The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), North Zone, Gurugram, has arrested Shri Harish Kumar Rampal, Chartered Accountant, proprietor of M/s Rampal and Company(ICAI Reg. No. 080333), the CA firm of M/s Starcrest Services Pvt. Ltd. M/s Rampal and Company had collected GST from M/s Starcrest Services Pvt. Ltd. for onward deposit to government exchequer towards GST liability of the company but they did not deposit the amount approximating of Rs. 12.67 crore in the government exchequer and in turn misappropriated the same. Sh. Harish Kumar Rampal was involved in forging GST challans and GST returns for onwards submission to the company.
Thus, Shri Harish Kumar Rampal has caused to commit and retained the benefit in respect of an offence under the provisions of Section 132 (1) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017 which is cognizable and non-bailable offence under section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 being punishable under section 132 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Consequently Shri Harish Kumar Rampal, was arrested on 03.02.2021 under Section 69 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 following which he was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on Duty, Patiala House Court, New Delhi at Saket Court Residential Complex on 03.02.2021 and remanded to Judicial Custody for 14 days.
Further investigation in the matter is in progress.
In the ongoing campaign against fake/bogus invoices launched by Chief Commissioner, Meerut Zone, officers of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Commissionerate, Meerut have unearthed yet another case of fake GST invoicing of Rs. 200 crores (approx) by carrying out simultaneous searches at 11 locations in Meerut & Ghaziabad.
The syndicate was being operated by Sh. Vikas Jain and persons employed by him for carrying cash and bills. He was managing and controlling more than 30 firms including firms in the name of his wife and driver at Meerut with the intent of passing of inadmissible ITC. Sh. Vikas Jain through these firms has passed on fake ITC of Rs. 42 crores by issuing invoices for building materials like Cement, Steel, etc.
He was running the whole racket from a rented flat in Ghaziabad and firms in the name of his family and employees were either non-existent or non-functional. The proprietors of the firms other than those in the name of his family were being paid petty monthly consideration for using their ids. During the search, incriminating records, copy of invoices issued, check-books of multiple fake firms and Indian Currency of Rs. 2.23 crore have been recovered & seized for further investigation.
In this case several recipient firms who had availed the fraudulently passed ITC have been identified and one such firm registered at Meerut has deposited an amount of Rs. 2 crores towards partial discharge of their GST liability arising out of their irregular availment of ITC passed on by Vikas Jain from his firms.
Therefore, the offence so committed by the accused under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) of the CGST Act 2017, falls in the category of the cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 132(5) and is punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the said Act. Accordingly, the accused was arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 and produced before the Economic Offences Court at Meerut on 03.02.2021 and they have been sent to jail on judicial remand for 14 days by order of the Special CJM, Meerut.
Further investigations are underway. The officers of CGST, Meerut have exposed fake billing of the value of more than Rs. 3500 crore and arrested 6 persons so far in the ongoing campaign against the fake billers and GST evaders. Indian Currency of more than Rs. 2.5 Crore has also been seized in the last one year in the ongoing campaign. Inadmissible GST of Rs 13 crores has been recovered in the last one year in these GST evasion cases.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the notice of re-assessment against MRF Ltd.
The assessee company, M/s. MRF Limited is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile tyres, tubes, and automobile rubber products, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on September 30, 2009, admitting a total income of Rs.59.56 Crores. The assessment for the impugned assessment year was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order and assessed total income at Rs.64,42,73,804.
The case has been subsequently reopened under section 147 of the Act, for the reasons recorded as per which income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of the excess claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act for Rs.79,73,230.
The assessee filed objections for reopening assessment and the same has been disposed of vide speaking order. The assessment has been completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and determined total income at Rs.66,45,78,250 after making addition towards disallowance of excess claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act, for Rs.72,36,875.
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in upholding reopening of assessment under section147 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year and the original assessment has been completed and in such case, the assessment cannot be reopened unless the AO alleged that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the completion of assessment.
On the other hand, the department has strongly supporting the order of CIT(A) submitted that there is a failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment which is evident from the fact that the assessee has made the excess claim of deduction even though the number of employees employed during the year is lesser than what was considered by the assessee to claim deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act.
The coram consisting of Mahavir Singh and G.Manjunatha noted that the AO has not recorded the failure, if any, on the part of the assessee. The assessment is re-opened after four years from the end of the assessment year.
The ITAT stated that there are two conditions that need to be fulfilled for undertaking the reassessment.
Firstly, the ITAT mentioned that in such cases, for invoking proper jurisdiction, the AO has to record the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax escaped for any assessment year.
Secondly, the ITAT has clarified that any income chargeable to tax escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee.
The ITAT held that the second condition was not fulfilled and the notice issued under section 148 has no legal sanction and hence the impugned assessment is quashed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentOne of the common questions new traders have when they just started trading is: “is income derived from my day trading taxable?” No doubt there is some degree of complexity here regarding the question, and fortunately, India’s Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has cleared them up many times.
The direct answer is they are taxable with the only exception to Long-Term Capital Gains, but the rate varies depending on which category it belongs to as well as your tax stab.
If you are an investor, meaning your intention of buying the stocks is for long term holding for wealth building and capital gains – i.e gain from the appreciation of share prices, and that you have held the investment for more than 365 days, you belong to the category of tax exemption. Hence, you need not have to pay tax.
The reason why this is tax-exempt is because it incentives Indians to hold stocks for long term gains instead of hoping to make some quick profits through speculative means.
STCG is similar to LTCG in a way that they both belong to capital gain tax regulation. The only difference is the holding period. If you hold an investment for more than a day but less than 365 days, and that the prevailing price exceeds your purchase price – i.e you make an investment gain, it will be treated as STCG and it will be subject to a 15% tax rate.
Speculative business income refers to trading activities solely for the pursuits of making profit through price speculation – it’s the profit you made by trading through the best Forex brokerage platforms for instance.
Any intraday trading income belongs to this category since the reason for making buying and selling the underlying assets say stocks are not meant for long term holding, but to trade the price difference for a profit.
The income you derived from Speculative Business Income will be subject to tax, and it will be added to your total income stab. This is a progressive tax and the total taxable amount will depend on your total profits at year-end. Lastly, speculative losses can only be used to offset against speculative business income, and not against Non-Speculative Business Income. Note that this can be carried forward for up to 4 years.
This category belongs to business operations that used options and futures for the purpose of hedging their exposure to risks. They could be delivery-based equity trades, equity futures and options, and currency futures and options. This category of income is subject to tax and will be added to your total income. Your actual tax payable will depend on which tax stab it reaches.
The difference between Speculative Business Income and Non-Speculative is that the losses from the former can be used to offset: Speculative Business Income, business expenses, business income (except salary) – and it can be carried forward for up to 8 years.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) announced that the results of the Post Qualification Course Examinations are likely to be declared on Monday, the 1st February 2021(evening) or Tuesday, the 2nd February 2021 at the Institute’s office in New Delhi.
The results of Post Qualification Course Examinations are in respect of the Insurance & Risk Management; and International Taxation Assessment Test.
The results of the examinations will be available on the Institute’s website.
The gross GST revenue collected in the month of January 2021till 6 PM on 31.01.2021 is ₹ 1,19,847 crore of which CGST is ₹ 21,923 crore, SGST is ₹ 29,014 crore, IGST is ₹ 60,288 crore (including ₹ 27,424 crores collected on import of goods) and Cess is ₹ 8,622 crore (including ₹ 883crore collected on import of goods). The total number of GSTR-3B Returns filed for the month of December up to 31st January 2021 is 90 lakhs.
The government has settled ₹ 24,531 crores to CGST and ₹ 19,371 crores to SGST from IGST as a regular settlement. The total revenue earned by the Central Government and the State Governments after regular settlement in the month of January 2021 is ₹ 46,454 crores for CGST and ₹ 48,385 crores for the SGST.
In line with the trend of recovery in the GST revenues over the past five months, the revenues for the month of January 2021 are 8% higher than the GST revenues in the same month last year, which in itself was more than ₹ 1.1 lakh crore. During the month, revenues from import of goods were 16% higher and the revenues from the domestic transaction (including import of services) are 6% higher than the revenues from these sources during the same month last year.
The GST revenues during January 2021 are the highest since the introduction of GST and have almost touched the ₹ 1.2 lakh crore mark, exceeding the last month’s record collection of ₹1.15 lakh crore. GST revenues above ₹ 1 lakh crore for a stretch of the last four months and a steep increasing trend over this period are clear indicators of rapid economic recovery post-pandemic. Closer monitoring against fake-billing, deep data analytics using data from multiple sources including GST, Income-tax, and Customs IT systems, and effective tax administration has also contributed to the steady increase in tax revenue over the last few months. The average YoY growth in GST revenue over the first four months in the second half of the financial year has been 8% as compared to (-) 24% during the first half of the year.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench held that the expenditure incurred by Deloitte Haskins & Sells towards defending suit against the partner is deductible business expenditure.
The assessee, Deloitte Haskins & Sells is a Chartered Accountant Firm and derives income from profession. The return of income for the year was filed declaring an income of Rs.9,37,46,160. The case was selected for scrutiny.
The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee firm had paid Rs.17,41,389 to M/s Dua & Associates as legal fees. The assessee was required to explain the nature and purpose of the same.
The assessee submitted that this amount had been paid on behalf of the Mr. Deepak Roy (partner) to defend proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Allahabad High Court.
The Assessing Officer was of the view that the fees paid were with reference to defending a criminal case which could not be said to be related to the business of the assessee. Accordingly, the entire amount of professional fees paid was also disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
The assessee contended that it is the partner of the firm who signs the audit report and, therefore, the partner is not signing in his personal capacity but the incapacity of the partner of the firm and, therefore, the company has to defend Acts that have been done in furtherance of the duties as the partner of the firm. The coram headed by Vice President, G.S.Pannu held that the criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Deepak Roy in a matter which was related to the business of the company. In such circumstances, so the impugned expenditure incurred by the assessee company towards defending the suit in the name of the partner is deductible business expenditure.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench held that the dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) is wholly tax-neutral if the Agent paid remuneration on Arm’s Length Price (ALP).
The assessee, Asia Today Limited is a foreign telecasting company incorporated in Mauritius and having a tax residency certificate of Mauritius. It sells advertising time and collects subscription revenues through its Indian affiliates Zee Telefilms Limited and El Zee, but its claim was that since it does not have any permanent establishment in India, no part of its income was taxable in India.
The Assessing Officer did not accept the claim. He was of the view that its Indian agent constitutes a virtual projection of the foreign company, and, therefore, it has a permanent establishment in India.
The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has an agency permanent establishment in India, under article 5(4) of India Mauritius DTAA, inasmuch as its Indian agents are the dependent agents. As for the plea that in case the assessee is held to have a dependent agent permanent establishment, as was held by the Assessing Officer, no further profits can be attributed in the hands of the assessee as the agent has been paid arm’s length remuneration services.
The coram headed by the Vice President, Pramod Kumar clarified that so far as profit attribution of a DAPE is concerned, the legal position is that as long as an agent is paid an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment. Viewed thus, the existence of a dependent agency permanent establishment is wholly tax neutral. The ITAT held that the existence of dependent agency permanent establishment is wholly tax-neutral unless it is shown that the agent has not been paid an arm’s length remuneration, and when it is not the case of the Assessing Officer, that the agents have not been paid an arm’s length remuneration, the question regarding the existence of dependent agency permanent establishment, i.e., under article 5(4), is a wholly academic question.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has announced that the CA Final Results are likely to be released on 1st or 2nd February, 2021.
The ICAI has directed that the All India merit (upto the 50th Rank) can also be accessed by candidates on the three websites namely icaiexam.icai.org; caresults.icai.org; and icai.nic.in.
“Arrangements have also been made for the candidates of Final Examination (Old course & New Course), desirous of having results on their email addresses to register their requests at the website i.e. icaiexam.icai.org from 31st January 2021. All those registering their requests will be provided their results through e-mail on the email addresses registered as above immediately after the declaration of the result,” ICAI said.
It is noteworthy that for accessing the result the candidate shall have to enter the registration no. or PIN no. along with the roll number.
Further facilities have been made for candidates of Final Examination (Old course & New Course) held in November 2020 desirous of knowing their results with marks on SMS. The service will be available through India Times.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench held that cloud hosting services provided by Rackspace USA to that Indian customers are not covered under the definition of ‘royalties’ as per India-US Tax Treaty.
The assessee did not file any return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 and certain transactions were seen in the NMS database available in 1- Taxnet System based on which the AO recorded reason to believe in accordance with provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act that the income has escaped taxation.
During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income from cloud services including cloud hosting and other supporting and ancillary services provided to Indian Customers. The assessee filed the return of income and the notes stating therein that the cloud hosting services was not taxable as ‘royalties’ under Article 12 of the India-US tax treaty as the customers do not operate the equipment or have physical access to or control over the equipment used by the assessee to provide cloud support services and do not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc., to its Indian Customers and the cloud support services are not in the nature of managerial, technical or consultancy services and consequently do not constitute fees for included services within the meaning of Article 12 of the India-USA Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The assessee claimed that revenues earned on account of cloud hosting services constitute business profits and since it did not have Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5 of the DTAA, the same would not be subject to tax in India under the provisions of Article 7(1) of the DTAA.
There was a mismatch of receipts as per 26AS and as per party-wise receipts furnished by assessee, therefore, the notice was also issued. After the reply of the assessee and in accordance with the direction of the DRP, the receipt in sum of Rs.17,12,52,670 was considered as ‘Royalty’ and held to be 10% taxable as per India USA DTAA prescribed taxation rate.
The coram headed by the Vice President Pramod Kumar clarified that the amendments in the domestic tax law cannot be read into the tax treaty as there is no change in the definition of ‘royalties’ under the India-USA Tax Treaty.
The ITAT said that the retrospective amendment in the royalty definition under the Act does not impact the definition of ‘royalties’ in the India-USA Tax Treaty. The tribunal held that the services provided by Rackspace USA to that Indian customers are not covered by the above definition of ‘royalties’ provided in the India USA Tax Treaty since Rackspace USA is providing hosting services to the Indian customers and does not give any equipment or control over the equipment.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Institute of Chartered Accountant of India (ICAI) announced that the Online Examination of the ‘Certificate Course on Ind AS’ to be held on 7th February, 2021 from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm.
The Institute announced that the members who have finished their training in physical / online batches of the course may online to register for the examination.
It is noteworthy that examination is only for those Members who have completed at least 80% of course attendance either in the physical or the online session of this course.
The institute elaborated on the process to register for the examination.
Firstly, ensure that the candidate appearing for the exam must have ‘Active’ Membership. Result would not be valid if the Membership of the participant in ‘Inactive’ at the time of giving the examination. Kindly apply for ‘Form 9’ ASAP on the SSP portal if your Membership needs restoration.
Secondly, pay the requisite fee using the link given above. Users will be required to enter SSP login credentials to pay the fee.
Thirdly, the system will ask to do face registration using the camera of a PC or Laptop. This process will get skipped if the same is already done for some other course in the past by the Member.
Fourthly, the face registration will then get sent to the DLH team for approval. Lastly, on the day of the examination, a Member may use his PC or Laptop to authenticate his face and start the assessment.
For more details Click here..
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
The Disciplinary Committee of Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has upheld an order against a Professional Member of the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professional of ICAI (IPA) on the grounds of professional misconduct.
Mr. U. Balakrishna Bhatallegedly accepted the role as a Resolution Professional (RP) in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Torus India Limited without holding a valid Authorisation for Assignment (AFA) issued to him by his IPA which was in violation of Regulation 7A of the IP Regulations that came into effect on 31st December 2019.
Mr. Bhat contended that he accepted to act as the IRP in the said assignment on 5th June, 2018 and therefore he was under bonafide belief that provision of Regulation 7A of the said IP Regulations 2016 was not applicable at the time when consent was given. He has further stated that he did not have any malafide intention for not obtaining the AFA and that the lapse was unintentional and he earnestly apologized for the same and that he had applied for an AFA from his IPA and the same is pending with them.
The same were the allegations and contentions by Mr. Girish Siriram Juneja where he was proposed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in March, 2019 by the Oriental Bank of Commerce and the acceptance for the same was given by him on 12th April, 2019.
Dr. Mukulita Vijayawargiya while passing the same orders for the Disciplinary committee to both the professionals noted “. . . the provisions of the Code and regulations are spelt out in a plain and unambiguous language. Regulation 7A of IP regulations requires for any IP to have AFA before undertaking any assignment . . . without AFA, an IP is not eligible to undertake assignments or conduct various processes thereof. Regulation 7A was inserted in the IP Regulations vide notification dated 23rd July, 2019, much before 31st December, 2019. Adequate time was given to the professionals to obtain AFA from respective IPAs.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
India has a complicated history with gambling. On the one hand, gambling is a widely seen practice and has a close religious connotation. On the other hand, the legitimacy of legal gambling is not very well known. Gambling is an offense occurring in a gaming house in many states, which raises concern amongst Indian players.
There is a common perception amongst Indian players that gambling is illegal or unregulated in the country. This is not true. India’s gambling industry is valued at around $60 billion, which includes both unregulated and regulated gambling. The various types of gambling activities that are included are horse racing, sports betting, the game of skill and chance, prize competitions, and lotteries.
Lotteries are regulated through the Lotteries Act of 1998. The Government of India has issued additional rulings regarding the minimum price amount and the number of draws.
Eleven states in India allow horse race betting. These include Meghalaya, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra, Assam, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal. However, active horse races do not take place in all of these states. According to Indian law, horse race counts as a game of skill because the skill of the horse and the jockey is to be considered to predict the nature of the race.
Any competition with a prize offering for puzzle solving requiring arrangement, permutation combination, or other categories comes under the prize competitions.
In sports betting, it has not been exclusively defined whether it comes under a game of skill or a game of chance. The Supreme Court of India has not ruled in this matter. This is why there are some confusion and a grey area in the country. However, some states are showing the way. Sikkim has been at the forefront of legalizing online sports betting inside the state. They have started issuing the license to operators for allowing bets on video sports.
Games of skill come under various categories because different states in India have different gambling acts. The Supreme Court has declared that the game of chance is any game where luck determines the game’s outcome instead of skill. At the same time, a game of skill is where the skill of the player is the determining factor over luck.
Chess, Rummy, bridge, and some other sports like golf have been categorized as games of skill in Tamil Nadu. In Karnataka, games of skills include chess, poker, and more. The prohibition of gambling and regulation and promotion of the online game of skill act of 2015 in Nagaland defines the game of skill as any game that requires mental skill and understanding to determine the game’s outcome.
This is the category where most online casino games lie. Most games of chances are prohibited under the gambling acts of states. There are, however, some exceptions to the role. For example, Goa has provided licenses to various casinos that operate within the country and offshore. Sikkim has also created a Sikkim Casino Game Act 2004, allowing casinos to operate within the state legally.
Sikkim operates under the Sikkim online gaming regulation act of 2008. The act was passed with the objective of regulation and control of the state’s online gaming industry. There have been some amendments to the legislature from time to time. There are regulations on both online and offline format of gambling with taxation within the state.
This act restricts any activity of online and sports games under the issued license. This means this act regulates the physical gaming terminals in the state. Initially, the act was designed with the idea that gaming capability will be offered to players all across India without keeping it restricted strictly to the state of second.
The government of Nagaland also has a gambling act named Nagaland Prohibition Of Gaming And Promotion And Regulation Of Online Games Of Skill Act of 2016. In this game, there are regulations for games that are considered games of skill. These games can be licensed, and license holders can operate inside India from any state wherever gambling is allowed and legal.
Sikkim has also created a regulation that controls online gambling activities inside the state. Other than these two state regulations, none of the other state or central government legislations mention anything about online gambling, which will ultimately make online gambling, including games of skills, something of a disputed area.
Considering that Indian players have a significant chance of betting on Indian and foreign-owned websites due to plenty of casinos, there are no direct laws that completely prohibit or regulate these kinds of gaming activities.
Since there are no exact regulations controlling the gaming activity that is happening over overseas servers located outside of India, there are other intermediary compliance laws that regulate these gaming activities.
This falls under the information technology act of 2000, which puts a restriction on foreign exchange earnings and outgoing of money, along with a clause on money laundering, which is strictly prohibited.
There are no Indian laws governing gambling, which makes the entire territory completely unclear. The Indian judiciary has tried to clarify during the hearing of various case laws on this matter. However, considering the rapid technological changes that have made offshore and onshore gambling available to India’s players, the sector has been wide opened, and millions of players are participating in activities that are not clearly defined inside the gambling laws in India. These gambling activities are still going to take a long time to be scrutinized to come under proper regulation. The precise advice to Indian players would be to take a piece of legal advice if they are going to be gambling online in any capacity to avoid legal ramifications.
The Income Tax Department has enabled the Income Tax Return (ITR) Rectification on the portal for the Assessment Year 2020-21.
A rectification request under section 154(1) is allowed by the Income Tax Department for correcting mistakes when there is an apparent mistake in your Income Tax Return.
The errors can be taken care of by filing a rectification namely an error of fact, an arithmetic mistake, a small clerical error and an error due to overlooking compulsory provisions of law.
The ratification can be filed under section 154(1) by Logging in to Income Tax Website, then Go to ‘e-File’. In the drop-down select ‘Rectification’. Select the ‘Assessment Year’ for which rectification is to be filed and ‘Latest Communication Reference Number’ (as mentioned in the CPC Order). In case you have received more than 2 orders use the latest order number. Click on ‘Validate’. Select the ‘Rectification Request Type’ based on the reason for filing rectification.
Select the reason for seeking rectification and the Schedules in the return being changed. Next, you need to upload XML. You can select a maximum of 4 reasons. If you select “Reprocess the case” then this option if there is a Tax Credit mismatch or Tax/ Interest mismatch. You may select the checkbox for which reprocessing is required. No upload of an Income Tax Return is required.
The Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) deployed the module-wise new functionalities on the GST Portal during October-December 2020 for taxpayers.
Various new functionalities are implemented on the GST Portal, from time to time, for GST stakeholders. These functionalities pertain to different modules such as Registration, Returns, Advance Ruling, Payment, Refund, other Miscellaneous topics. Various webinars are also conducted during the period for the benefit of the stakeholders.
For Taxpayers applying for a new registration and opting for Aadhaar Authentication, the authentication would now be required to be done only for one Primary Authorized Signatory and one Promoter/Partner, (instead of all Authorized Signatories and Partners/Promoters, hitherto).
If a taxpayer has not opted for Aadhaar Authentication while applying for a new registration and if a SCN is raised by a Tax-officer, on Aadhaar Authentication tab, the taxpayer will be able to upload E-KYC documents while filing clarification. This upload of E-KYC documents can also be done by the Tax Official (on behalf of the taxpayer) doing site verification.
The GSTN has now introduced auto-populated Form GSTR-3B in PDF format, for the benefit of the taxpayers.
A Composition taxpayer can now file a NIL statement in Form GST CMP-08 for a quarter, through an SMS, apart from filing it through online mode, on GST Portal.
From 1st December 2020 onwards, the E-Way Bill (EWB) generation facility of a taxpayer is blocked (irrespective of their Aggregate Annual Turnover), for default in filing of Return in FORM GSTR-3 B or Statement in FORM GST CMP-08, for two or more consecutive tax periods, in terms of Rule 138E (a) and (b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. A facility of ‘Communication Between Taxpayers’ has been provided on the GST Portal, for sending a notification by recipient (or supplier) taxpayers to their supplier (or recipient) taxpayers, regarding missing documents or any shortcomings in the documents or any other issue related to it.
For more details Click here.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) has invited the Observations of the candidates on Question papers of CA Examinations – January 2021.
In an announcement issued by ICAI said that, that candidates can bring to the notice of the Examination Department, their observations, if any, on the question papers relating to CA Examinations being held in January 2021 by e-mail at examfeedback@icai.in or by way of a letter, sent by Speed Post, at the following address, so as to reach us latest by 10th February 2021.
The ICAI also said that, only those observations of students will be taken up for consideration who provide their following details i.e.; Name of the Student, Registration Number, Roll Number, email-id, and Mobile Number.
The Institute of Company Secretaries of India has announced the results of the Foundation Program of the December 2020 session and of the CS Executive Entrance Test (CSEET) that was held on the 9th and 10th of January, 2021. It was announced at the ICSI convocation that was held virtually today. A brief inaugural event took place at Hotel ITC Kohenur, Telangana in the presence of the Chief Guest, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu, Hon’ble Vice President of India.
Balaji BG (roll: 506600) secured the first rank in the Foundation Programme Examination. The 2nd Rank was shared between Priya Jain (roll no.: 512031) and Aparna Mukesh Agrawal (roll: 512580). The same was the situation for the 3rd rank as it was shared between Nikita Jain (roll: 500042) and Chiraag Agarwal (roll: 500334)
Use the links below to view the results.
Foundation Programme (December 2020)
Click here to view result and download e-mark sheet: http://icsi.examresults.net/
Click here to download All India Provisional Mark List here.
Click here to view the Top 3 rank holders here.
CS Executive Entrance Test (CSEET)
Click here to view result and download e-marksheet:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is no evidentiary value of Whatsapp Messages unless a Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is obtained.
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth appearing on behalf of the Narcotics Bureau, submitted that almost 57,000 tablets of tramadol hydrochloride (100 mg) were recovered, which amounted to commercial quantities. A co-accused admitted to having sent the consignment to another person at the petitioner’s behest and was totally unaware of the contents of the parcel.
The screenshots of WhatsApp messages, available with the NCB, would connect the petitioner with the contraband. A message showed transfer of some amount by the petitioner to the account belonging to the husband of the co-accused, Mr. Vashisth added.
It was also argued that other persons were also involved in the sale and purchase of the contraband as evident from the WhatsApp messages.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate RS Rai on the behalf of petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement by the co-accused as well as his own statement, which could not be relied upon.
Mr. Rai also argued that the petitioner had been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement by the co-accused and his own statement. Such a statement could not be relied upon.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur ruled that the Whatsapp messages would be of no evidentiary value without a Section 65B certificate.
Section 65B requires electronic records to be certified by a person occupying a responsible official position for the same to be admitted as evidence in court proceedings.
The court while relying on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others have held that a certificate Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required when reliance is being placed upon electronic records. Needless to say that the Narcotics Bureau will always be at liberty to rely upon the WhatsApp messages after due compliance with provisions of Section 65-B.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) has released the Draft Panel for Category of MEF application 2020-21.
The MEF Applicants can visit at https://meficai.org/ to view the category and other information related to their MEF Application. It may be informed that the category displayed is subject to the verification of Common Partners and checking of Financial Documents by the Auditors. The observations, if any, will be communicated separately.
The ICAI said that, Any comments/ observations on the details and category can be shared by the MEF Applicants at https://app.meficai.org/complaints latest by 20th Jan. 2021, thereafter no submission for the MEF 2020-21 will be considered.
The Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Delhi has arrested the Chartered Accountant for fraudulently passing on a fake Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) of Rs 14.30 cr.
In the ongoing campaign against fake/bogus invoices and resultant availment of inadmissible ITC, officers of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Commissionerate, Delhi (East) have detected a case of issue of fake bills of Rs. 79.5 crore (approx). The syndicate was being operated by Sh. Nitin Jain, CA by floating three firms i.e M/s Anshika Metals, M/s N.J Trading Co., and M/s A.J Enterprises using the identity of his family members, with the intent of passing of inadmissible ITC.
Sh. Nitin Jain, CA through these firms has passed on fake ITC of Rs. 14.30 crore. All the e-way bills generated to transport the goods were also found fictitious. Sh. Nitin Jain, CA who was absconding since 16.12.2020 finally appeared before the investigating officers on 13.01.2021 and in his statement accepted that he has floated three fictitious firms using the identity of his father Sh. Naresh Chand Jain and his wife Mrs. Diksha Jain for the purpose of availing and passing of fake ITC.
Significantly, in two earlier cases of fake billing detected by the Delhi East Commissionerate in which Sh. Sachin Mittal and Sh. Dinesh Jain was found involved in the issue of bogus invoices and had passed fake ITC of Rs. 12 crore and Rs. 13.98 crore respectively through their firms had in their statements also revealed the name of Sh. Nitin Jain, CA and stated that he had arranged/provided them fake bills/invoices of different firms on a commission basis.
Sh. Nitin Jain by using fake entities on the identity of his family members has knowingly committed offences under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act,2017 as amended vide Section -127 of the Finance Act’2020, which are cognizable and non-bailable offences as per the provisions of Section 132(5) and punishable under clause (i) of the subsection (1) of Section 132 of the Act ibid.
Sh. Nitin Jain, CA has been arrested under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act’2017 and produced before the Duty Magistrate. He has been remanded in judicial custody for 14 days up to 27.01.2021 by the Duty Magistrate. Further investigation, in this case, is in progress. The consolidated amount of detection under fake invoices for the current year is Rs. 3684.46 crore and the total number of arrests for the Zone is 18.
