The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has extended the due date for filing the details of goods or capital goods sent to job worker and received back in Form GST ITC-04 for the period of July, 2017 to September 2018 to 31st December 2018
In another notification, the CBIC also said that the taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled by the proper officer on or before September 30, 2018, shall be required to furnish the final return in Form GSTR-10 till December 31, 2018.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Cochin bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the department cannot deny the benefit of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act on compulsory acquisition of land merely for the reason that the sale price was fixed through a negotiated settlement.
The assessee’s property was notified by the Government of Kerala for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After negotiations with the Government, a sale deed was executed, whereby the property was sold to Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited for a total consideration of Rs.7,94,12,901. While filing the return, the assessee claimed the benefit of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act.
However, the Assessing officer denied the claim in respect of the acquisition of urban agricultural land by holding that it was not a compulsory acquisition, but only executed through a negotiated sale deed.
The Tribunal noted that the Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India & Others had categorically held merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act is invoked.
“In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, the only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land was a compulsory acquisition and the same would be entitled to the benefit enumerated in section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) regime, India’s historic tax reform turned one year and three months. When the Government is struggling to achieve the revenue target, the GST department has detected around Rs. 4400 Crores of tax evasion till date.
In simultaneous searches at four business establishments in Jaipur, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence detected tax evasions to the tune of Rs 35 crore. This was in connection with the searches carried out by teams of DGGI’s Jaipur zonal unit at Swastika Electricals and Fertilizers, Gadia Sales, Galaxy Concab India Pvt. Ltd and Oriental Sales Corporation.
It was found that the businesses were not paying taxes and not filing statutory returns. All incriminating documents were seized. The department also recovered an amount of Rs 19.18 crore during the searches.
In another case, the directorate general of GST intelligence recovered Rs. 25 lakhs in a raid at Sambodhi Retreat, a luxury resort in Bodh Gaya.
The raid continued till Thursday morning. Officials said investigations were on to ascertain the exact amount of tax evasion. The team which conducted the raid included additional director General Rajendra Singh and additional director Aslam Hasan.
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed the decision of lower appellate authority in restricting the deduction under Section 54 of Income Tax Act regarding investment made in construction of new residential property and directed to grant the assessee the benefit of section 54 within one year before the date of sale of the old asset.
Here, the assessee an individual earning income from salary, long-term and short-term capital gain on sale of shares, house property income, dividend income and income from other sources.
During the assessment proceedings, AO found that assessee sold a property, earned long-term capital gain and claimed deduction under section 54 benefit for investment in construction of the new residential property.
Assessing Officer deputed the departmental inspector to inquire about the fact of the situation and held that assessee admitted his mistake that he failed to make the investment in construction of house property and stated that he would pay the full tax thereon with interest.
Assessee failed to invest in the construction of house property within the stipulated time and accordingly AO made addition and the same preferred an appeal before CIT (A) who restricted the said deduction.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision Assessee came to this tribunal and the bench including judicial member Aby T Varkey and accountant member A L Saini observed the decision of CIT (A) that deduction cannot be allowed for the construction of the new residential house made before the date of transfer of the old asset.
The bench, however, stated that the decision of CIT (A) doesn’t create any logic that they are not entitled to the deduction since the property constructed one year before the sale of the old asset. Accordingly, the bench held that entire claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act needs to be allowed by considering the decision of Karnataka High court in CIT Vs. J. R. Subramaniam Bhat.
“Since it does not stand to logic that an assessee who starts constructing a new residential house within one year before the sale of the old asset cannot get the benefit of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act however, an assessee who purchases a new residential property a year before sale of property is allowed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act is illogical. The purpose of giving deduction u/s. 54 of the Act is to encourage the assessee to invest in residential property whether it is purchase or construction of residential house. Therefore, the action/interpretation of the Ld. CIT(A) to deny the claim of the assessee for the investment made by the assessee for construction of residential house property within one year before the date of sale of the old asset cannot be countenanced,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Central board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has today confirmed that there will be no further extension of tax audit due date. The Board was considering a representation of Tax Bar Association on extending the tax audit due date in compliance with the direction of the order from Gauhati High Court.
The Tax bar Association had approached the CBDT, the apex body of direct taxes in India for a due date extension till 31st January 2019.
The due date originally fixed was 31st September which was later extended to 15th October and then to 31st October considering the requests of the tax practitioners and the orders of the various High Courts.
On October 12th, the Gauhati High Court had directed the CBDT to re-consider the Tax Bar Association’s representation requesting the Governement to extend the Tax Audit Due date to 31st January 2019.
While disposing the matter, the High Court has instructed CBDT to consider the representation filed by TBA for extension of due date upto 31st Jan, 2019 and dispose off the representation filed by TBA to that effect on or before 25th Oct, 2018 by way of a speaking order. The court had also elaborately discussed the problems to be faced by the assesses and accountants in case the date is not extended as requested vide the said representation.
A CBDT order issued today said that “the span of time for revising an ITR and filing a belated ITR has been considerably reduced from Assessment year 2017-18 onwards. Now the time available for filing a belated/revised ITR for any assessment year is till the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, granting any further extension of the prescribed due date under section 139(1) of the Act beyond 31.10.18 would be detrimental to those assessees who may want to revise their return later on and also defeat the purpose of improving the culture of tax-compliance in the country.”
“As concerns of the assessees have been suitably redressed with extension of due date by one month (i.e. till 31.10.18), representation of the Tax Bar Association, Guwahati dated 20.09.18, requesting for further extension of due date for filing ITR/TAR beyond 31.10.18 is hereby rejected,” the order clarified.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentIn a great relief to tax payers, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has extended the alternative mechanism, enabling the exporters to rectify the mistakes in cases where IGST refund is stuck due to invoice mismatch, to 11th November 2018.
The circular issued in February provided the pre-requisites and precautions that need to be taken for successful processing of refund claims.
This facility would be available only for cases where Shipping Bills have been filed till 15.11.2018. However, exporters need to be cautious while filing details in Shipping Bill as a similar facility may not be available in future for the same mistake for referred shipping bill. Also, Customs Officers while processing claims using officer interface should exercise due diligence so that mistakes are not repeated again.
In order to claim the differential amount, the exporter is required to submit a duly filled and signed Revised Refund Request (RRR) annexed to this circular to the designated AC/DC A scanned copy of the RRR may also be mailed to dedicated email address of Customs locations from where exports took place. The designated/concerned AC/DC will then proceed to sanction the revised amount after due verification through the option provided in ICES, a detailed advisory on which will be communicated by DG Systems to all the System Managers shortly. Once the revised amount is approved by the designated AC/DC in the system, a fresh scroll will be available for generation for the differential amount only.
It was further said that only those SBs which have already been scrolled shall be available in this facility. Further, this facility can be used only once for each eligible SB to sanction the revised IGST amount. Thus, utmost care may be taken by the exporter while submitting the RRR as well as the sanctioning officer while sanctioning the revised amount as no further provision will be available for revising the refund sanction again.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Enforcement Directorate ( ED ) on Tuesday filed a chargesheet in Sterling Biotech Ltd (SBL) Group case before a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Delhi. The chargesheete was filed against the main promoters of Sterling Group Nitin Sandesara, Chetan Sandesara, Dipti Sandesara, Rajbhushan Dixit, Hitesh Patel, their chartered accountant Hemant Hathi and middleman Gagan Dhawan.
“ED files prosecution complaint in Rs 8100 crore bank loan fraud case of Sterling Biotech Group. 191 accused in the case include 184 companies (including 179 shell companies) & 7 individuals namely Nitin, Chetan & Dipti Sandesara, CA Hemant Hathi, middlemen Gagan Dhawan & others,” Official twitter account of the ED tweeted last day.
The investigative agency has filed a chargesheet against 191 accused including seven individuals and 184 companies including flagship companies of the group — Sterling Biotech, PMT Machines, Sterling SEZ and Infra, Sterling Port, Sterling Oil Resources and 179 shell companies.
In August 2017, ED lodged a money laundering case against SBL Group.
Investigation by the ED has revealed that Sterling Biotech promoters, the Gujarat-based Sandesara family and others hatched a criminal conspiracy for cheating banks. They manipulated figures in the balance sheets of their flagship companies and induced banks to sanction higher loans, Eonomic Times reported.
After obtaining loans, they diverted the funds to non-mandated purposes through a web of shell companies. Thus, the loan funds were diverted, layered and laundered by the promoters for their personal purposes. The total amount of loan fraud as on date is Rs 8,100 crore. The loan fraud pertains to domestic as well as offshore branches of Indian banks, the agency said.
ED files prosecution complaint in Rs 8100 crore bank loan fraud case of Sterling Biotech Group. 191 accused in the case include 184 companies (including 179 shell companies) & 7 individuals namely Nitin, Chetan & Dipti Sandesara, CA Hemant Hathi, middlemen Gagan Dhawan & others.
— ED (@dir_ed) October 23, 2018
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Assessing Officer had rightly invoked Section 154 of the Income Tax Act to disallow deduction since HUF cannot be treated as a working partner in the partnership firm.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer initially accepted the original return filed by the assessee, an HUF wherein the assessee claimed that it is a partner in a partnership firm. Subsequently, the officer rectified the order by holding that the HUF cannot become a working partner and therefore, the assessee does not come within the definition of working partner as per section 40(b), Explanation-4 of the Act and disallowed the deduction claimed through the revised return.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee approached the Tribunal contending that there is no mistake apparent from record capable of being rectified u/s 154 of the Act and as such the disallowance as made in the order under appeal is unlawful.
Relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Coal India Ltd. vs. M/s. Continental & Eastern Agency (RFA), the Tribunal noted that in that case, the High Court concluded that the HUF itself cannot become a working partner in the partnership firm.
“Therefore, there is no question for the HUF to become a working partner,” the Tribunal said.
“In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked section 154 because the assessee wanted to take benefit of the notification issued by the CBDT. In the present case, as per judicial precedents, the HUF itself cannot become a partner in the partnership firm and as such the HUF can also not be a working partner in partnership firm as defined u/s. 40(b) Expln. 4 of the IT Act. The due date of filing of IT return will be 31st July and in the given case, the assessee has filed his return on 01.10.2010 which has been later on revised and claimed deduction u/s. 80C of Rs. 1 lakh which was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. The return cannot be revised because the assessee had filed belated return. Therefore, there was a mistake apparent from the record.” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that when a company purchases flat for providing accommodation facility to its Managing Director, the tax benefits shall not be denied to it since the activity is a business necessity. The Tribunal also deleted the order of the Assessing officer wherein the Officer made an addition by invoking the provisions of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee- Company purchased the flat at Dadar for the residence of CMD of the assessee company. The assessee took the loan in the sum of Rs.300 lacs and paying the instalment along with interest. The AO declined the claim of the assessee in view of the provision under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO declined the claim of the assessee on the ground of that there was no business nexus between the residential premises and the assessee company.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the assessee can purchase the flat for his CMD where he can treat the patient of the hospital very conveniently when the residence is near to hospital, therefore, it is a business necessity. It was also argued that the assessee nowhere transferred the fund/amount to any other person, therefore, the application of provision u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is totally wrong.
Allowing the appeal, the Tribunal held that the claim of the assessee is not liable to be declined.
In support of its findings, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and the Madras High Court decision in M.V. Vallipan Vs. CIT.
“The assessee company neither transferred the funds outside the company nor to the director, therefore, the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard. Since the finding given by lower authorities attracting the provision of Section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not justifiable, therefore, the ancillary claim is also not liable to be declined. So far as disallowance of repayment of loan instalment is concerned the CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance subject to verification by the AO, we do not find any infirmity in the direction of CIT(A) for allowing verification. However, the claim of interest to the tune of Rs.24,62,285/- is revenue in nature, therefore, is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the claim of the assessee company for such interest expenditure on bank loan taken for the purpose of the assessee business. So far as the claim of depreciation is concerned, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim the depreciation @ 5% of the total value of the purchase of Rs.34,72,037/-,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Board of Trustees of the Institute of Chartered accountants of India ( ICAI ) has decided to provide financial assistance of Rs. 1500/- p.m, for articled assistants who are registered for Intermediate (IPC)/IPCC course and Rs. 2000/- P.M. for those students registered for final course and are currently undergoing articled/industrial training in accordance with The Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and are poor, needy but meritorious to pursue the Chartered Accountancy course for one year with effect from 1st April, 2018 to 31st March, 2019 to be paid in lump sum, subject to filing of required application.
The eligibility criteria for obtaining financial assistance from CASBF are as under:
Students who are fulfilling the above criteria may apply for financial assistance from Chartered Accountants Students Benevolent Fund. Students may send their request in the prescribed Application form, duly filled in to the Member Secretary, Chartered Accountants Students Benevolent Fund at the following address so as to reach on or before 30th November 2018. The form can be downloaded from website of the Institute i.e. www.icai.org.
Applications not recommended by any of Central Council Member/Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Secretary of the Regional Council/Ex-President/Chairman/Vice-Chairman and Member-Secretary/Board of Trustees of CASBF will not be considered.
The Board of Trustees will consider each case on merit basis and decide at their discretion on the amount to be granted from Chartered Accountants Students Benevolent Fund.
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting an Income Tax Return ( ITR ) filed by the assessee on the ground that an opportunity to rectify the defect under section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act was not granted.
In the instant case, the assessee filed its return declaring certain taxable income. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) within the prescribed time period wherein the value of the closing stock was reduced and administrative cost was increased. The Assessing Officer rejected said revised return at very threshold on the ground that it was not accompanied with tax audit report.
Justice T S Sivagnanam observed that if in the opinion of AO, the return was defective, then procedure contemplated u/s 139(9) should have been followed.
The Court noted that Sub-Section (9) of Section 139 of the Act is a beneficial provision to the assessee, which provides them an opportunity to rectify the defects.
“Since the intention is that the assessment proceedings are an outcome of dialogue and discussion, the Assessing Officer is entitled to clarify all issues by issuing the notice to the assessee and calling upon them to produce documents and explain their books of accounts, etc. Unfortunately, in the instant case, such procedure was not adopted when the revised return was rejected at the very threshold, which, in our considered view, ought not to have been done,” the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after giving an opportunity to the assessee in terms of Section 139(5) of the Act to rectify the defects, which have been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has notified that the newly constituted National Financial Reporting Authority ( NFRA ) can investigate the matters relating to misconduct of Chartered Accountants from 24th October 2018.
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), the Central Government hereby appoints the 24th October, 2018 as the date on which the sub-sections (2), (4), (5), (10), (13), (14) and (15) of section 132 of the said Act shall come into force,” MCA Notification said.
Earlier this month, the Central Government has notified the constitution of the NFRA, a new regulatory for the auditors in the country.
NFRA would have power to suo motu investigate the auditor and also to punish him for misconduct and remove his name from the register maintained by ICAI. In addition, the authority will also have the power to penalise any member or firm of chartered accountants.
Following this, the Delhi High Court, in a petition filed by the Northern India CA Federation, had granted an interim relief by staying the proceedings of the NFRA.
The petitioners urged that this would lead to a situation where the auditors would not be able to perform/discharge their function, duties and responsibilities as auditors under the Companies Act fairly, truthfully and independently.
Also, there were reports that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), the apex Chartered Accountants body in India, has expressed displeasure with the government for not including it in discussions to frame rules for the new regulator for auditors.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the mere license to enter the property for carrying out development not ‘Transfer’ for imposing capital gain liability under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A single bench of Judicial Member N.V. Vasudevan was considering the case of Smt. Lakshmi Swarupa versus The Income Tax Officer and there Assessee an individual owned a property in Bangalore and entered into the joint development agreement with another builder. As per the agreement assessee would get 30% built-up area and proportionate undivided share of land.
The assessee did not file the return of income even pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, AO determined the value of the property and determined the capital gain.
Before the first appellate authority assessee submitted that he himself given to the builder only the license to enter the property for the purpose of carrying out development, which was not legal possession as contemplated u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The assessee also pointed that no transfer held during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, there was no delivery of possession in part performance of the agreement for sale in the manner contemplated by Sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
After heard all the submissions of Assessee, CIT(A) not satisfied confirmed the decision of Assessing Officer holding that there was a transfer within the meaning of Sec.2(47)(v) of the Act.
Now Assessee carried the matter to this tribunal and reiterated the submissions made before lower authority. The bench heard the rival submission and heard the cases cited by both the parties.
The bench observed that “the clause in the JDA regarding possession clearly states that what is given is not possession contemplated u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act and that it is merely a license to enter the property for the purpose of carrying out development.”
Based on the above findings, the bench held that capital gain on transfer of property cannot be done since no transfer was undertaken.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe facility to claim Refund on account of any other reason has now enabled in the Goods and Services Tax Network ( GSTN ).
In statement released today, the official twitter account of the GSTN tweeted that “Facility to claim Refund on account of any other reason has been enabled on GST Portal for the taxpayers.”
Last day, the GST portal had updated a new functionality enabling the taxpayers to claim refund on account of excess payment of tax. “Facility to claim refund on account of excess payment of tax has been enabled on GST Portal for the taxpayers,” GSTN said in a statement.
On Tuesday, the GSTN had updated two new features such as, the facility to upload statement 4 for Refund and the facility for amendment in Registration of Core fields.
The Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) department in Uttarakhand has detected an evasion of GST amounting Rs. 50 crores by 14 traders in Haridwar.
Earlier, 15 teams of the State Tax Department launched a massive campaign in Haridwar. The arrested traders have asked to deposit money in the treasury soon.
Under the leadership of Additional Commissioner Tax (Haridwar) Rakesh Tandon, a team of 40 officials and employees of the State Tax Department examined the GST in the establishments of 14 traders in Haridwar on Monday.
During the proceedings, it was found that merchants are not generating invoices through online on a regular basis. Not only this, duly giving returns are not even deposited. The undeclared turnover of more than 50 crores came to light during the investigation.
Most traders agreed to deposit tax only during the investigation and deposited in the treasury. “Soon other traders will also be examined,” Additional Commissioner Rakesh Tandon said.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Maharashtra has held that there is no tax exemption to the educational courses offered by the entities approved by the National Skill Development Corporation ( NSDC ) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
The applicant- Company provides various technical and vocational educational courses. These courses are either funded by NSD/ Centre or State Governments or are paid up courses which are enrolled by individuals, corporates etc. Before the AAR, they sought for a clarification with regard to their tax liability in respect of courses approved by NSDC.
The authority noted that the functions of National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) are in nature of encouraging and supporting private sector in skill development which is also one of its mandate and functions. Apart from this it is also implementing agency for various schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana , Sankalp, Udaan, etc.
“If services in relation to schemes as mentioned are provided through partner approved by NSDC, then only benefit of Notification as claimed would be applicable to applicant and it would not be applicable in respect of other services relating to skill development provided by applicant. In view of this it is found that NSD programme implemented by NSDC would cover only actual schemes and programmes of skill development that are undertaken by Government through its various ministries, departments, directorates, attached offices and organizations and cannot in any way be construed to be including each and every activity under the sun which enhances skills in one way or other. Thus, educational courses offered by applicant which have been approved by NSDC would not be construed as in relation to National Skill Development Programme implemented by NSDC. The educational courses for which qualification standards/framework i.e. QP/NOS has not been defined by NSDC and will be approved by NSDC as and when the relevant QP/NOS would be defined by NSDC, in the interim period , though, NSDC has given exceptional approval on such courses, they will not be treated as in relation to National Skill Development Programme implemented by NSDC. Accordingly benefit of GST exemption as per Notification No. 12 of 2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-June 2017 would not be available to applicant.” The authority said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has approved the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and Certified Professional Accountants Afghanistan (CPA Afghanistan). The MoU will establish mutual co-operation framework in the areas of Capacity Building of “Afghanistan Accountancy Board (AAB)”, strengthening the IT Capacity and Quality Assurance in Afghanistan through facilitating Knowledge Transfer; Students and Members Exchange Programs; Conduct of Seminars, Conferences and Joint Activities mutually beneficial to both the parties.
Targets:
Major impact:
India and Afghanistan share a very strong partnership based on historical and cultural links. In the recent past, the partnership between the two countries has touched new heights when India’s Afghanistan policy shifted to a more confident and multi-dimensional approach by opening Investment in Afghanistan’s nascent democracy and economy; strengthening Kabul’s defence capability and promoting regional connectivity and integration.
Afghanistan will help India and ICAI to facilitate indirect employment generation for Indian CAs through recognition and acceptability amongst Afghanistan employers. It is also believed that the relationship developed between the two countries over the past few years is strategic in nature and is of mutual benefit.
Background:
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament of India, ‘The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949’, to regulate the profession of Chartered Accountancy in India. CPA Afghanistan is an independent regulator of the accountancy profession in Afghanistan, which operates under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance, Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has approved the appointment of Adjudicating Authority and establishment of Appellate Tribunal under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act(PBPT), 1988.
Salient Features:
Benefits:
The approval will result in effective and better administration of cases referred to the Adjudicating Authority and speedy disposal of appeals filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority before the Appellate Tribunal.
Appointment of the Adjudicating Authority would provide first stage review of administrative action under the PBPT Act. Establishment of the proposed Appellate Tribunal would provide an appellate mechanism for the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PBPT Act.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) has amended form for appeal and the form of memorandum of cross-objections to be filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ).
The Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribe Form No.36 for filing an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Further, a memorandum of cross-objections to the ITAT can be filed in Form No.36A.
The existing Form No.36 and Form No 36A have not been revised since long. These Forms are required to be rationalised to make them more informative and also to capture information regarding amount disputed in pending appeals before ITAT, which is vital for formulating the policy of the department for litigation management.
Earlier, a draft notification proposing amendments in Form No. 36, Form No.36A and Rule 47 of the IT Rules had been released by Government for comments from stakeholders and general public.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) has notified exemption from tax deduction at source (TDS) to some authorities under the Defence Ministry under the Goods and Services Tax regime.
“Provided that with respect to persons specified under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 51 of the Act, nothing in this notification shall apply to the authorities under the Ministry of Defence, other than the authorities specified in the Annexure-A and their offices, with effect from the 1st day of October, 2018.”
The Government mandated deduction of TDS from 1st October 2018.
The tax would be deducted @1% of the payment made to the supplier (the deductee) of taxable goods or services or both, where the total value of such supply, under a contract, exceeds two lakh fifty thousand rupees (excluding the amount of Central tax, State tax, Union Territory tax, Integrated tax and cess indicated in the invoice).
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) has upheld the ruling of the AAR that the recovery of food expenses from the employees for the canteen services provided by company would come under the definition of ‘outward supply’ as defined in Section 2 (83) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and hence are taxable under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws.
The authority ruled that such activity of providing food would amount to ‘supply’ for imposing the tax.
M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd is a manufacturer and seller of footwear. As the factory employs more than 250 employees, the company was statutorily obliged to provide canteen services to its employees as per Section 46 of the Factory Act,1948. A space for the canteen was provided by the company inside the factory premises and the expenses incurred to run the services were recovered from the employees as a deduction from their monthly salary in proportion to the food they consumed.
Before the authority, the applicant submitted that the service provided to the employee was not being carried out as a business activity and it was according to the provisions in the Factories Act, 1948.
On appeal, the authority noted that Section 7, read with section 2(83) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and section 7 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
“The food provided to the employees was already taxed under the erstwhile Value Added Tax and thereby the Hon’ble High Court held that the same could not be subjected to Service Tax. Hence the Hon’ble Court had decided upon a matter where the issue of double taxation was a relevant fact. As there is no possibility of such double taxation in the GST regime, it is evident that the facts of the Bhimas Hotels case cannot be considered to be in pari-materia with the facts of this case,” the authority said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment