The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that addition under VAT is not sustainable when the charges of clandestine removal cannot be confirmed without corroborative evidence. The Revenue challenged the orders dated 10.01.2017 & 23.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Ahmedabad ( ‘the CIT(A)’) which…
The Delhi High Court, in an important ruling, has held today that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India can exercise Suo Motu powers and initiate disciplinary proceedings against its member Chartered Accountants without a written complaint.
The Single Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma perused Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and observed that “Section 21 does empower the Institute to proceed suo moto and unhindered by the absence of a written complaint or allegation that may be submitted.”
It was further observed that, “A written complaint or allegation in writing cannot, in any manner, be understood to be a pre-requisite or a sine qua non for the initiation of action under Section 21” of the Chartered Accountants Act.
The Section 21(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act is as follows:–
On receipt of any information or complaint along with the prescribed fee, the Director (Discipline) shall arrive at a prima facie opinion on the occurrence of the alleged misconduct.
The relevance and legislative intent of the word “any” before the word ‘information’ was analysed in depth to reach a conclusion.
The Court observed that, “The use of the word “any” before information in Section 21 clearly appears to be a conscious attempt by the authors of the statute to confer an expansive meaning upon the word and not confine or whittle it down to the rigours and formality that may be attached to a written complaint that may be received by the Institute”.
In addition, various Statutes like Companies Act, Banking Regulation Act, Central Vigilance Commission Act etc. were also analysed to reach an informed decision.
The decision was a result of the pleas of four CAs against the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
Being served with Show Cause Notices arising out of suo-motu proceedings against them while employed as Joint Statutory Auditors of Punjab National Bank, the Chartered Accountants approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the validity of the suo-moto proceedings.
The Delhi High Court, however did leave the petitioners the liberty to challenge any final decision on other grounds as may be available while ruling that ICAI is statutorily entitled to exercise suo motu powers in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore bench has quashed assessment proceedings against an HUF holding that the HUF was disrupted/partitioned as on the date of assessment and the assessment in the status of HUF is invalid.
A search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of one Shri K.J.Purushotham Reddy. During the course of search operations, the residential premises of Shri C.Rajkumar (kartha of assessee), were also covered. It was stated that as a result of search and seizure operations, certain documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized by the Investigation Wing of the Department. During the course of search operations, it was stated by Shri Rajkumar who is the kartha of the present assessee i.e. Rajkumar C, HUF that regular returns of income were being filed in the individual capacity and no returns were filed in the status of ‘Rajkumar C, HUF’, assessee. The assessment was accordingly, completed.
On first appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the income belonged to HUF and not to individual. The CIT(A), however, directed the AO initiate assessment proceedings to tax this income in the hands of Rajkumar C, HUF.
On further appeal by the assessee, the ITAT bench comprising of Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM observed that the assessment is not valid and held that when HUF was not assessed in that status prior to the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the assessee as an HUF after the disruption of the HUF.
“In the instant case, the HUF was disrupted/partitioned as on the date of assessment (Assessment order in case of HUF was completed on 25.03.2013) and the HUF having not been assessed in the past, the assessment order in the status of HUF is invalid, going by the dictum laid down by the judicial pronouncements cited supra. Therefore, the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 in status of HUF is hereby quashed,” ITAT said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Supreme Court of India has granted a reduction of the amount towards limited compounding of an offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act,1962
The appellant, Chen Hsui Yun filed the petition to explore the possibility of compounding the entire offence said to have been committed by the appellant.
While boarding Air India flight No.AI-310 from New Delhi to Hong Kong on 27.08.2019, five passengers, including the appellant, were intercepted and were found carrying a huge quantity of foreign currency in their baggage. Foreign currency equivalent to Rs.65,16,000/- was recovered from the baggage of the appellant.
The appellant was enlarged on bail by the CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, imposing the conditions that she would not travel abroad without the permission of the Court. The later application moved by the appellant pointing out her hardships and having no accommodation in India was considered and ultimately, the CMM, Patiala House Courts, by the order dated 18.12.2020, allowed the appellant to visit abroad for a period of six weeks on certain conditions which was, however, set aside by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi on 10.02.2021 in Criminal Revision Petition No.09 of 2021.
The said order was challenged by the appellant by way of a revision petition in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which was disposed of by the High Court while granting her permission to visit abroad on various terms and conditions, including that of depositing an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in the form of FDR in the name of Registrar General of the Court.
The appellant could not deposit the said amount, as required in the order passed by the High Court. A show cause notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued by the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority ordered absolute confiscation of the foreign currency equivalent to Rs.65,16,000/- recovered from the appellant and further imposed a penalty of Rs.6,50,000/-.
Further, the complaint for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, was filed leading to Criminal Case No.4413 of 2021 in the Court of CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
The SC bench consisting of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held that” the concession as prayed for on behalf of the appellant, for reduction of amount towards compounding, deserves to be granted.”
The appeal was partly allowed, while accepting the terms suggested on behalf of the appellant and subject, of course, to her compliance with other requirements.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench has held that the non-response to the re-assessment notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961 will not attract penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. the assessee, Mr. Neeraj Kumar is an individual and no return of income was filed as his income was…
The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently held that a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration issued to the assessee and then canceled upon request cannot be revoked merely based on the property disputes with the brother of the applicant.
The appellant approached the High Court to seek restoration of the licenses issued to the Samci Restaurant, which was canceled by the State Taxes Officer, GST, and the Assistant Commissioner, Food, Safety, Department of Drug and Food Control Organization, J&K.
Both the Food Safety and Tax Licenses of the petitioner’s restaurant were canceled at the request of the petitioner’s brother. A Writ Petition was preferred to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in this regard.
The appellant, aggrieved by the decision in the writ petition seeking revocation of registration, filed the present appeal for the consideration of the division bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
The respondents-revenue submitted that the electricity connection, registration of the shop under the Shops Establishment Act and the receipt of taxes paid by the petitioner’s brother was duly submitted and taken into consideration for cancellation of the registration.
It was submitted by the Advocate General D C Raina appearing for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir that, there is no possibility of fraud having been played by any third person in seeking cancellation of the registration. The reason was stated as the cancellation process being online, demands submission of certain confidential information that would not have been with anyone but the appellant.
On behalf of the appellant, Advocate M. A. Qayoom and Advocate Mian Tuffail submitted that the application for cancellation of registration of Samci Restaurant has been fraudulently shown to have been filed by him when the same appears to be the mischief of some of his employee-accountant. The said application is stated to have not been decided so far.
The court took note of the persistent property dispute between the brother of the appellant and the appellant himself and restrained itself from going into the merits of that matter.
Observing that the proper course in law was to leave the concerned authority free to decide as to who, out of the two, fulfills the criteria for holding a license, the High Court held that “registration of the business unit, the same stands canceled” and restricted the operation/running of the Restaurant until the license has been granted in favor of the deserving party.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while overruling the orders passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) imposing GST in respect of ‘mango pulp’ @ 18%, has held that the same is incorrect since the item Mango pulp attracts 12% GST.
The petitioner approached the division bench of the High Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the tax department to declare the goods manufactured by the petitioner as classifiable under Chapter Heading 0804 50 40 and exempt from GST in terms of entry 51 of Notification No.2/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
A bench of Justice C.Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V.Ravindra Babu relied on the Circular dated 03.08.2022 wherein it was clarified that mangoes, fresh falling under heading 0804 are exempt; Mangoes, sliced and dried, falling under 0804 are chargeable to a concessional rate of 5%; while all other forms of dried mango, including Mango pulp, attract GST at the rate of 12%. To bring absolute clarity, the relevant entry at S. No. 16 of Schedule-II of notification no.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017, has been amended vide notification No. 6/2022-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 13th July, 2022.
Relying on the above, the Court observed that “from a reading of the above, it is very clear now that on the basis of recommendation of GST Council in its 22nd meeting, the GST rate on ‘Mangoes sliced, dried’ falling under heading 0804 was reduced from 12% to 5% while GST rate on all forms of dried mangoes (other than sliced and dried mangoes) falling under heading 0804, including mango pulp, was always meant to be at the rate of 12%. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay GST on Mango pulp @ 12%.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the profit element from bogus purchases made through the hawala dealers are subject to income tax.
The assessee, Dhanesh Mulji Gala engaged in the business of trading in Ferrous metals. The AO received information that these assessees have purchased materials from persons, who were identified as hawala dealers. The allegation is that these hawala dealers were providing bogus bills only, without actually supplying the materials. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessments and held that the purchases made by these assessees from the alleged hawala dealers are bogus in nature. The AO further took the view that the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases is liable to assessed in the hands of these assessees. Accordingly, the AO estimated the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases @ 12.50% of the value of purchases and assessed it in all the years under consideration in the hands of respective assessees.
After considering submissions, Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) held that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the additions by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Sheth wherein it has been held that the profit element involved in the bogus purchases should be brought to tax.
“Since Learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders so passed by him in the hands of both the assessees for the years under consideration,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
In a major relief to M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the Uttarakhand High Court has directed the central excise department to adjust the amount of interest paid under protest, prior to issuance of show cause shall be considered as pre-deposit while disposing of his application for a waiver under ‘Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019’…
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified the tax exemption to the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission under section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The notification issued on Tuesday stated that “the Central Government hereby notifies for the purposes of the said clause, ‘Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission’ (PAN AAALB1099E), a Commission constituted by the State Government of Bihar, in respect of the following specified income arising to that Commission, namely: (a) amount received as licence fee from licensees in electricity; (b) amount received as application processing fee; and (c) Interest earned on Government Grants and on (a) & (b) above.”
Section 10(34), which provides an exemption to the shareholders in respect of dividend income, is withdrawn from Assessment Year 2021-20. Thus, dividends received during the financial year 2020-21 and onwards shall now be taxable in the hands of the shareholders.
Support 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 provisions of TDS not applicable to recovery of late payment charges and Service Tax.
The assessee, M/s. Prithvi Outdoor Publicity LLP made payment to M/s Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to the tune of Rs.10,48,125/-. The AO has held that the assessee has not deducted the TDS on the same and therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee.
The assessee contended that amount of Rs.10,48,125 /- consists of late fee to the tune of Rs.9,77,429/- and service tax to the tune of Rs.1,16,155/-. Therefore, it was contended that there is no provision under the Act to deduct TDS on late fee and service tax, hence no addition should be made.
A division bench of the ITAT consisting Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member and Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member observed that “the ld Counsel submitted that assessee had paid Rs.2,27,56,222/- to APSRTC and out of this, the TDS on payment of Rs.2,17,08,097/- was deducted and balance amount of Rs.10,48,125/- (Rs.2,27,56,222-Rs.2,17,08,097) was adjusted by APSRTC towards recovery of late payment charges, service tax etc. and therefore assessee did not deduct TDS on the same, being penal in nature. Apart from this, ld Counsel also submitted that payee has included the sum of Rs.10,48,125/- in its income and offered for tax. Since, the said amount pertains to late fee and service tax, therefore the provisions of TDS does not apply to the late fee and service tax, hence we delete the addition of Rs.10,48,125/-, made by the Assessing Officer.”
Shri Bandish Soparkar, Advocate appeared for the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentBuy books of essential tax practice with exciting offers at shopscan.in
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued an advisory for Anonymised Escalation Mechanism under Faceless Assessment.
A circular issued by the Board last week stated that “CBIC has endeavored to provide an Anonymized Escalation Mechanism for ICEGATE registered users where they submit their grievance for the delay in Bill of Entry clearance under faceless assessment. The delay in clearance would subsequently be escalated to the concerned Faceless Assessment Officers. The facility shall also enable users to track the status of grievances submitted by them till the eventual resolution.”
ICEGATE registered users are required to contact the ICEGATE Helpdesk team on the toll-free number 1800-3010-1000 to avail of the functionality of Anonymised Escalation Mechanism under Faceless Assessment.
Users can track the status of the registered grievance by providing their ICEGATE ID or either Bill of Entry details, including Bill of Entry number, Bill of Entry date, and Port code or Grievance number.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentBuy books of essential tax practice with exciting offers at shopscan.in
In a significant move, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified that the Non-fungible token (NFTs) shall not be treated as Virtual Digital Assets for the purpose of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A notification issued last day stated that “the Central Government hereby specifies a token which qualifies to…
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued a circular regarding the Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on Virtual Digital Assets (VDA) transactions outside Exchange.
Finance Act, 2022 inserted a new section 194S in the Act with effect from July 01, 2022. The new section mandates a person, who is responsible for paying to any resident any sum by way of consideration for transfer of a virtual digital asset (VDA), to deduct an amount equal to 1% of such sum as income tax thereon. The tax deduction is required to be made at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the resident or at the time of payment, whichever is earlier.
Last week, the CBDT has issued guidelines in the form of Circular No. 13 of 2022 dated June 22, 2022 for transactions conducted on or through an Exchange. For all other transactions only the clarification provided in answer to question no 6 of that circular is applicable.
“According to section 194S of the Act, any person who is responsible for paying to any resident any sum by way of consideration for transfer of VDA is required to deduct tax. Thus, in a peer to peer (i.e. buyer to seller without going through an Exchange) transaction, the buyer (i.e person paying the consideration) is required to deduct tax under section 194S of the Act. The tax so deducted is required to be deposited with Government in accordance with the time and procedure prescribed in the Act read with the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Rules, 1962,” the circular said.
“After deduction, the deductor is required to furnish a quarterly statement (in Form No. 26Q) for all such transactions of the quarter on or before the due date prescribed in the Income-tax Rules, 1962. For specified person Form 26QE has been introduced. It may be clarified that the TDS shall be on consideration for transfer of VDA less GST,” it added.
Regarding the liability to deduct tax at source under section 194S of the Act when the consideration is in kind or in exchange of VDA, the Board clarified that “according to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 194S of the Act, there could be a situation where the consideration is in kind or in exchange of another VDA or partly in kind and cash is not sufficient to meet the TDS liability. In this situation, the person responsible for paying such consideration is required to ensure that tax required to be deducted has been paid in respect of such consideration, before releasing the consideration.”
“Thus, the buyer will release the consideration in kind after seller provides proof of payment of such tax (e.g. challan details etc.). In a situation where VDA “A” is being exchanged with another VDA “B”, both the persons are buyer as well as seller. One is buyer for “A” and seller for “B” and another is buyer for “B” and seller for “A”. Thus both need to pay tax with respect to transfer of VDA and show the evidence to other so that VDAs can then be exchanged. This would then be required to be reported in TDS statement along with challan number by both of them. This year Form 26Q has included provisions for reporting such transactions. For specified persons, Form 26QE has been introduced,” it said.
“Without going into the merit whether VDA is goods or not, it is clarified that once tax is deducted under section 194S of the Act, tax would not be required to be deducted under section 194Q of the Act,” the Circular added.
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), New Delhi held that affixing chairs in stadiums is not chargeable to tax as an activity, not of commercial nature. The appeal has been filed by M/s Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd. against the rejection of refund claims filed by the appellant. The appellant had provided…
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court, while considering an issue of applicability of TDS on the entire amounts paid to the agent, held that the Income Tax Act does not grant any exceptional clause by which non-deduction of tax at source can be resorted to by the assessee under the garb of reimbursement….
A division bench of the Meghalaya High Court consisting Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has held that the assessee shall be granted with a minimum of seven days to respond to the re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners, Highgrowth Commodities Trade Pvt Ltd, ought to…
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI/Board) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) on 14th June, 2022.
The amendment provides the operational creditors to furnish extracts of Form GSTR-1, Form GSTR-3B and e-way bills, wherever applicable along with the application filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and bankruptcy Code, 2016. These additional set of documents, can be used as evidence of transaction with the corporate debtor, debt and default easing the process of admission. These documents will also to be submitted as part of the claims submitted to the resolution professional to help collation of claims. Further, creditors filing applications under section 7 or 9 of the Code are required to furnish details of their PAN and Email ID to ensure smooth correspondence.
In order to improve information availability, the amendment places a duty on corporate debtor, its promoters or any other person associated with the management of the corporate debtor to provide the information in such format and time as sought by the resolution professional.
The amendment places a duty on the creditors to share information regarding the assets and liabilities of the corporate debtor, the financial statements and other relevant financial information from their records and available reports to help the resolution professional in preparation of the information memorandum and relevant extracts from the transaction or forensic audit reports to aid the resolution professional in preparation of the avoidance application.
The Amendment also addresses the issue of treatment of avoidance applications filed with the Adjudicating Authority after closure of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). It provides that the resolution plan shall provide for manner in which such applications will be pursued after the approval of the resolution plan and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed.
The amendment includes a definition of significant difference in valuations during CIRP and enables the committee of creditors to make a request to the resolution professional regarding the appointment of a third valuer.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has today issued an advisory to print, electronic and digital media to refrain from advertising online betting platforms. The advisory comes in light of instances of a number of advertisements of online betting websites/platforms appearing in print, electronic, social and online media.
Betting and gambling, illegal in most parts of the country, pose significant financial and socio-economic risk for the consumers, especially youth and children, the advisory states. It has further added that these advertisements on online betting have the effect of promoting this largely prohibited activity. “The advertisements of online betting are misleading, and do not appear to be in strict conformity with the Consumer Protection Act 2019, Advertising Code under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995, and advertisement norms under the Norms of Journalistic Conduct laid down by the Press Council of India under the Press Council Act, 1978”, it has stated.
The advisory has been issued in larger public interest, and it has advised the print and electronic media to refrain from publishing advertisements of online betting platforms. It has also advised the online and social media, including the online advertisement intermediaries and publishers, to not display such advertisements in India or target such advertisements towards the Indian audience.
On 4th December, 2020, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting had issued an advisory to Private Satellite TV channels to adhere to the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) guidelines on advertisements of online gaming which contained specific Do’s and Dont’s for print and audio-visual advertisements of online gaming.
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 (CBIC) has issued the manual processing of declarations filed by the co-noticees under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).
As per the letter dated June 09, 2020, wherein it was, inter alia, conveyed that in cases where co-noticees’ applications are pending at Form SVLDRS-2 stage and the main noticees have paid tax dues under the scheme, DG (Systems) shall provide functionality for issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 directly from Form SVLDRS-2 stage.
“In all such cases, there was no requirement of issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 as per proviso to rule 6(2) of SVLDRS, Rules 2019 which provides that no statement in Form SVLDRS-3 shall be issued in a case where the amount payable, as determined by the designated committee is nil and there is no appeal pending in a High Court or the Supreme Court. It is noted that in the absence of such functionality in the SVLDRS Module, the concerned designated committees are unable to issue Form SVLDRS-4 in otherwise eligible cases,” the instruction said.
The Board stated that “the matter has been examined by the Board in consultation with DG (Systems) who have informed that creation of such functionality at this stage will incur an additional cost, efforts and time which would be disproportionately high. Further, the Board has noted that such cases are still being reflected as pending at Form SVLDRS-2 stage and the declarants have not been issued discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4.”
In view of the above, for proper and efficient administration and implementation of the scheme and in the interest of the declarants for disposal of cases pending at the Form SVLDRS-2 stage, the Board directed that all such eligible cases for issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 (Discharge Certificate) for the ARNS of co-noticees pending at Form SVLDRS-2 stage, may be disposed of in manual mode.
“Needless to mention that Designated Committees may ensure that the cases fulfil all other eligibility conditions as per law like payment of dues by and issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 to the main noticee etc. A report on such cases processed manually should be sent to O/o Pr. DG Systems for reference and record,” the instruction stated.
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 LLPs, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has extended the timeline for filing of Form 11 by LLP till 30th June, 2022.
LLP Form 11 is Annual Return of Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). The return must be e-filed each year with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to maintain compliance and avoid penalties. LLP annual return must be filed electronically and taken on record.
A circular issued on Friday stated that “This Ministry has received representation seeking an extension on timelines for filing the Annual Return (Form 11) by LLPs without paying additional fees. In view of the transition from version-2 of MCA-21 to version-3 and to promote compliance on part of LLPs, it has been decided to allow LLPs to file e-Form 11 (Annual Return of Limited Liability Partnership) for the Financial Year 2021-2022 without paying additional fees up to 30th June, 2022.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
