Central Excise (All) Madam/Sir, Sub: Clarification regarding availment of CENVAT credit after six months-reg. Attention is invited to the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014, vide which, inter alia, amendment was made in Rule 4(1) and 4(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) to prescribe that manufacturer or output service provider shall not take CENVAT credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9. 2. Concerns have been expressed by trade that in view of above changes, the re-credit taken in following three situations may be hit by the time limit of six months prescribed: i. 3rd proviso to Rule 4(7) of CCR, 2004 prescribes that if the payment of value of input service and service tax payable is not made within three months of date of invoice, bill or challan, then the CENVAT Credit availed is required to be paid back by the manufacturer or service provider. Subsequently, when such payment of value of input service and service tax is made, the amount so paid back can be re-credited. ii. According to Rule 3(5B) of CCR, 2004, if the value of any input or capital goods before being put to use on which CENVAT Credit has been taken, is written off or such provisions made in Books of Account, the manufacturer or service provider is required to pay an amount equal to credit so taken. However, when the inputs or capital goods are subsequently used, the amount so paid can be re-credited in the account. iii. Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004 prescribes that in case inputs sent to job worker are not received back within 180 days, the manufacturer or service provider is required to pay an amount equal to credit taken on such inputs in the first instance. However, when the inputs are subsequently received back from job worker, the amount so paid can be re- credited in the account. 3. The matter has been examined. The purpose of the amendment made by Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 is to ensure that after the issue of a document under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, credit is taken for the first time within six months of the issue of the document. Once this condition is met, the limitation has no further application. It is, therefore, clarified that in each of the three situations described above pertaining to Rule 4(7), Rule 3(5B) or Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR, 2004, the limitation of six months would apply when the credit is taken for the first time on an eligible document. It would not apply for taking re-credit of amount reversed, after meeting the conditions prescribed in these rules 4. Difficulties faced, if any, in implementation of this Circular may be brought to the notice of the Board. Hindi version follows. F. No. 267/72/2013-CX.8 (Pt)
Shankar Prasad Sarma OSD, CX.8 |
20 November 2014
Circular on Re-Credit of Cenvat
19 November 2014
TP Case of Shell
HC decides TP issue of undervaluation of shares in favour of shell; follows ratio of Vodafone's case
November 19, 2014
On November 18, 2014 the Bombay High Court held in favour of Shell India on the issue of applicability of Transfer Pricing provisions in case of issue of shares. In this regard, the High relied upon decision in the case of Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 50 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay). It held that Transfer Pricing provisions would not be applicable on alleged undervaluation of shares issued to foreign parent company, as there was no income arising there from. The High Court deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment and the consequential interest in respect of alleged undervaluation of shares issued by Shell India.
Previously, the Bombay High Court on October 10, 2014 in the case of Vodafone India Services (Supra)held that issue of shares by assessee to its non-resident AE at a price below the fair market value would not give rise to any income from an admitted international transaction and, thus, Indian Transfer Pricing provisions would not be applicable on it.
BMR Legal acted as the briefing counsel on the tax litigation and transfer pricing issues for Shell. Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate, argued on behalf of Shell with the assistance from the BMR's Legal team.
Mukesh Butani, Managing Partner, BMR Legal stated as under:
a) "The Shell India case decided by the Bombay HC is a significant development. It follows the earlier judgment of Vodafone insofar as principles are concerned - the principle being that issuance of shares by an Indian company to its foreign parent is not eligible to transfer pricing provisions as there is no income arising therefrom.
b) The High Court held today that the legal principle laid down by the Bombay HC applies in the Shell case and rejected the Department's argument that the facts of Shell case were distinguishable from Vodafone's case.
c) The said decision is a welcome relief not just for Shell but for all MNC's who have faced the adjustment on share issuance. It is significant to note that the court did not hesitate on exercising its extraordinary power to issue a writ where alternate appeal remedy was available - in this situation as the court felt that the tax department clearly exceeded its jurisdiction to bring to tax a capital transaction."
Gokul Chaudhri, Leader, Direct Tax, BMR & Associates LLP stated as under:
"The Bombay High Court has decisively held that no transfer pricing or tax implications can arise on issue of shares by a subsidiary to its overseas shareholders. Upholding the writ petition of Shell India the court brought to a close the controversy that arose in January 2013 and has since worried investors. This decision follows earlier decision of the court in similar circumstances for Vodafone India. Investors should welcome this bold intervention and clear thinking of the court. Hopefully one of the tax thorns that troubled investors has been removed. Acceptance of this decision by the Government would be helpful to bring closure."
16 November 2014
Section 80C- Bank term Deposit Limit increased to Rs. 1.50 Lakh
Section 80C- Bank term Deposit Limit increased to Rs. 1.50 Lakh
NOTIFICATION NO. 63/2014, Dated: November 13, 2014.
S.O. 2906(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (xxi) of sub-section (2) of section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments to the the Bank Term Deposit Scheme, 2006, namely:-
1. (1) This scheme may be called the Bank Term Deposit (Amendment) Scheme, 2014. (2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Bank Term Deposit Scheme, 2006, in para 3, in clause (1), for the words "one lakh rupees" , the words "one hundred and fifty thousand rupees" shall be substituted.
[F.No.142/09/2014-TPL]
(Raman Chopra)
Director (TPL-II)
Note: The principal Scheme was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),vide number S.O. 1220(E) dated the 28th July, 2006 and subsequently amended by notification number S.O. 2127(E), dated 13th December 2007
15 November 2014
Bank branch audit panel
Draft Bank Branch Auditors’ Panel for the year 2014-15 has been hosted at http://www.meficai.org/DraftBankBranchAuditorsPanel_2014_15.html.
14 November 2014
Company Law Settlement Scheme (CLSS) further extended
Ministry has, on consideration of 2014) upto31st December. 2014.
Ci requests received from various stakeholders, has decided to extend the Company Law Settlement Scheme (CLSS rcular NO 44/2014 DAted 14.11.2014
13 November 2014
FD in Court- NO TDS
No TDS liability of bank under sec. 194A on interest accrued on FD made by litigant on directions of Court
IT: Where litigant deposit FD with the bank on directions of Court, he ceased to have any control or proprietary right over those funds. Although FD was drawn in the name of the Registrar General, he was neither the recipient of the amount credited to that account nor the interest accruing thereon. There was no assessee to whom interest income from the FD could be ascribed, thus, bank was not liable to deduct tax under section 194A on interest accrued on such FD.
Facts:
| (a) | The petitioner ('UCO Bank') accepted a Fixed Deposit ('FD') made by litigant as per directives of the Court. The bank did not deduct tax on accrued interest on such FD as it was in name of Register General of Court as custodian and the actual beneficiaries were not known, as the matter was sub-judice. | |
| (b) | Thus, the issue that arose for consideration of the High Court was: | |
| • Whether the bank would be liable to deduct tax under section 194A on interest accrued on such FD where the assessee was not ascertainable and the person in whose name the interest was credited was also not a person liable to pay tax under the income-tax Act ('the Act')? |
The High Court held in favour of assessee as under:
| (1) | The words "credit of such income to the account of the payee" occurring in section 194A of the Act necessarily imply that deduction of tax bears nexus with the income of an assessee. In absence of an assessee, the machinery provisions for deduction of tax to his credit were ineffective. The expression "payee" under section 194A of the Act would mean the recipient of income whose account was maintained by the person paying interest. | |
| (2) | In the instant case, although FD was made in the name of the Registrar General, the account represented funds which were in custody of the Court and the Registrar General was neither the recipient of the amount credited to that account nor the interest accruing thereon. Thus, the Registrar General could not be considered as payee for the purpose of section 194A of the Act. | |
| (3) | There was no assessee to whom interest income from the FD could be ascribed; no person could file return claiming the interest payable by bank as income. The machinery provisions of recovering tax by deduction of tax at source would not be applicable in absence of an ascertainable assessee. | |
| (4) | The litigant who was asked to deposit the money in the court ceased to have any control or proprietary right over those funds. The amount deposited vested in the Court and the depositor ceased to exercise any dominion over those funds. It was also not necessary that the litigant who deposited the money would be the ultimate recipient of income. The person to whom funds would be granted was to be determined by orders passed subsequently. Thus, petitioner-bank was not required to deduct tax under section 194A on interest accrued on FD made by the litigant. |
12 November 2014
POA- Capital Gains
| CAPITAL GAINS |
NBFC-Revised Regulatory Framework
In a bid to bring non-banking financial company (NBFC) norms in line with those of banks, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) unleashed tighter rules for NBFCs. According to the new guidelines, NBFCs will require higher minimum capital, have less time to declare bad loans, and a board-approved fit and proper criteria for director appointments.The new norms, which will be implemented in a phased manner, are made applicable for NBFCs that manage funds worth Rs 500 crore and for those that accept public deposits. The central bank will also start granting fresh NBFC licences.
10 November 2014
3 CB CD utility
FYI - CBDT on 06-11-2014 released Revised Form 3CA-3CD & Form 3CB-3CD filing utility along with updated Schema. Revised Utility is is now available for e-Filing.
Download Revised Utility updated on 06th November for Tax Audit Report for AY 2014-15.
09 November 2014
CBDT to I-T officers: make proper tax assessments
CPE requirement for 2014-2016
04 November 2014
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]
02 November 2014
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.
30 October 2014
CBDT on Non filers
26 October 2014
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.
24 October 2014
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
22 October 2014
e Form ADT-1
21 October 2014
IndianCAs: Wish you a very Happy Diwali!!
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) |
*************************************************************************
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.
16 October 2014
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.
12 October 2014
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.
11 October 2014
Vodafone TP Case
|
Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
October 10th, 2014
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| 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: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| 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.
10 October 2014
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.
07 October 2014
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/>
05 October 2014
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. |
03 October 2014
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.
01 October 2014
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
-
After the ICAI regional council and central council elections , there is an anxious waiting period for resul...
-
Drafts of tax accounting standard on construction contracts, government grants issued The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has invited c...
-
Here is the final list of candidates won from WIRC for Central Council: Sr. No. Name of Candidate 1 CA. Adukia Rajkumar Satyanarayan 2 CA...
