In a partial relief to Hindustan Unilever and Sinochem India, the Bombay High Court held that Deficiency in GST Portal cannot be used as a shield by Authorities, amendments in BOE to be done manually.
The petitioner in Writ Petition prayed the issuance of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent to allow the amendment of BOE as requested by the Petitioner vide the emails and the letters and amend the GSTIN and the address in the BOE dated August 07, 2020.
The division bench headed by the chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice M.S.Karnik noted that the petitioners had prayed for amendment of documents only, which is squarely covered under section 149 of the Act, any deficiency in the system cannot be used by the respondents as a shield so as to deny relief to a party; if indeed the system does not permit, the deficiency has to be covered up manually until improvements are effected in the system for such amendment.
The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to consider the applications for amendment of the documents of the respective petitioners in the light of the observations made hereinabove as well as in accordance with law, upon granting the authorized representative of the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, as early as possible but not later than four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. Should the concerned respondent refuse to grant the prayer for amendment, it is needless to observe that a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners. On the contrary, if the prayer for amendment is granted, follow-up steps shall be taken without any delay.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Cisco has invited applications for the post of Accountant.
An Accountant will be assisting your team in Month end Closing activities and General Ledger Reconciliations by completing the tasks assigned to you effectively and in a timely manner.
Responsibilities:
Qualifications:
Location: Bangalore, India.
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Market regulator, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued the Clarification on certain provisions and on applicability of the ‘skin-in-game’ rules for key mutual funds’ employees.
Based on the representations received from the Mutual Fund Industry and recommendations of Mutual Funds Advisory Committee (‘MFAC’), it has been decided to provide clarity on certain provisions and on the applicability of the Circular no. SEBI/HO/IMD/IMD-I/DOF5/P/CIR/2021/553 dated April 28, 2021 which provides that a part of the compensation of Key Employees of the AMCs shall be paid in the form of units of the scheme(s) in which they have a role or oversight.
It has been clarified that the term ‘Key employees’ shall be read as ‘Designated Employees’. The phrase ‘paid in the form of units’ shall be read as ‘mandatorily invested in units’. For junior employees, the provision under para 2(i) of the Alignment Circular shall be implemented in a phased manner i.e. 10% in the 1st year and 15% in the 2nd year of implementation of the Alignment circular. In other words, junior employees shall be required to invest 10% during October 01, 2021 to September 30, 2022 and 15% during October 01, 2022 to September 30, 2023.
All junior employees shall be mandatorily required to invest 20% as specified under para 2(i) of the Alignment circular with effect from October 01, 2023 onwards. However, as prescribed in the circular SEBI/HO/IMD/IMD-I/DOF5/P/CIR/2021/582 dated June 25, 2021, other designated employees shall be mandatorily required to invest 20% as specified under para 2(i) of the Alignment circular with effect from October 01, 2021. The phased implementation for junior employees shall cease to apply from the date such employee attains the age of 35 years.
Redemption of units locked in as per the provisions of the Alignment circular and this circular shall be Liquid Schemes i.e.Units of Designated Employee invested in terms of the Alignment circular would get automatically redeemed on expiry of the mandatory lock-in period; and Open Ended Scheme i.e. after the expiry of the mandatory lock-in period, designated employee can redeem their units in open ended schemes twice in a financial year, with the prior approval of the Compliance Officer by following the procedure.
It is clarified that for interval schemes, schemes having restrictions on individual investments or lump-sum investments or having temporary suspensions on subscription or solution oriented schemes (retirement fund, children’s fund etc.) or schemes having lock-in period of more than 3 years, investments required under the Alignment circular shall be made in the units of any open ended schemes having risk value equivalent to or higher than the aforesaid schemes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on Monday notified the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission eligible for exemption under section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Board empowered under clause (46) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 notified for the purposes of the said clause, ‘Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission’, Gandhinagar, a commission established by the state government of Gujarat, in respect of the following specified income arising to the Commission namely Annual license fee; Petition fee; and Interest earned on fixed/term deposits and savings account with nationalized banks/state sponsored financial institutions.
Under section 10(46), any specified income arising to any notified body/authority/Board/ Trust/Commission (or a class thereof) which has been established or constituted by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act, or has been constituted by the Government or a State Government with the object of regulating or administering any activity for the benefit of the general public and is not engaged in any commercial activity and is notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette for the purposes of this clause is exempt from tax.
This notification shall be effective subject to the conditions that Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, Gandhinagar shall not engage in any commercial activity; activities and the nature of the specified income shall remain unchanged throughout the financial years; shall file return of income in accordance with the provision of clause (g) of sub-section (4C) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and shall file the Audit report along with the Return, duly verified by the accountant as provided in explanation to section 288(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 along with a certificate from the chartered accountant that the above conditions are satisfied.
This notification shall apply with respect to the financial years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued the clarification on Cut-off date for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Debit Notes.
Section 16 (4), as amended with effect from 01.01.2021, provides that a registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the due date of furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier.
The Board has received various representation raising the doubt in respect of relevant date to determine the ‘financial year’ for the purpose of section 16(4); and whether any availment of input tax credit, on or after 01.01.2021, in respect of debit notes issued either prior to or after 01.01.2021, will be governed by the provisions of the amended section 16(4), or the provision applicable respect of the debit notes issued after 01.01.2021.
The CBIC clarified that with effect from 01.01.2021, section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 was amended vide the Finance Act, 2020, so as to delink the date of issuance of debit note from the date of issuance of the underlying invoice for purposes of availing input tax credit.
The intent of law as specified in the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2020 states that “Clause 118 of the Bill seeks to amend sub-section (4) of section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act so as to delink the date of issuance of debit note from the date of issuance of the underlying invoice for purposes of availing input tax credit.
Accordingly, the Board has clarified w.e.f. 01.01.2021, in case of debit notes, the date of issuance of debit note (not the date of underlying invoice) shall determine the relevant financial year for the purpose of section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
The availment of ITC on debit notes in respect of amended provision shall be applicable from 01.01.2021. Accordingly, for availment of ITC on or after 01.01.2021, in respect of debit notes issued either prior to or after 01.01.2021, the eligibility for availment of ITC will be governed by the amended provision of section 16(4), whereas any ITC availed prior to 01.01.2021, in respect of debit notes, shall be governed under the provisions of section 16(4), as it existed before the said amendment on 01.01.2021.
For example, a debit note dated 07.07.2021 is issued in respect of the original invoice dated 16.03.2021. As the invoice pertains to F.Y. 2020- 21, the relevant financial year for availment of ITC in respect of the said invoice in terms of section 16(4) of the CGST shall be 2020-21. However, as the debit note has been issued in FY 2021-22, the relevant financial year for availment of ITC in respect of the said debit note shall be 2021-22 in terms of amended provision of section 16(4) 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 Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarified that the physical invoice need not be carried when e-invoice has been issued.
The Board has received representation on the issue whether carrying a physical copy of invoice is compulsory during movement of goods in cases where suppliers have issued invoices in the manner prescribed under rule 48 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 (i.e. in cases of e-invoice).
The CBIC clarified that Rule 138A (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 inter-alia, provides that the person in charge of a conveyance shall carry the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be; and a copy of the e-way bill or the e-way bill number, either physically or mapped to a Radio Frequency Identification Device embedded on to the conveyance in such manner as may be notified by the Commissioner.
Further, rule 138A (2) of CGST Rules, after being amended vide notification No. 72/2020-Central Tax dated 30.09.2020, states that “In case, invoice is issued in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (4) of rule 48, the Quick Reference (QR) code having an embedded Invoice Reference Number (IRN) in it, may be produced electronically, for verification by the proper officer in lieu of the physical copy of such tax invoice”
A conjoint reading of rules 138A (1) and 138A (2) of CGST Rules, 2017 clearly indicates that there is no requirement to carry the physical copy of tax invoice in cases where e-invoice has been generated by the supplier. After amendment, the revised rule 138A (2) states in unambiguous words that whenever e- invoice has been generated, the Quick Reference (QR) code, having an embedded Invoice Reference Number (IRN) in it, may be produced electronically for verification by the proper officer in lieu of the physical copy of such tax invoice.
Accordingly, the Board clarified that there is no need to carry the physical copy of tax invoice in cases where invoice has been generated by the supplier in the manner prescribed under rule 48(4) of the CGST Rules and production of the Quick Response (QR) code having an embedded Invoice Reference Number (IRN) electronically, for verification by the proper officer, would suffice.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition by holding the trading liability to be an existing liability as proceedings for recoveries with respect of these amount was still in progress.
The assessee, is a company engaged in the business of trading. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee owes Jiangsu Go Intl. Group Hua Tai Import & Export Co., China Rs.1,25,10,400/- and M/s. Zhejiang Hengdian Apeloa Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. Rs.1,88,54,960/-, respectively.
It was noted that these credit entries are still to be paid. The details filed in the return of income and its annexure according to the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the liabilities are a trading liability, the assessee has purchased and sold the consignment and since the consignment was not of good quality, the payment is not made. It was for this reason that these two parties, as noted by the Assessing Officer, were shown as creditors. The Assessing Officer proposed to treat the same as ceased liabilities, but the assessee opposed the same on the ground that the liability has not ceased even though it is disputed.
The Assessing Officer however proceeded to reject the submission made by the assessee and at these amounts aggregating to Rs.3,13,65,060/- to the income of the assessee u/s.41(1)(a) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the additions so made, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) took note of the submissions made by the assessee, as also the fact that the proceedings for recoveries with respect of these amounts were still in progress, as at the relevant point of time and, therefore, these amounts cannot be treated as ceased liability u/s.41(1)(a) of the Act. He deleted the impugned addition by holding it to be an existing liability.
The department appealed against the order of CIT(A) and raised the issue whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,13,65,360/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
The coram headed by the Vice President Pramod Kumar and Judicial Member, Saktijit Dey said that as on the relevant point, even the proceedings with respect to the recoveries of these amounts were pending in the judicial forums and by no stretch of logic, it can be said that these amounts ceased to be payable by the assessee. It is only elementary that in order to bring an amount to tax u/s.41(1)(a), three fundamental conditions are to be satisfied, but the very foundational condition is that there has to be benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of ‘remission and cessation’ and clearly that condition was not satisfied at least in this year. Therefore, the tribunal approved the well reasoned finding given by the learned CIT(A) and declined to interfere in the matter.
“It’s a pity that sometimes the departmental appeals are filed without carefully looking at undisputed foundational facts in a routine manner. In the present case, even though the Assessing Officer is in appeal before us, the foundational facts are not even in disputes and these foundational facts indicate that there was no remission or cessation of liability in the relevant previous year. Yet, the Assessing Officer is on appeal before us. That does not make any sense. We only hope that the Income Tax Authorities are more careful in taking a call on which decisions need to be pursued in further appeals. We leave it at that for the time being,” the ITAT 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 Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) extended the last date till December 31, 2021 to apply for the ICAI Doctoral Scholarship Scheme 2021.
The Doctoral scholarship will be awarded to registered Ph.D. Scholars from UGC recognized reputed Indian Universities/ Deemed Universities/ Colleges, IIMs having University/IIMs approved Ph.D. Programme to pursue and complete their Doctoral Research in Auditing, Taxation, Commerce, Management and Accounting. The candidates must have confirmed Ph.D. Registration.
It is noteworthy, Rs. 50,000 per month Scholarship to be awarded to 5 scholars annually for the maximum period of 36 months. Contingency grant will be admissible at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per annum.
The scholar must join the scholarship within four weeks of the date of the award letter by submitting the required documents through the affiliating/administering institution. This may be extended by the ICAI up to six months in deserving cases.
The sanction of the scholarship will be issued initially for a period of one year, effective from the date of joining of the scholar in the scholarship. The renewal of the scholarship for the subsequent year shall be subject to the receipt of satisfactory annual progress report and at least one research paper in International Journal of repute and one in ICAI Journal.
The regular monitoring of scholarship is done based on quarterly and annual progress reports submitted by the scholar and duly forwarded by the supervisor. The scholarship may be discontinued if research progress is found unsatisfactory or any ICAI rules are violated. The ICAI may ask for annual presentation/mid-term appraisal of the research work. During the scholarship, the scholars are required to publish yearly at least one research paper in the International Journal of repute and one in the ICAI Journal on the theme of the research undertaken and submit a copy of these to ICAI.
The ICAI Research Committee has suggested various topics namely Human Resource Accounting, Simplification of Human Resource Laws, Government Sector Accounting, Integrated Reporting, International Taxation Laws and Water Audit. The Research Committee will decide the suitability of the topics from time to time.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) Chartered Accountants (CA) July intermediate result 2021 has been released on September 19 i.e. Sunday for both old and new courses.
All India Topper First Rank is Arjun Mehra tops resident of New Delhi with 84.25%, all India Second Rank isMahin Naim resident of Delhi with 79.38% and all India Third Rank is Sudeepta Benya resident of Benguluru with 78%.
Miss Priti Nandan Kamat was the all India Topper for Intermediate (IPC) Examination held in July, 2021.
The ICAI CA examination consists of 4 subjects in each group and all the candidates are needed to score an aggregate of 50 per cent with an individual score of a minimum of 40 per cent in each subject.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
In a major relief to Telangana State Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation (TSMSIDC), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that the Penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) cannot be imposed merely for the delay in filing Quarterly TDS Statement.
The assessee deductor AP Health & Medical Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation is a State Government Organization. A survey operation under section 133A was conducted in the premises of the assessee-deductor by the Income-tax Officer (TDS). During the course of the survey, it was found that the assessee-deductor had failed to file TDS Quarterly Statements or Returns in respect of all the four quarters in forms No.24Q & 26Q.
On verification of the computerized database of the Income-tax department, it was noticed that the assessee failed to file quarterly TDS statements in form No.24Q & 26Q for all the 4 quarters of the F.Y. 2008-09 as per the provisions of section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act. It was further observed that as per the provisions of section 200(3) of the I.T. Act any person deducting any sum in accordance with the TDS provisions is required to prepare and deliver the quarterly TDS statements in form No. 24Q and 26Q in respect of TDS on salaries and on payments other than salaries respectively Within the prescribed time.
The assessee to file quarterly TDS statements or returns in Form No. 24Q & 26Q for all the quarters of the F.Y.2008-09, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act by the issue of notice. As per the said notice, the assessee was requested to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act should not be passed in its case. However, the assessee neither appeared for the hearing nor filed any written explanation regarding why penalty u/s.272A(2)(k) should not be levied. Further, the assessee did not give any explanation regarding the non-filing of form No.24Q/26Q within the prescribed statutory time.
The Coram of Judicial Member S.S.Godara and Accountant Member L.P.Sahu found that that the assessee has not filed TDS returns in the prescribed forms 24Q and 26Q for all the quarters within the stipulated time and, therefore, the AO levied penalty at the rate of 100/- per day for delay in default for filing of TDS returns. Further, we find from the orders of authorities below that the entire tax along with interest thereon had been deposited into Government account and later, the assessee filed quarterly TDS returns for all the quarters.
Therefore, the tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(k) in the hands of the assessee.
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), Ahmedabad bench has held that the expenditure incurred on conversion of convertible debentures into equity shares would amount to capital expenditure and therefore, the same cannot be deductible from the total income of the assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee approached the Tribunal challenging the decisions of the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority disallowing the expenditure incurred in respect of “documents and stamp charges” of Rs.39,27,000/-on account of increase in authorized capital and treated the same as capital expenditure. Assessee alternatively pleaded that claim of deduction of impugned expenditure otherwise may be allowed under section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal bench comprising ITAT Vice President Rajpal Yadav and Accountant Member Waseem Ahmed observed that the claim of the assessee is that since capital base has been increased due to conversion of debenture for meeting working capital of the assessee-company, the expenditure for such conversion ought to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
“As observed by the CIT(A), facts of the case of the assessee clearly indicate that portion of convertible debenture was converted into equity shares and assessee company had got enduring benefits therefrom and therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on conversion of convertible debentures into equity shares has to be treated as capital expenditure. For which, the CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd., 225 ITR 798. Thus, we are of the view that the Revenue authorities have taken a correct view of the matter while disallowing claim of the assessee,” the Tribunal said.
Withregard to the alternate claim of the assessee under section 35D of the Act, the Tribunal held that the Section 35D of the Act does not contemplates allowance of expenditure incurred after the commencement of business that too for the expenditure incurred for conversion of debenture into equity share capital.
“As per Section 35D, any capital expenditure incurred before the commencement of operation of specified business then such expenditure is allowable as a deduction under the income tax in 5 equal annual installments subject to the fulfilment of different conditions given under the Income Tax Act. That was not the case on our hand for the reasons narrated above. The Revenue authorities is, therefore rightly rejected this alternative claimof the assessee,” it concluded.
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 has deleted an addition against Infosys BPO Limited holding that the assessment made, and the order passed on the amalgamating companyafter its dissolution is invalid.
Infosys BPO Limited,the assessee, an Indian Company engaged in the business of business process outsourcing, ceased to exist as on the date on which the order of the assessment was passed on merger with M/s. Infosys BPM Ltd. The Assessing Officer, while concluding the assessment proceedings against the assessee and passed an order.
Before the authorities, the assessee contended that the order passed in the name of a company which seized to exist was invalid.
The Tribunal bench comprising ITAT Vice President N V Vasudevan and Accountant Member ChandraPoojari, after quoting the Apex Court decision in the case of Maruti Suzki, observed that the order of assessment framed in the name of a non nonexistent entity after it ceased to be a subsisting entity, was ab-initio initiovoid and therefore, null in the eyes of law.
“On similar facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the ITAT, Bangalore bench in ACIT v iGate Infrastructure Management Services Ltd held that assessment order passed by the Income tax authorities in Delhi, after change in registered office of the company from Delhi to Bangalore, is without jurisdiction and bad in law. In view of the above, in the event of amalgamation of companies, (i) the income of the amalgamating company upto the date of amalgamation should be assessed in the hands of the amalgamating company (predecessor), if the amalgamating company is in existence at the time of initiation of assessment proceedings. (ii) If the amalgamating company is not in existence at the time of initiation of assessment proceedings, the income of the amalgamating company upto the date of amalgamation should be assessed in the hands of the amalgamated company (successor) under the caption “successor of predecessor” in like manner and to the same extent as it would have been made on the predecessor,” the bench said.
While concluding the issue in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal held that “the effect / consequence of the above position of law is that the assessment made and the order passed on the amalgamating company i.e., predecessor when the said company is dissolved / not in existence isa nullity. We therefore hold that the impugned assessment order is non-est and ab initio void and, therefore is hereby annulled.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while deleting the addition ruled that mere time gap between Withdrawals and Deposits cannot be a sole basis for suspecting genuineness of Cash-in-hand.
The AO alleged that the assessee, Krishna Agarwal had already made the investment in property amounting to Rs. 1,27,20,200/- out of cash withdrawals from bank is factually & legally incorrect and also without application of mind as after the death of the husband of assessee, Shri Ram Prakash Agarwal on 24.01.2014, the property was legally transferred in the name of assessee as per provision of law and also value of such property had been determined at Rs 1,27,20,200/- which was disclosed by assessee in her return of income. The assessee had sold the property after the transfer took place in her name and received the sales consideration in installment during F.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 directly in her bank account which has been withdrawn from bank time to time and the same was again re-deposited in bank account during the year under consideration. However the AO had made incorrect and wrong interpretation of information available on record and failed to analyzed the material facts that the property so transferred in the name of assessee after death of her husband had been sold and out of such sales transaction whatsoever sales consideration received by her directly in bank account which was withdrawal & re-deposited in same bank account.
The source of cash deposits in bank account had been explained with legal and valid documentary evidences by the assessee and the allegation made by AO is apparently false and incorrect as discussed hereinabove and as such only on the basis of such illegal observation the addition made by AO may kindly be deleted. Further also the AO had not brought on record any contrary material or evidence in respect of legal evidence as furnished by assessee.
The assessee urged that the addition made by AO without application of mind and also in causal manner as the facts narrated and observation made by AO in assessment order without analyzed the information in right perspective and sought to make addition by falsely & incorrect conceiving a fact that the assessee had made purchased the house and cash withdrawn are used for same which is not only incorrect but also contrary to facts on record.
The coram of Judicial Member Sandeep Gosain and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav held that mere absence of supporting documentation cannot be a reason enough to allege any malafide in the explanation so submitted especially where the assessee has explained and duly disclosed the source of deposits in the bank account out of which the withdrawals have been made and has thus established the necessary linkage and availability of cash in hand.
“There is no justifiable basis to hold that the explanation so furnished by the assessee cannot be accepted and find the explanation so furnished is reasonable, appropriate and satisfactory in the facts and circumstances of the present case and hereby direct the addition so made be deleted,” the ITAT said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) has made available self-service functionality on GST Portal for those importers of goods, recipients of supplies from SEZ, and the Bill of Entry details, which didn’t auto-populate in GSTR-2A.
“To help importers of goods, and recipients of supplies from SEZ, search Bill of Entry details, which did not auto-populate in GSTR-2A, a self-service functionality has been made available on the GST Portal that can be used to search such records in GST System, and fetch the missing records from ICEGATE,” the GSTN said.
It is noteworthy, it usually takes 2 days (after reference date) for BE details to get updated on GST Portal from ICEGATE. This functionality should, therefore, be used if data is not available after this period. The reference date would be either Out of charge date, Duty payment date, or amendment date – whichever is later.
Taxpayers can fetch the requisite details by Login to GST Portal, Navigate to Services > User Services > Search BoE, Enter the Port Code, Bill of Entry Number, Bill of Entry Date and Reference Date and click the SEARCH button.
The reference date would be either Out of charge date, Duty payment date, or amendment date – whichever is later. If the BoE details do not appear in the Search results, click on the QUERY ICEGATE button, at the bottom of the screen, to trigger a query to ICEGATE. History of fetched BoE details from ICEGATE along with status of query are displayed after 30 minutes from the time of triggering the query.
For records of type IMPG (Import of Goods), details of: Period for Form GSTR-2A (system generated Statement of Inward Supplies); Reference Date; Bill of Entry Details like Port Code, BoE Number, BoE Date & Taxable Value; and Amount of Tax would be displayed.
For records of type IMPGSEZ (Import of Goods from SEZ), details of: Period for Form GSTR-2A; Reference Date; GSTIN of Supplier; Trade Name of Supplier; Bill of Entry Details like Port Code, BoE Number, BoE Date & Taxable Value; and Amount of Tax would be displayed.
Taxpayers are advised to confirm correct details either from BE documents, or using ICEGATE portal
In case of any problem the taxpayer may create a ticket at the GST Helpdesk or GST Self-service portal by including details namely complete details of BE records i.e. GSTIN, BE Number, BE Date, Port Code, Reference Number; Screenshot of ICEGATE portal with BE record and Any error that they may have encountered while using the “Search BoE” functionality on GST Portal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The CGST Ahmedabad Zone has issued the trade notice which pertains to organizing a Special Drive for Risky Exporter Refund Verification from 20th to 24th September 2021 and the Exporters can approach jurisdictional CGST Division for the same.
CBIC has taken measures to apply stringent risk parameters-based checks driven by rigorous data analytics and Artificial Intelligence tools and based on the same, certain exporters were taken up for further verification. While the verifications are caused to mitigate risk, it is necessary that genuine exporters do not face any hardship. There is a need to focus on timely disposal of all such pending verification to provide immediate relief to the business entities. As part of ongoing Trade Facilitation measure, Ahmedabad CGST Zone is organizing a “Special Drive for Disposal of Pending Risky Exporter Verifications from 20th Sept 2021 to to 24th September 2021.
“As part of the Special Drive, all Exporters who have been taken up for further verification by subordinate Offices of CGST Commissionerates, falling under jurisdiction of CGST Ahmedabad Zone, may approach their jurisdictional CGST Division with their grievance on any of the said five working days between 20th Sept to 24 Sept 2021 between 0930 AM to 0600 PM. Their grievances will be examined by the jurisdictional Officer and suitable action will be taken by them. The Exporter shall be communicated the present status, deficiency in documents/information (if any). If no documents/information is found deficient, then the specific timeline (by when the Verification will be completed by the Commissionerate and Report sent to DGARM) will be communicated to the Exporter,” the trade notice said.
The jurisdictional CGST Authorities have been suitably advised to proactively respond to the grievance of such Exporters and dispose of the verification expeditiously and submit their clear recommendation to DGARM, based on merits of the cases.
For the Exporters who desire to avail benefit of this Special Drive, it is requested that they may communicate with their jurisdictional Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner CGST Divisions.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ), in continuation of its commitment to address the hardship being faced by various stakeholders on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, has, on consideration of representations received from various stakeholders, decided to extend timelines for compliances under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the following cases, as under:
Time limit for intimation of Aadhaar number to the Income tax Department for linking of PAN with Aadhaar has been extended from 30th September, 2021 to 31st March, 2022.
The due date for completion of penalty proceedings under the Act has also been extended from 30th September, 2021 to 31st March, 2022.
Further, the time limit for issuance of notice and passing of order by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 has also been extended to 31st March, 2022.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The GST Council’s 45th meeting was held today in Lucknow under the chairmanship of the Union Finance & Corporate Affairs Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman wherein correction in Inverted Duty structure in Footwear and Textiles sector and the New Rules applicable from 1st January, 2022.
“The GST rate changes in order to correct inverted duty structure, in footwear and textiles sector, as was discussed in earlier GST Council Meeting and was deferred for an appropriate time, will be implemented with effect from January 1, 2022,” the press release said.
The council could not correct it in the past, particularly during last year due to the pandemic, because it would have had an adverse impact on either GST revenue collections or consumer prices of the finished products, one person said.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The GST Council’s 45th meeting was held today in Lucknow under the chairmanship of the Union Finance & Corporate Affairs Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman. The GST Council has inter-alia made the various recommendations relating to changes in GST rates on supply of goods and services.
The Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman has announced the extension of existing concessional GST rates (currently valid till 30th September, 2021) on following Covid-19 treatment drugs, up to 31st December, 2021, namely no GST on Amphotericin B, Tocilizumab and 5% GST on Remdesivir, Anti-coagulants like Heparin.
Further, reduction of GST rate to 5% on more Covid-19 treatment drugs, up to 31st December, 2021, namely itolizumab, Posaconazole, Infliximab, Favipiravir has been announced.
The 5% GST rate will be applicable on retro fitment kits for vehicles used by the disabled. The GST rate on Fortified Rice Kernels for schemes like ICDS etc has been reduced from 18% to 5%.
Further, the GST rate on Medicine Keytruda for treatment of cancer, Biodiesel supplied to OMCs for blending with Diesel has been decreased from 12% to 5%.
The GST council has increased the GST on Ores and concentrates of metals such as iron, copper, aluminum, zinc and few others from 5% to 18%. The GST rate on Specified Renewable Energy Devices and parts has also been increased from 5% to 12%.
The GST rate on Cartons, boxes, bags, packing containers of paper etc., all kinds of pens which is currently 12% or 18% has been uniformed and changed to 18%. The GST on Waste and scrap of polyurethanes and other plastics has been increased from 5% to 18%.
Further, the GST on Railway parts, locomotives & other goods in Chapter 86 and Miscellaneous goods of paper like cards, catalogue, printed material has been increased from 12% to 18%.
No IGST will be payable on import of medicines for personal use, namely Zolgensma for Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Viltepso for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Other medicines used in treatment of muscular atrophy recommended by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Pharmaceuticals and IGST exemption on goods supplied at Indo-Bangladesh Border haats.
The Unintended waste generated during the production of fish meal except for Fish Oil the GST will be Nil (for the period 1.7.2017 to 30.9.2019).
The GST council has also proposed that the Supply of mentha oil from unregistered person has been brought under reverse charge. Further, Council has also recommended that exports of Mentha oil should be allowed only against LUT and consequential refund of input tax credit.Brick kilns would be brought under special composition scheme with threshold limit of Rs. 20 lakhs, with effect from 1.4.2022. Bricks would attract GST at the rate of 6% without ITC under the scheme. GST rate of 12% with ITC would otherwise apply to bricks.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The GST Council, in its 45th meeting, has issued a clarification relating to interpretation of the term “merely establishment of distinct person” in condition (v) of the Section 2 (6) of the IGST Act 2017 for export of services.
The Council has decided that the companies registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and the entities registered under the laws of a foreign country shall be treated as two separate entities for considering a supply of service as export of services.
“A person incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 2013 and a person incorporated under the laws of any other country are to be treated as separate legal entities and would not be barred by the condition (v) of the sub-section (6) of the section 2 of the IGST Act 2017 for considering a supply of service as export of services,” the Government said in a press release.
A circular clarifying the same shall be released soon from the Ministry and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes ad Customs (CBIC).
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST Council), in its 45th meeting has decided to relax the compliance requirements for the filing of ITC-04. As per the decision of the council, the return shall be filed once in six months by the taxpayers whose annual aggregate turnover in preceding financial year is above Rs. 5 crores. For the taxpayers whose annual aggregate turnover in preceding financial year is upto Rs. 5 crores shall file the return annually.
“Requirement of filing FORM GST ITC-04 under rule 45 (3) of the CGST Rules has been relaxed as under: a. Taxpayers whose annual aggregate turnover in preceding financial year is above Rs. 5 crores shall furnish ITC-04 once in six months; b. Taxpayers whose annual aggregate turnover in preceding financial year is upto Rs. 5 crores shall furnish ITC-04 annually,” the Government said in a press release.
Further, the GST Council also resolved the ambiguities in the charging of interest under section 50(3) of the CGST Act.
“In the spirit of earlier Council decision that interest is to be charged only in respect of net cash liability, section 50 (3) of the CGST Act to be amended retrospectively, w.e.f. 01.07.2017, to provide that interest is to be paid by a taxpayer on “ineligible ITC availed and utilized” and not on “ineligible ITC availed”. It has also been decided that interest in such cases should be charged on ineligible ITC availed and utilized at 18% w.e.f. 01.07.2017,” the Government said.
“Unutilized balance in CGST and IGST cash ledger may be allowed to be transferred between distinct persons (entities having same PAN but registered in different states), without going through the refund procedure, subject to certain safeguards,” it said.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The GST Council’s 45th meeting was held today in Lucknow under the chairmanship of the Union Finance & Corporate Affairs Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman. The GST Council has inter-alia made the following recommendations relating to changes in GST rates on supply of goods and services and changes related to GST law and procedure:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
