The Haryana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) held that no GST is payable on imparting Training to students sponsored by central or state Government.
The applicant, M/s Sachdeva College Ltd. is engaged in the field of providing “Education” which is not defined under the GGST Act, but as per Apex court decision in Loka Shiksha Trust vs. CIT, Education held that it is a process of training and developing knowledge, skill, and character of students by normal schooling.
The applicant sought the advance ruling in respect of determining the liability to pay GST / IGST tax on training to students at the behest of Directorate of the welfare of Scheduled caste and Backward Classes Department, Haryana by the applicant under a training program for which total expenditure is borne by state Government of Haryana which implements three types of scheme i.e. State Scheme, Sharing basis, centrally sponsored Scheme especially in view of Entry No. 72 of the Haryana Govt. Excise & Taxation Department Notification dated June 30, 2017, and whether this Entry grants exemption of GST on the Training of Students by petitioner.
The applicant has further asked the AAR that whether the Applicant is liable to be registered under the State of Haryana under IGST/CGST in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The coram of Rachna Singh and Vidhya Sagar observed that that the Department of the welfare of sc and BC, Haryana implements three types of schemes i.e. state schemes, sharing basis centrally sponsored scheme and 100% centrally sponsored schemes. Regarding the schemes in which scholarship or monetary relief or grant is given directly to the beneficiary either in the Aadhaar Enabled account or in the bank account, no GST is to be paid.
The AAR ruled that t any person engaged exclusively in the business of supplying goods and services or both that are not liable to tax or fully exempt from tax under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, so the applicant is not liable for registration till the supplies goods and services or both that are not liable to tax or fully exempt from tax under the GST Acts.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
In a major relief to Home Buyers in the country, the union government extended the timeline for claiming Income Tax Exemption on the investment made in a residential house till September 30, 2021.
The Finance Ministry said that the compliances to be made by the taxpayers such as investment, deposit, payment, acquisition, purchase, construction, or such other action, by whatever name called, for the purpose of claiming any exemption under the provisions contained in Section 54 to 54GB of the Act, for which the last date of such compliance falls between 1st April 2021 to 29th September 2021 (both days inclusive), may be completed on or before 30th September 2021.
First time home buyers could avail special tax relief on investment in residential houses as per specified conditions. The deadline for making this investment in a residential house for tax deduction has been extended by more than 3 months from the earlier deadline of June 30, 2021.
For instance, if an individual buys a house from a builder for Rs 50 lakh. However, the value of the house as per circle rate is Rs 60 lakh. As per the income tax laws, if the difference between the actual sale amount and the circle rate value exceeds 10 per cent, then the seller of the house i.e. the developer will be required to consider the sale at Rs 60 lakh to calculate the profit as per the income tax law.
In the above example, the difference between actual sale consideration and circle rate value is 20% (10 lakh divided by 50 lakh X 100). With the new announcement, the difference i.e. Rs 10 lakh will not be considered as income in the home buyer’s hand as the difference is up to 20% only.
The house buyer will be required to show the difference i.e. the gain of Rs 10 lakh as ‘Income from other sources and pay the tax accordingly.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench while quashing the penalty on confiscated Gold Jewellery held that the transit passenger is not required to pass through customs barrier or check post.CESTAT The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench while quashing the penalty on confiscated Gold Jewellery held that the transit passenger is not required to pass through customs barrier or check post.
The appellant, Ajay Gupta was traveling from Bangkok to Kathmandu had arrived at Delhi Airport from Bangkok by flight and was scheduled to take the next flight to Kathmandu after a few hours. He was intercepted by the officers of the Customs Intelligence Unit (CIU) in the transit area.
The officers enquired whether he was carrying any dutiable goods to which the appellant answered in the negative. However, on being frisked by a hand-held metal detector, a beep sound was heard near his body. On further enquiry the appellant informed that he was wearing a silver coated – gold chain and a gold kada. For further enquiry and investigation the appellant was offloaded by the officers and was brought to the customs arrival hall for his detailed examination and personal search.
The hand baggage of the appellant was diverted for X-ray screening. Nothing objectionable was observed. Then the appellant was asked to pass through the door frame metal detector, after removal of all metallic items he was wearing including the silver coated gold chain and Kada, no beep was noticed. The appellant was again asked whether he wanted to declare any dutiable items to the Customs, to which the appellant once again replied in the negative.
After that, the appellant was served upon a notice under section 102 of the Customs Act and his personal search was taken in presence of two witnesses. In the personal search nothing objectionable was noticed. To ascertain the genuineness and purity of the silver coated gold jewellery, a jewellery appraiser was called by the Officers.
The Revenue urged that Section 129A of the Act prohibits the Tribunal in deciding the cases of baggage, in which case the jurisdiction lies with the Revision authority in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. Proviso to Section 129A restricts this Tribunal to decide the appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage.
On the other hand, the appellant opposing the contention of Revenue submits that first of all it is not a case of import or export of baggage, and secondly the appellant is neither an importer nor exporter, as he was a passenger in transit. Thus, there being no export or import under the facts and circumstances, there is no application of Baggage Rules under the Customs Act.
The coram of Judicial member, Anil Choudhary ruled that appellant was a passenger in transit from Bangkok to Kathmandu. The appellant was admittedly found in the transit lounge at IGI Airport, T-3, Delhi, meant for international passengers, where they can wait for the purpose of changing flight without entering into India, as such they are not required to go though any formality of immigration as well as under the provision of Customs Law.
The Tribunal held that the appellant had not violated any of the provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Foreign Trade Policy. The whole case of Revenue is misconceived and has no legs to stand.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench held that the penalty can not be imposed for non-deduction of TDS as the quantum of payment is not determinable.
The assessee, Biocon Ltd. is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale/licensing of active pharmaceutical ingredients and trading of certain pharma formations.
The assessee in a response filed a reply to the show-cause notice wherein it was submitted that it has created year-end provision for expenses amounting to Rs.21,98,26,517/- The assessee voluntarily disallowed the said sum under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of non-deduction of TDS and that the provision created was not credited to any parties or individuals account, since the quantum of payment to the parties was not determinable as on the year-end. The further assessee had not deducted tax at source/short deduction on a sum of Rs.20,70,756/-. It was thus submitted that there is a reasonable cause to believe that tax should not be deducted at source on the year-end provision.
AO accordingly called on the assessee to confront the issues of non-deduction of TDS. The assessee submitted that the tax was deducted in the subsequent assessment years and furnished details of the same. The AO accordingly levied interest under section 201(1A) for the delay in remittance of TDS by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) assessee contended that these were end provisions that were reserved in subsequent financial years and based on invoices raised by the vendors were accounted in the books of account after deducting TDS. The assessee submitted that assessee has disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(ia) during the relevant period. It was also submitted that such was a consistent approach followed by the assessee on year to year basis.
The coram of Judicial Member, Beena Pillai, and Accountant Member, Chandra Poojari held that assessee has suo moto disallowed the said sum under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. Therefore there is a sufficient and reasonable cause for not deducting TDS on the year-end provision. It is also observed that the assessee consistently follows this kind of accounting system for year-end provisions which are subsequently reversed in the subsequent year in the month of April, as and when the bills are received, and the payment is made to the payee by deducting TDS.
The ITAT deleted the penalty levied under section 271C read with 273B of the Act due to the existence of reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS, and therefore, the assessee cannot be held to be “assessee in default”.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench held that TDS not applicable on computer software affixed onto hardware, sold as an integrated unit.
The assessee, M/s Autodesk Asia Pvt. Ltd. is a Singapore-based company. It was submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of Computer Software and providing ancillary services to its Indian distributors/customers. In certain cases assessee also sold hardware to Indian parties. It is submitted that the sale of software/hardware was made outside India, and the sale proceeds of the sale/ancillary services from the Indian distributors/customers were received by the assessee outside India.
For a year under consideration, the assessee filed a return of Income declaring Nil taxable income. The return was selected for scrutiny. The AO observed that the assessee received Rs.232,34,01,380/- as consideration towards the distribution of computer software/hardware and ancillary services to Indian distributors or customers. The AO while passing the Draft Assessment order held that the consideration so received amounts to Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Art 12 of India- Singapore DTAA.
The AO also proposed to tax the consideration received from Indian distributors/customers for the sale of hardware as royalty on the basis that hardware and software are inseparable and that the software cannot function in the obscene of hardware.
The coram of Accountant Member, Chandra Poojari and Judicial Member Beena Pillai noted that the case of the assessee is covered under the second category of cases which deals with resident Indian companies that act as distributors or resellers, by purchasing computer software from foreign, non-resident suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to resident Indian end-users; and the fourth category includes cases wherein computer software is affixed onto hardware and is sold as an integrated unit/ equipment.
Therefore, the tribunal held that the purchase of software in the present facts does not amount to giving rise to any taxable income in India as a result of which provisions of section 195 of the Act are not attractive. The assessee does not have any obligation to deduct tax at the source. Therefore, provisions of section 9(1)(vi) along with Explanation 2 are not applicable to present assessees.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) notified the practice note for e-filing in the ITAT.
Ravi Shankar Prasad, Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice, Communication and Electronics & Information Technology, virtually inaugurated the e Filing portal of ITAT in august presence of Shri Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Union Law Secretary. Now, and applications Filing Portal at https://itat.gov.in/efiling/register.
The Appeals, Memorandum of Cross Objections, Stay Applications and Miscellaneous Applications, which, in terms of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, are hitherto being presented before the Benches of ITAT in physical mode (Paper form) only, henceforth may also be presented in electronic format using the newly developed e-Filing Portal of the ITAT.
The facility of e-Filing is not mandatory but optional and will not substitute the existing practice of presenting Appeals, Cross Objections, Stay Applications and Miscellaneous Applications in paper form.
Permanent Account Number (or TAN as the case may be) of the Assessee, Mobile Number and Email ID are the key identifiers in the e-Filing Portal. Therefore, having PAN/TAN, valid Mobile Number and Email IDs are prerequisites for using the said E-Filing Portal. It may be ensured by all the users that the mobile number and email address provided are valid and in active use.
Any person who is entitled to file an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 253 of Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other enactment, may file the same electronically through the said e-Filing Portal.
The ITAT clarified that till it is notified otherwise by President, ITAT, the presentation of Appeals, Cross Objections, Stay Applications and Miscellaneous Applications in physical / paper form in terms of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and other respective enactments continue to remain mandatory even after e-Filing. Therefore, the date of presentation of Appeals, etc., physically in terms of Rule 6 & 7 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 or the respective enactments shall continue to be reckoned as the date of presentation for all intents and purposes. After e-Filing of an Appeal, Cross Objection, Stay Application or Miscellaneous Application, the acknowledgement of e-Filing and Memorandum of Appeal or Memorandum of Cross Objection or Stay Application or Miscellaneous Application, as the case may be, along with all the prescribed enclosures shall be presented before the Tribunal in the manner and time prescribed in the said rules or other enactments, as the case may be.
All the documents which require the signature of the parties shall be physically signed before scanning and uploading in the e-Filing Portal. All prayers, petitions, Grounds, affidavits, etc. which are to be filed electronically shall be typed in Arial font, font size 12 on one side of A4 size paper with double spacing, justified horizontally.
To proceed further, select Who are you?’. If you are an assessee, please select ‘I am an Assessee’. If you are an officer of the Income Tax Department, please select ‘I am Department.’
Thereafter, select ‘Click here to read and agree to the Terms of Use’ option. This will popup the ‘Terms of Use’ of e-Filing Portal of the Tribunal.
Go through the Terms of Use and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for e-Filing carefully. Keep all the important dates, appeal/ order numbers and addresses of the assessee and department readily available before start. Please keep ready all the documents duly signed and properly scanned for uploading. You will need to upload all mandatory documents in the end. Please go through the List of Documents required for e Filing of appeal.
For illustration, let us take the filer as Assessee. To proceed further, click ‘Submit’.
In the next screen, input the e-Mail ID, Mobile number and PAN/TAN of the assessee. If the e-Filing is done by Department, e-Mail and Mobile number shall be of the departmental officer and PAN/TAN shall be of the assessee. Since PAN/TAN, e-Mail and Mobile Numbers are key identifiers of the e-Filer, please ensure that they are entered correctly, and you have access to the eMail and Mobile Numbers.
On submission of the form, two separate One Time Passwords (OTPs) will be sent to the given eMail and Mobile Numbers. If you do not receive the OTPs, you can request for resending the OTPS after 2 minutes.
Input the OTPS and Captcha in the form and click submit to proceed further.
On the next page, please select the State and District in which the Assessing Officer is located. This will identify the Bench of ITAT having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer.
Click Proceed to move furthest In the next screen, you can select the kind of Appeal or Application you wish to file.
The ITAT has notified the mandatory enclosures in case of appeals will be Memorandum of Appeal, Certified copy of the order appealed against (CIT / CIT(A) / AO), Form 35, Grounds of Appeal & Statement of facts filed before the CIT(A), Relevant order(s) of Assessing Officer/Directions of DRP, Penalty order, Draft assessment order (wherever required), Order of Transfer Pricing Officer, Tribunal Fee Challan (in case of an appeal by assessee), and Authorisation of the CIT to file the appeal (in case of appeal by Revenue).
In respect of the Cross Objection the mandatory enclosures will be Memorandum of Cross Objection, and Authorisation of the CIT to file the CO (in case of a C.O. by Revenue)
In respect of the Stay Applications the mandatory enclosures are the Stay Application in prescribed format, Sworn affidavit in support of Stay Application, Demand Notice and relevant orders of lower authorities, Tribunal Fee Challan (Rs. 500/-.
In respect of the Miscellaneous Applications, the mandatory enclosures are Miscellaneous Application, Relevant Tribunal Order appealed against which the M.A. is preferred, Tribunal Fee Challan (in case of a Miscellaneous Application by the assessee), and Authorisation of the CIT to file the MA (in case of a Miscellaneous Application by Revenue).
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued the directions banning the Member of Parliament or State Legislature or Municipal Corporation or Municipality or other local bodies from being the Directors in Urban Co-operative Banks.
The person shall not be engaged in any other business or vocation or beholding the position of a Member of Parliament or State Legislature or Municipal Corporation or Municipality or other local bodies. They should also not be a director of any company other than a company registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 or be a partner of any firm which carries on any trade, business, or industry, the RBI while issuing the directions said.
The RBI notified that the tenure of the managing director (MD)/WTD shall not be for a period more than five years at a time subject to a minimum period of three years at the time of first appointment, unless terminated or removed earlier, and shall be eligible for re-appointment.
The performance of the MD/WTD shall be reviewed by the Board annually. Also, the post of the MD or WTD cannot be held by the same incumbent for more than 15 years.
It is said that the MD/WTD should be a post graduate or have qualifications in finance discipline. He or she could be either chartered/cost accountant, MBA (finance) or have a diploma in banking or cooperative business management.
The person should not be below 35 years of age or more than 70 years.
Regarding the tenure of appointment, it said the person can be appointed for a maximum of five years and will be eligible for re-appointment.
However, it said the MD or WTD will not hold the post for more than 15 years. After that, the person, if necessary, maybe re-appointed after a three-year cooling period.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
In a major relief to Nilkamal, the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Service Tax paid under mistake of law must be refunded irrespective of the period covered as refusal.
The appellant-Company, pleaded before the Tribunal to allow refund of the Service Tax and interest paid by it under Reverse Charge Mechanism on freight services received from foreign shipping line during the period from April to June 2017. This was inconsequent to a levy whereby it was required for an importer to pay Service Tax on services by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the Customs station of clearance in India even in the case of Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) contracts. The concerned Notifications were later struck down by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s. Sal Steel Ltd, holding the same as ultra vires to Sections 64, 66B, 67, and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that despite being struck down, the audit officers of the Revenue insisted on the payment of Service Tax along with interest whereby the appellant was compelled to pay the same vide Challan No.00039 dated 01.03.2019.
Allowing the contentions of the Appellant, Judicial Member P Dinesh held that “the Revenue having collected perforce the Service Tax along with interest, the appellant is pushed into a situation where its refund claim is denied and even the credit of Service Tax so paid is also not allowed to be availed, with the introduction of the CGST Act in 2017. It is the settled position of law that a taxpayer cannot be a victim of the change in the law. In this regard, the reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech v. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 410 (Mad.) is very apt, wherein it has been categorically held that the Service Tax paid under a mistake of law has to be refunded irrespective of the period covered as refusal thereof would be contrary to the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court has recently held that the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) is empowered to issue summons as per the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the relevant circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
The petitioner, Yasho Industries Ltd. is a public limited company, holding an Advance Authorization Licences granted in terms of the Scheme set out in Chapter-IV (AA Scheme) of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. The petitioner approached the High Court to direct the GST department to issue refund/allow recredit of INR 3 Crore paid by the petitioners vide Form No.GST DCR-03. They also sought direction to quash and set aside the impugned Circular, in connection with the assignment of functions to the officers as the ‘proper officers’ in relation to the various functions of the CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Advocate Mr.Abhishek Rastogi contended that the said assignment of function has to be by way of Notification and not by way of Circular in view of Section 167 of the CGST Act is thoroughly misplaced. Section 167 of the CGST Act pertains to the delegation of powers by the Commissioner exercisable by any authority or officer under the Act to be exercisable also by another authority or officer as may be specified in the Notification. According to them, the officer of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and holds the designation of a Senior Intelligence Officer and his appointment under the CGST Act could be traced to the Notification dated 1.7.2017 and thus, respondent No.3 is appointed as a Central Tax Officer and is in the rank of Superintendent under CGST Act
The division bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice A.C.Joshi observed that Section 2(91) pertains to the proper officer in relation to any function to be performed under the CGST Act to be the Commissioner or the officer of Central Tax, who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board.
“Here the Board means the “Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs” as defined in Section 2(16) of the CGST Act. Vide the Circular dated 5.7.2017 the said Board namely the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(91) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and subject to Section 5(2) of the CGST Act has assigned the officers the functions as that of proper officers in relation to the various sections of the CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder, and as such the Superintendent of Central Tax has been assigned the function of Section 70(1) of the CGST Act. Thus, there being no delegation of powers by the Commissioner, the provisions contained in Section 167 of the CGST Act could not be said to have been attracted, nor was there any necessity to issue Notification as sought to be submitted by Mr.Rastogi. There could not be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Limited (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr.Rastogi that when a statute directs that the things to be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way alone,” the Court said.
Rejecting the plea of the petitioner, the Court added that “However, in the instant case, the Board has assigned the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to various Sections of CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder by issuing the Circular in question, the question of issuing Notification for delegation of powers by the Commissioner as contemplated under Section 167 of the CGST Act does not arise. Mr.Rastogi appears to have misread the powers of the Board to assign the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to the various sections of the CGST Act, as the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the other authority or the officer as contemplated in Section 167 of the CGST Act. The Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Rastogi that respondent No.3 was not the ‘proper officer’ as per the definition contained in Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, and therefore, had no powers to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai bench has recently directed the customs department to reconsider the proceedings against Lenovo India.
The Company had placed two purchase orders for the purchase of Laptop computers/Notebooks manufactured by the Chinese manufacturing company viz. M/s. LCFC (HEFEI) Electronics Technology, China, which were shipped directly by the manufacturer to the appellant. The same arrived at the Chennai Air Cargo, upon which the appellant filed the impugned Bills-of-Entry where the goods were inadvertently described as “Cartons” in the Bill-of-Entry and the Tariff Item applicable to Cartons, namely, 4819 10 10 was applied and the applicable Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 10% was paid as against “Nil” BCD payable for the correct classification of Laptops under Tariff Item 8471 30 10; and that due to inadvertence, the invoice raised by the Chinese factory entity (manufacturer) on the Hong Kong entity (supplier) was enclosed to the Bill-of-Entry instead of the actual invoice raised by the Hong Kong entity on the appellant. Accordingly, assessment under 149 of the Customs Act was initiated against the assessee.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant-Company all such necessary documents were available, but however, it is for the Proper Officer to verify the availability of the same at the relevant point of time. This job is therefore left to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain and pass a speaking order.
While granting relief to the Company, Judicial Member P Dinesha observed that any amendment/re-assessment has to be in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and by the Proper Officer.
“Hence, it serves no purpose if the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) since it is the Proper Officer who could call for any documents and then exercise his discretion to order amendment or reject, subject to the provisions of Section 149 ibid. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority/Proper Officer to verify the claim of the appellant strictly in terms of Section 149 ibid. and thereafter, pass an appropriate speaking order after giving reasonable opportunities to the appellant. All the contentions are left open,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
Around 6000 CA Students wrote to Prime Minister, Narendra Modi for taking suo-moto cognizance with regards to CA Exams which are to be held from July 5 till July 20 in the offline mode on pan India basis.
The candidates wrote, “We, a group of 6000 students, pursuing a professional course of Chartered Accountancy, but also, we are ordinary citizens of India and in this capacity, have Fundamental Right to Life which our Constitution has conferred to each and every citizen of India in Article 21.”
This is going to be the first all India Level exam after the deadly 2nd Wave which is not yet over in southern states and 3 states including Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala are on high alert amid Delta Plus Variant.
“We would also like to submit that over 3 lakh students will be appearing in these exams from all over India and the majority of them are not even vaccinated with at least a single dose of vaccine. With reference to your Address to Nation dated 7th June 2021, you yourself appealed t the nation to get vaccinated and announced wide vaccination programs for 18+ age ground and Niti Aayog’s Chief Dr. VK Paul in his various statements also said- “Vaccination is the only key to go back to normal” and to save ourself from the emerging mutants of Delta Vanant,” the letter read.
The Candidates in the letter said, “For us students health and safety is of topmost importance”, we humbly want to ask you sir whether we CA Students don’t fall in the category of “Students in our own Prime Minister? We want to submit sir we don’t want any cancellation of exams but vaccination something you yourself emphasizes on CA Students who are going to appear in these exams fall in the age group of 18-23 and it will be injustice with these students as well as their family members also if they are pressurized a to appear in these 15 Days long physical exams without giving them the opportunity to vaccinate themselves On Monday, 22 June 2021, over 8.27 million doses were administered and it is such a huge number We students want to request our country’s most popular and students friendly Prime Minister sir to kindly take suo moto cognizance in this matter and allow us postponement for some days so that we students can appear in exams without any fear of chances of losing liv our near and dear ones.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai bench, while deleting a levy of Rs. 4.45 lakhs towards late fee for delay in filing of bills of entry, has held that an importer should not be penalized for delay happening due to any system-related defect.
The appellant is an importer, applied for GST registration as a mandatory requirement after the introduction of the new Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The portal for registration under GST was opened with effect from 25.6.2017, the website was not responding for few days and the appellant was not able to register with the aforesaid CGST Act, until 3.7.2017, i.e. when the appellant uploaded its application for registration. The registration was granted finally on 26.7.2017 after facing several technical problems in the official portal. Later, the system imposed a late fee charge of Rs.14,55,000/- for late filing of bills of entry. Against such order of late fee charges, the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 30.8.2018 remanded the matter for issuing a speaking order with regard to the imposition of late fee charges. In such proceedings, the original authority reduced the late fee charges to Rs.4,45,000/-.
The department was of the opinion that the appellant had obtained GSTIN registration on 26.7.2017 and ought to have filed the bills of entry on the very same day instead they have filed only on 2.8.2017 and 3.8.2017 with a delay of four to five days.
Against the order, the appellant contended that since they had applied for GSTIN registration for the second time, they were under confusion and were not able to file the bills of entry on time. Further, after obtaining GSTIN registration on 26.7.2017, they had to get it approved/verified through ICEGATE and much time was taken for connectivity to the server of the site, and approval of GSTIN registration also was delayed. For these reasons, the bills of entry could not be filed within the time prescribed as per Notification No. 26/2017 dated 31.3.2017.
After analyzing the facts deeply, Judicial Member Sulekha Beevi C.S observed that there were many technical difficulties faced by assessee / importer / exporter during that time due to system failure, server connectivity etc.
“There were many cases filed before the High Courts. In the present case also, it is seen that the appellant could not obtain the GSTIN registration and had to apply for the second time. Being a new law, it is inferable that it is not easy for the public to understand how to apply and pay the tax under a new law. Further, under Notification No. 26/2017 itself, it is stated that such late fee can be waived if sufficient reasons are furnished before the proper officer. Thus, it is a condonable lapse. In the circular issued by Board dated 31.8.2017, it is stated that the importer should not be penalized for delay happening due to any system related defect. For all these reasons and most importantly since the period involved is during the transition period of GST, I am of the view that the late fee charges imposed is not warranted.,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Institute of Company Secretary of India (ICSI) wrote a letter to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs(MCA) requesting an extension of due dates for filing Form CFSS-2020 and Form DPT 3.
“We extend our heartfelt gratitude towards the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) for having extended various relaxations to the corporate and other stakeholders in the times of 2nd wave of COVID-19. As your goodself is aware, the impact of second wave of COVID-19 pandemic is widespread and the country is in the phase of recovery from the crisis, which may take some time as many of the States are still under partial lockdown under certain strict restrictions. In the challenging times, stakeholders are putting best of their efforts to do the compliances and MCA also is extending all possible support to the corporates,” ICSI in the letter wrote.
The Institute while highlighting the COVID-19 hardships requested the MCA to extend the due date for filing of Form CFSS-2020 by 1 (one) month i.e. upto 31 Jlu1y,2021.
The Companies Fresh Start Scheme introduced on the I st April 2020, offered a one-time opportunity to the defaulting companies to complete pending compliances by filing necessary documents in the MCA registry without being subject to higher additional fees on account of any delay. The said scheme was extended till 3lst December 2020 vide MCA General Circular No. 3012020 dated 28th September 2020.
Clause 6(vii) of CFSS 2020 require filing of Form CFSS-2020 after closure of the Scheme and after the documents are taken on file, or on record or approved by the Designated Authority as the case may be but not after the expiry of six months from the date of closure of the Scheme. The Scheme ended on 31 December 2020 and hence the due date of filing this Form is upto 30 June, 2021.
The ICSI also suggested in the letter to extend the due date for filing of Form DPT 3, for the year ended 31 March, 2021 may upto 31 July ,2021.
Form DPT-3 shall be used for filing return of deposit or particulars of transaction not considered as a deposit or both by every company other than Government company. Every company other than the Government company to which these rules apply, shall on or before the 30th day of June, of every year, file with the Registrar, a return in Form DPT-3 along with the fee as provided in Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 and furnish the information contained therein as on the 3l st day of March of that year duly audited by the auditor of the company.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Supreme Court on Monday i.e 28 June, 2021 will Hear Plea Seeking Opt-Out Option, more Exam Centres and Postponement if COVID-19 protocols are not followed in the upcoming CA Exams 2021.
The petitioner, Advocate Anubha Shrivastava Sahai sought directions to provide an “Opt Out” option to all the aspirants going to appear in the upcoming CA exams 2021 scheduled to start from 5th July 2021, willing to opt out before and during the exam, with a carry forward of all benefits.
Advocate Saha prayed that the ICAI should give an extra chance/extension, Opt-Out to those students who are appearing for Intermediate and Final Course examination under old syllabus.
The ICAI should grant a fresh option to choose Examination Centre to each such aspirant/ student, pursuant to increase in the number of said Examination Centers, without prejudice to the Centre already opted by him/her in lieu of the Important Announcements, the petitioner added.
The petition has also prayed for directions to the authorities to provide free transport and accommodation near the exam centers from July 6 to July 20 for intermediate and final course students, and from July 24 for foundation course students.
Over 6,000 Chartered Accountancy aspirants also recently wrote to CJI NV Ramana seeking directions to ICAI to provide an Opt-Out option to the student who is unable to appear for the exams due to COVID-19, increase the number of attempts for Old Course Students and conduct an additional examination attempt for students who are unable to appear.
The letter had urged the CJI to take suo-motu cognisance of the matter, club their application with the present PIL and list the matter under the extremely urgent category as the exams are going to begin from 5th July and admit cards are to be released soon.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) has extended the Income Tax Compliances due to COVID-19. The Government also exempted Medical Treatment expenses and Ex-Gratia received on Death due to Covid-19.
Many taxpayers have received financial help from their employers and well-wishers for meeting their expenses incurred for treatment of COVID-19. In order to ensure that no income tax liability arises on this account, it has been decided to provide an income-tax exemption to the amount received by a taxpayer for medical treatment from an employer or from any person for treatment of COVID-19 during FY 2019-20 and subsequent years.
Unfortunately, certain taxpayers have lost their life due to COVID-19. Employers and well-wishers of such taxpayers had extended financial assistance to their family members so that they could cope with the difficulties arising due to the sudden loss of the earning member of their family. In order to provide relief to the family members of such taxpayer, it has been decided to provide an income-tax exemption to ex-gratia payment received by family members of a person from the employer of such person or from another person on the death of the person on account of COVID-19 during FY 2019-20 and subsequent years. The exemption shall be allowed without any limit for the amount received from the employer and the exemption shall be limited to Rs. 10 lakh in aggregate for the amount received from any other persons. Necessary legislative amendments for the above decisions shall be proposed in due course of time.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India(ICAI), with the approval of the Central Government, made an amendment to the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 vide Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Regulations, 2021.
The ICAI revised the Regulation 51 which deals with Industrial Training Provisions.
An articled assistant who has passed the Intermediate (Professional Competence) Examination or Professional Education (Examination-II) or Intermediate examination and has completed a minimum of 18 months of practical training according to these regulations.
An articled assistant may serve as an industrial trainee for a period (n nine months to eighteen months) in the offices of the Central or State Governments, Central statutory and judicial authorities, regulatory bodies, banking companies, and such other departments of Central or State Governments, Institution or Organization as may be decided by the Council from time to time; or in any of the financial, commercial, industrial undertakings with minimum fixed assets or minimum total turnover or minimum paid-up share capital as may be approved by the Council from time to time.
Intimation regarding commencement of training must be shared with the principal within 3 months the date on which such training is to commence. The period of Industrial Training will be between 9 to 18 months.
Member of the ICAI, ACA who is a member of ICAI for a Minimum Period of 3 continuous years, FCA Entitled to train two industrial trainees at a time can impart the training as per Regulation 51(5).
The ICAI further notified the amendment in Regulation 54 (5) which deals with the Secondment of articled assistants.
Earlier, where an articled assistant is seconded to a member industry, the total period spent in the industry by the articled assistant, including the period of industrial training under these regulations, shall not exceed 1 year.
However, now Where an articled assistant is seconded to a member in the industry, the total period spent in the industry by the articled assistant, including the period of industrial training under these regulations, shall not exceed 18 months.
The ICAI further notified the amendment in Regulation 58 which deals with the Supplementary Articles.
As per the previous provision the period of the excess leave taken is sought to be served under the principal with whom such articled assistant last served his articles, a supplementary deed of articles in the form*approved by the Council shall be executed in continuation of the previous articles.
Now, the period of excess leave taken shall be served under the principal with whom such articled assistant last served his articles and a supplementary deed of articles in the form approved by the Council shall be executed in continuation of the previous articles.
Moreover, the provision stating that if the articled assistant chooses to serve under any other member entitled to engage articled assistants under Regulation 43, the provisions of Regulation 46 shall apply ‘mutatis mutandis’ except that no fee shall be charged for registration of articles under the said regulation, has now been omitted
.Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICMAI) notified the Time Table for July 2021 CAT Examination.
The Institute has decided to conduct CAT Course- Foundation (Entry Level) Part-I Examination on 25th July 2021 through online mode using mobile/laptop/desktop/tab from their home only.
“Application Form for CAT Course- Foundation (Entry Level) Part-1 has to be filled up through online and fees will be accepted through online mode only,” ICMAI notified.
Students can login to the website www.icmai.in and apply online through payment gateway by using Credit/Debit card.
Last date of receipt of Examination Application Forms is 10th July, 2021 and the examination fee is Rs.720.
ICMAI instructed the Candidates to provide their own current in-use correct and updated contact details like mobile number and Email Id with all other required credentials. Otherwise student will not be permitted to apply/appear for the Examination. Candidates will receive Examination Link along with login user ID and pass key on their REGISTERED email id and mobile number only.
It is noteworthy, Examination Pattern for CAT Course-Foundation (Entry Level) Part-1 Examination shall have Multiple Choice Questions to be answered online from home. There will be no negative marking for wrong answers.
Standard of Pass A Candidate of Entry Level shall be declared to have passed in the Examination if he/she secures minimum 40% marks in each paper and an aggregate of 50% of total marks.
“All candidates/students are encouraged to appear in the CAT Course – Foundation (Entry Level) Part-1 Examination through online mode using mobile/laptop/desktop/tab from their home,” the ICMAI said.
For more details click here
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) directs GST officers to collect evidence against suppliers denying GST Rate Cut benefits to the Recipient on COVID-19 essentials.
The NAA Secretary, A.K.Goel highlighted the recent amendments affected by the Government of India vide Notification dated 14/06/2021 wherein the rates of tax have been reduced and benefit of the input tax credit has been permitted in respect of supplies of goods and services and to state that Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 envisages that the benefit of tax-rate reduction and/or Input Tax Credit should be mandatorily passed on by the suppliers to recipients of the Goods and/or Services.
The suppliers are, therefore, required to commensurately reduce the prices of each of the supplies of Goods and Services made by them so that the benefit of the reduction in tax rates and/ or of input tax credits is passed on to the recipients/consumers.
“I have been further directed to request you to take all possible steps envisaged under the GST Laws to ensure that the legislative intent of Section 171 of the CGST Act is complied with and to issue appropriate directions to your officers to take action as mandated under Section 171 of the CGST Act and wherever required, to utilise the powers conferred vide provisions of Section 67 (12) of the CGST Act for collection of evidence which may be required to take action against errant suppliers of various goods and services,” the NAA Secretary in the office Memorandum said.
The NAA directed all Principal Commissioners/Commissioners of CGST through Chief Commissioners, CGST; all CCTS of States/ Union Territories; all Members of the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering. 4. All Members of the State-level Screening Committees of all States/ Union Territories; DGAP; and Website of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority to take up the complaints filed by common consumers on priority and to forward the same to the Anti-Profiteering apparatus as provided in Rule 123 of the CGST Rules, 2017, i.e. the State-level Screening Committees and the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Madras High court directed the Medical College Hospital to approach the Government demanding Goods and Service Tax (GST) exemption for hospital or medical services.
The petitioner, Sree Balaji Medical College & Hospital has sought the declaration that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of petitioner’s Medical College Hospital under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films, CT Scan Films, MRI Films and supply of medical gases and implants are during the course of treatment to patients would not amount to transfer of property in goods or an incident of contract of service under the scope of “works contract” as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India and under Section 2(33) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioners made a submission that the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions were already adjudicated by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions and a judgment was pronounced on 28.05.2020 in W.P.Nos.2982 to 2987 of 2012, etc which were filed to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 27.04.2012 and quash the same and consequently restraining the 3rd Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for inpatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner Medical College Hospital
The division bench of Justice S.M.Subramaniam while following its earlier decision directed the petitioner to approach the Government independently and request the Government for a suitable retrospective relaxation by way of exemption for hospital/medical services rendered by them in the light of the fact that the same activity/transaction appears to have been exempted under the GST Regime from July 2017.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench ruled that the disallowance of interest can not be made where interest-free funds are sufficient to cover interest-free investments.
The assessee, Nirshilp Securities Private Limited had earned exempt income in the form of dividends to the tune of Rs 2,03,57,802 /- and had made suo moto disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs 20,35,780/-, being 10% of dividend income while filing its return of income. The AO recomputed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act by applying the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.
The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance of interest made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules on the ground that the assessee company is having sufficient interest-free funds in its kitty. With regard to the disallowance of indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the CITA held that since the disallowance already made by the assessee is much more than Rs 7,25,221, no further disallowance is warranted in the case.
The assessee is having sufficient interest free funds in the form of share capital and reserves to the tune of Rs 218.14 crores as on 31.3.14 and Rs 250.02 crores which is evident from the bare perusal of the financial statements for the respective period and that the same is much more than the investments made by the assessee.
The revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.
The coram of Judicial Member C.N.Prasad and Accountant Member M.Balaganesh by applying the ratio laid down by the High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd reported in 410 ITR 466, held that no disallowance of interest needs to be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules.
The ITAT while dismissing the appeal of the revenue with regard to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the disallowance already made by the assessee was much more than disallowance warranted under the third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.
Hence the Tribunal directs the AO not to make any disallowance under section 14A of the Act other than the suo moto disallowance already made by the assessee in the return of income, both under normal provisions of the Act as well as in the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
A division bench of the Madras High Court has held that the exemption for agricultural income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not include the income from the sale of jaggery.
The assessee, an agriculturalist engaged in the activity of conversion of the sugarcane crops harvested by him into jaggery. While filing his income tax return for the relevant year, he disclosed his income from the sale of jaggery as agricultural income and claimed for exemption. However, the request was rejected by the income tax department stating that the said activity cannot be treated as agricultural activity for allowing exemption.
While considering the appeal against the orders of the lower authorities and the Tribunal, Justice Duraiswami and Justice Hemalatha observed that the conversion of sugarcane into jaggery is also not an essential process to make sugarcane marketable.
The bench noted that the assessment Officer in his order found that the present assessee did not state the circumstance under which the asssessee converted the sugarcane into jaggery. It is further observed by him that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,70,000/- for manufacturing of jaggery while he incurred expenditure of Rs.1,30,000/- towards cultivating sugarcane.
“Moreover, it is also seen that though manufacturing of jaggery can be done by a small scale by a group of farmers by extracting juice from fresh sugarcane which is filtered and boiled in wide yellow shallow iron pans with continuous stirring and also adding soda or other similar chemicals to get the jaggery, it is evident that the process of converting sugarcane into jaggery is not an essential one to make sugarcane marketable and there is more profit in making it as jaggery and selling. If the exemption of agricultural income is extended to the sale of jaggery, it would only facilitate many agriculturists to claim this exemption and carrying revenue loss to the exchequer,” the bench said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
