Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Siemens Ltd. (30-9-2010)

fiogf49gjkf0d
From Accounting Policies:

Provision: Provisions comprise liabilities of uncertain timing or amount. Provisions are recognised when the Company recognises it has a present obligation as a result of past events, it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.

Provisions are not discounted to its present value and are determined based on best estimate required to settle the obligation at the balance sheet date. These are reviewed at each balance sheet date and adjusted to reflect current best estimates.

Disclosures for contingent liability are made when there is a possible or present obligation for which it is not probable that there will be an outflow of resources. When there is a possible obligation or a present obligation in respect of which the likelihood of outflow of resources is remote, no disclosure is made.

Loss contingencies arising from claims, litigation, assessment, fines, penalties, etc. are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Contingent assets are neither recognised, nor disclosed in the financial statements.

From Notes to Accounts:

Disclosure relating to provisions:
Provision for warranty: Warranty costs are provided based on a technical estimate of the costs required to be incurred for repairs, replacement, material cost, servicing and past experience in respect of warranty costs. It is expected that this expenditure will be incurred over the contractual warranty period.

Provision for liquidated damages:
Liquidated damages are provided based on contractual terms when the delivery/commissioning dates of an individual project have exceeded or are likely to exceed the delivery/commissioning dates as per the respective contracts. This expenditure is expected to be incurred over the respective contractual terms up to closure of the contract (including warranty period).

Provision for loss orders:

A provision for expected loss on construction contracts is recognised when it is probable that the contract costs will exceed total contract revenue. For all other contracts loss order provisions are made when the unavoidable costs of meeting the obligation under the contract exceed the currently estimated economic benefits.

Contingencies:

The Company has made provisions for known contractual risks, litigation cases and pending assessments in respect of taxes, duties and other levies, the outflow of which would depend on the cessation of the respective events.

Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (31-3-2010)

fiogf49gjkf0d
From Accounting Policies: Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets:

Provisions involving a substantial degree of estimation in measurement are recognised when there is a present obligation as a result of past events and it is probable that there will be an outflow of resources. Contingent Liabilities are not recognised but are disclosed in the notes. Contingent Assets are neither recognised, nor disclosed in the financial statements.

From Notes to Accounts:

As per Accounting Standard-29, Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, given below are movements in provision for Frequent Flyer Programme, Redelivery of Aircraft, Aircraft Maintenance Costs and Engine Repairs Costs.

(a) Frequent Flyer Programme: The Company has a Frequent Flyer Programme named ‘Jet Privilege’, wherein the passengers who frequently use the services of the Airline become members of ‘Jet Privilege’ and accumulate miles to their credit. Subject to certain terms and conditions of ‘Jet Privilege’, the passenger is eligible to redeem such miles lying to their credit in the form of free tickets.

The cost of allowing free travel to members as contractually agreed under the Frequent Flyer Programme is accounted considering the members’ accumulated mileage on an incremental cost basis. The movement in the provision during the year is as under:

Particulars 2009-10 2008-09
Opening balance 3,344 2,949
Add :
Additional provisions during the year 1,346 1 ,446
Less :
Amounts used during the year (1,053) (1,0 51)
Less :
Unused amounts reversed
during the year (416)
Closing balance 3,221 3,344

(b) Redelivery of aircraft:

The Company has in its fleet aircraft on operating lease. As contractually agreed under the lease agreements, the aircraft have to be redelivered to the lessors at the end of the lease term in the stipulated technical condition. Such redelivery conditions would entail costs for technical inspection, maintenance checks, repainting costs prior to its redelivery and cost of ferrying the aircraft to the location as stipulated under the lease agreement.

The Company therefore provides for such redelivery expenses, as contractually agreed, in proportion to the expired lease period.

Particulars Opening Balance 2009-10 3,031 2008-09 2,115
Add : Additional provisions during the year* 315 1,441
Less : Amounts used during the year 753 525
Less : Un-used amounts reversed during the year
Closing balance 2,593 3,031
The cash outflow out of the above provisions as per the current terms under the lease agreements are as under:

Year

 

 

2009-10

2008-09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aircraft

 

Amount

Aircraft

Amount

 

 

 

 

(Rs. in lakhs)

 

(Rs.
in lakhs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2010-11

 

3

 

256

4

394

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011-12

 

2

 

205

1

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012-13

 

18

 

1,493

17

1,286

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2014-15

 

3

 

130

3

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2015-16

 

13

 

425

13

269

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017-18

 

3

 

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2018-19

 

3

 

50

3

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2019-20

 

2

 

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

2,593

 

2,154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Aircraft maintenance costs:

Certain heavy maintenance checks including over-haul of auxiliary power units need to be performed at specified intervals as enforced by the Director General of Civil Aviation in accordance with the Maintenance Programme Document laid down by the manufacturers. The movements in the provisions for such costs are as under:

Particulars

2009-10

2008-09

 

 

 

Opening balance

3,433

2,115

 

 

 

Add/(Less)
:

 

 

Adjustments during the year*

(268)

1,441

 

 

 

Less
:

 

 

Amounts used during the year

(1,230)

525

 

 

 

Less
:

 

 

Unused amounts reversed

 

 

during the year

(166)

 

 

 

Closing balance

1,769

3,031

 

 

 

    Adjustments during the year represent exchange fluctuation impact consequent to restatement of liabilities denominated in foreign currency.

(d) Engine repairs cost:

The aircraft engines have to undergo shop visits for overhaul and maintenance at specified intervals as per the Maintenance Programme Document. The same was provided for on the basis of hours flown at a pre-determined rate.

 

Amount (Rs. in lakhs)

 

 

 

 

Particulars

2009-10

2008-09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opening balance

333

 

 

657

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add/(Less)
:

 

 

 

 

 

Adjustments during the year*

(6)

 

 

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less
:

 

 

 

 

 

Amounts used during the year

327

 

 

372

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less
:

 

 

 

 

 

Unused amounts reversed

 

 

 

 

 

during the year

 

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

Closing balance

 

 

333

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Adjustments during the year represent exchange fluctuation impact consequent to restatement of liabilities denominated in foreign currency.

GAPs in GAAP — Presentation of Comparatives under Ind-AS

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) recently submitted a set of near-final Indian IFRS standards (known as ‘Ind-AS’) to the National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards (NACAS). Subsequently, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) notified the Ind-AS standards. These notified standards contain many changes from the IFRS as issued by the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB). Some of the changes are resulting in internal inconsistencies or may give rise to practical challenges (generally referred to as ‘GAP in GAAP’ by the author). This article highlights one such key issue. Whilst all the previous articles have focussed on Indian GAAP, henceforth this series will also additionally bring out the GAP in GAAP on the new Ind-AS’s.

IFRS 1 First-time adoption requires a company to transit from a previous GAAP (say, Indian GAAP) to IFRS at the beginning of the comparative period. Therefore an Indian company that has to prepare IFRS accounts for 2011-12 financial year, will transit to IFRS on 1st April 2010 (transition date or start date). This approach results in the company having both the current year (2011-12) and the comparable year (2010-11) prepared under IFRS with one transition date. By providing comparable numbers under the same IFRS framework, investors and analysts will have a better understanding of those financial statements.

A somewhat different approach is followed in Ind- AS 101 First-time Adoption of Ind-AS. Under this standard there is no mandatory requirement to prepare comparable numbers under the same Ind-AS framework. So typically an Indian company would have current year numbers under Ind-AS 101 prepared with the transition date of 1st April 2011 and comparable numbers as per Indian GAAP. Under this approach, the investors and analysts may face difficulties in understanding the financial statements that do not contain comparable numbers prepared under the same reporting framework.

There is another alternative approach that is allowed under Ind-AS 101, so that companies can provide comparative information under Ind-AS. Ind-AS 101 defines the ‘transition date’ as the beginning of the current period, i.e., 1st April 2011. Thus, a company cannot adopt Ind-AS from the beginning of the comparative period. If it desires to give comparative information as per Ind-AS in its first Ind-AS financial statements, it can do so on memorandum basis only. For the purposes of preparing comparative information on a memorandum basis, the company will have a deemed transition date, i.e., 1st April 2010. This gives rise to the following issue.

If a company decides to give Ind-AS comparatives in the first year of adoption, it will use two transition dates : actual transition date and memoranda/ deemed transition date. For example, if a company covered in phase 1 of the IFRS conversion roadmap and having 31st March year decides to give one year comparative, its actual transition date will be 1st April 2011. In addition, it will use 1st April 2010 as memoranda/deemed transition date to prepare memoranda comparatives. It may be noted that the memorandum balance sheet prepared at the end of 31st March 2011, will not be carried forward and a new balance sheet will be prepared at 1st April 2011, by applying Ind-AS 101 all over again. Though the intention is to provide comparability between two years under Ind-AS, the approach in Ind-AS 101 will end up doing exactly the opposite. Given below are few examples that explain the point.

(a) A company acquires a new business whose acquisition date falls within the memoranda comparable period (2010-11 in the above example). In preparing its memoranda information as at and for the year ended 31st March 2011, the company will apply acquisition accounting as per Ind-AS 103 Business Combinations. However, in preparing Ind-AS opening balance sheet at 1st April 2011, it can still use Ind-AS 101 exemption and continue with previous GAAP accounting under Indian GAAP, after making certain specific adjustments. The 2010-11 numbers will have the impact of acquisition accounting, but the 2011-12 numbers will be based on Indian GAAP accounting.

(b) A company decides to use fair value as deemed cost exemption for property, plant and equipment (PPE). For its memoranda transition, it will determine the fair value as at 1st April 2010. For actual transition, fair valuation as at 1st April 2011 will be needed. Other than having to do fair valuation for two transition dates, the value of the PPE and the resultant depreciation for the two years will not be comparable.

Paragraph 21(b)(ii) of Ind-AS 101 actually acknowledges this fact and states that “For example, the first-time adopter for whom the first reporting period is financial statements for the year ending 31st March, 2012 would apply the exceptions and exceptions as at 1st April, 2010 and 1st April, 2011; accordingly the balance sheet as at end of 31st March, 2011 may not be equivalent to the opening balance sheet as at 1st April, 2011.”

Requiring IFRS conversion on two transition dates (i.e., 1st April 2010 and 1st April 2011), so as to enable a company to prepare comparative numbers under Ind-AS seems rather unique, unnecessary cost and burden and self-defeating. The approach results in nonmatching of the balance sheets and in many cases may actually distort comparability. It is therefore likely that many companies may provide comparable numbers only under Indian GAAP rather than under Ind-AS.

For the standards-setters a better strategy would have been to accept IFRS 1, as it is. This standard would require transitioning to IFRS on 1st April 2010 as a starting point. Comparable and current year numbers would be prepared on that basis and the issue of noncomparability or non-matching balance sheets would not arise. Moreover investors would have found it easy to understand and useful for decision-making purposes. Global investors too would have preferred it, as being compliant with IASB IFRS.

It may be noted that this article assumes that the transition date is as suggested in the original roadmap issued by the MCA. However, MCA has clarified on the notified standards that the implementation date will be intimated later. Therefore it cannot be said with any certainty whether the dates mentioned in the roadmap will be met.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 294 (Tri – Chennai) – Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. vs. CCEx., Trichy

fiogf49gjkf0d
Services of construction of staff quarters whether an input service for providing output service – Reference to division bench considered in view of two different views of co-ordinate benches.

Facts:
Revenue denied CENVAT credit on input services for construction of staff quarters. Appellant contended that if services are used in the ‘premises’ of service provider, CENVAT credit is allowed in view of the definition of “Input Services”. It is not relevant whether this is the ‘premises’ where service is actually provided or “office premises” or “residential premises”. Moreover, the matter is decided by the Tribunal in favour of appellant in appellant’s own case for prior periods.

The revenue contended that the word ‘premises’ should not be considered in isolation. It cannot include every ownership premises of service provider. It should have connection with the activities of providing output services as decided by the Tribunal in case of Manikgarh Cement Works (2010) (18 STR 275).

Held:
Ownership of the premises is not relevant for claim of CENVAT credit. Input services should be used in or in relation to provision of output service so as to be eligible for CENVAT Credit. However, the issue is decided by the Tribunal in appellant’s favour earlier. There being two different decisions of the co-ordinate benches, the matter is placed for considering reference to Division Bench.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 283 (Tri – Bang) – CCEx., Visakhapatnam vs. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Definition of “input service” wide enough to cover business related activities like outdoor catering service, group medical insurance etc. If cost of service forms part of assessable value – Decision valid for period prior to 31/03/2011.

Facts:
Revenue denied CENVAT credit on the following input services:

a) Group medical insurance to employees and family members,

b) Insurance of directors and officers when they are on foreign tour,

c) Outdoor catering services i.e. canteen facility provided to employees within factory premises as required under Factories Act, 1948

Held:
The definition of input service is very wide as observed by the Mumbai High Court in case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner (2009) (242 ELT 168). The High Court in this case had provided a test for establishing whether the activity relates to business or not. If the cost of such services forms part of the assessable value on which excise duty is paid, CENVAT credit is allowed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the original authority with a comment to follow the above judgment. CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services stands allowed since the issue is decided earlier by the Tribunal for respondent itself.

Comment:

The definition of “input service” in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been amended whereby its scope is restricted with effect from 01/04/2011. Therefore, the above interpretation will hold good only till 31/03/2011.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 421 (Tri – Chennai) – JMC educational Charitable Trust vs. CCEx., Trichy –

fiogf49gjkf0d
Distant education programme by an institution analogical to a parallel college is not in the nature of commercial coaching or training service.

Facts:
The appellant was conducting classes under the distance education programmes. For these programmes, the students paid separately to university as well as the appellant. Diploma/degree from the university is obtained by the students. The appellant explained that their institution is like a parallel college and students facing troublesome situations can study through these courses. Therefore, the appellant pleaded for exemption as is granted to regular colleges and took support of the Kerala High Court’s verdict in Malappuram Distt. Parallel Colleges Association vs. Union of India (2006) (2 STR 321).

Held:

Since the Kerala High Court had held that provisions of service tax laws for levy of service tax on parallel colleges are ultra virus Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the appeal was allowed.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 303 (Tri – Bang) SAP India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCEx., Bangalore III

fiogf49gjkf0d
Services of upgradation of software post implementation of ERP not in the nature of maintenance or repair service. ‘Computers’ do not include software – service liable from 16/05/2008 as information technology software service.

Facts:
i. The Department contended that the services provided by the appellant for the period from July 2004 to January 2006 in relation to maintenance of software should be classified under “management, maintenance or repairs services”. However, the appellant claimed that the said services are classifiable as “information technology software services” which is introduced with effect from 16/05/2008.

ii. Appellant contended that repairs and maintenance of software services are specifically excluded from the definition of business auxiliary services and therefore, are not liable to service tax. They relied on a circular dated 17/12/2003 which clarified that maintenance of software was not chargeable to service tax. However, the Department claimed that circular dated 17/12/2003 was superseded by circular dated 07/10/2005 and therefore, the services of maintenance of software were chargeable to service tax.

iii. Department contended that software is considered as ‘goods’ by various courts and that though Notification No. 20/2003-ST dated 21/08/2003 had exempted maintenance or repairs of computers and its peripherals, Notification No. 7/2004-ST dated 09/07/2004 rescinded the said notification and therefore, such services are chargeable to service tax from 09/07/2004. The appellant argued that computers per se do not include software and therefore, the said notification did not apply to them. The appellant contended that service tax cannot be levied on activities which are specifically kept out of the purview of service tax and they explained that it provides computer software maintenance which can be categorised in following four streams as per the technical literature of special consultants and other sources: Corrective, adaptive, perfective and preventive.

These activities are in the nature of “ERP maintenance and upgradation activities”.

iv. The Department issued show cause notices for various periods including part of the period under dispute under “management consultant’s services”. The appellant challenged the notices on the ground of extended period of limitation as well as on the interpretation issue.

Held:

i. Variety of maintenance services were provided by the appellant post implementation of ERP. These services are mainly in relation to upgrading the software and enhancing ERP’s efficiency. “Maintenance” in relation to computer software is much wider than maintenance of any other goods or of a factual situation

ii. Though ‘software’ is considered as ‘goods’ by various courts, normally maintenance of goods would not result in upgradation of its value or functionality or efficiency to higher levels. Only “corrective maintenance” can be compared with maintenance of tangible goods.

iii. The case laws and circulars placed were in relation to computer software and the new levy with effect from 16/05/2008 is in relation to information technology software. Computer software and information technology software services are treated differently by the legislature which can be understood from section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads as under:

“management, maintenance or repair” means any service provided by —

(i) any person under a contract or an agreement or
(ii) a manufacturer or any person authorised by him, in relation to, —

(a) management of properties, whether immovable or not;
(b) maintenance or repair of properties, whether immovable or not; or
(c) maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration, or servicing of any goods, excluding a motor vehicle

Explanation — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause, —

(a) ‘goods’ includes computer software;
(b) ‘properties’ includes information technology software” Therefore, maintenance of computer software is covered by clause
(c) whereas maintenance of information technology software is covered by clause

(b) above.

(iv) The activities of the appellant being well within the scope of “information technology software services”, appellant was not liable for service for the period under dispute.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 398 (Tri – Mumbai) – Makjai Laboratories vs. CCEx., Kolhapur

fiogf49gjkf0d
During the period prior to 01/09/2009, activity amounting to ‘manufacture’ not liable for service tax even if not liable under Central Excise Act but chargeable under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act or any other Act.

Facts:
The appellant was manufacturing medicines containing alcohol on job work basis. The said medicines were chargeable to duty under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duty) Act, 1955. The Department claimed that the exemption from business auxiliary services to job worker is restricted only to excisable goods under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and since the goods are not excisable under the said section, exemption cannot be granted to appellant.

Held:
The exclusion is applicable to activity of ‘manufacture’ under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not restricted to “excisable goods” under the said section. Considering this exemption is available to the activity which is regarded as manufacturing activity whether chargeable to Central Excise Act, 1944 or Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duty) Act, 1955 or any other Act and the appeal was allowed.

Comment:
The definition of business auxiliary service has been amended with effect from 01/09/2009 whereby the term ‘manufacture’ relates only to excisable goods under the Central Excise Act. Therefore the above will not hold good for the period after 01/09/2009.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 241 (Tri – Ahmd.) – Globe Enviro Care Ltd. vs. CCEx., Surat

fiogf49gjkf0d
Incineration of bio medical waste prima facie not in the nature of processing of goods – not a business auxiliary service – stay granted.

Facts:
Appellant was engaged in processing and treatment of liquid chemical effluents generated at various industries. It was held liable for service tax on the ground that such activities are processing of goods on behalf of client and therefore, the same are ancillary to business auxiliary services. Appellant referred to various judgments to argue that the same is not leviable to service tax at all.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities did not consider CBEC Circular issued in this behalf which clarified that incineration/shredding of biomedical waste cannot be considered as processing of goods. Granting unconditional stay, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 224 (Kar) – CCEx., Mangalore vs. K. Vijaya C. Rai

fiogf49gjkf0d
Non-payment of service tax for 3 years and payment only after receipt of show cause notice indicates malafide intention – penalty levied – cannot get away merely being a lady.

Facts:
The assessee, a lady, did not pay service tax for three years after becoming liable. On being surveyed, obtained the registration, but did not pay any service tax. Subsequent to issuance of show cause notice, paid service tax with interest. The Tribunal set aside the order levying penalty on her.

Held:
The Tribunal was carried away by the fact of assessee being lady and could not notice that people having malafide motives may use names of housewives. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and upheld the penalty.

levitra

(2011) 21 STR 210 (P & H) – CCEx. vs. Haryana Industrial Security Services

fiogf49gjkf0d
Penalty u/s. 78 has to be equal to the amount of service tax demand and the law does not provide discretion to reduce.

Facts:
The assessee a security agency, paid service tax on the service charges received from the customers instead of gross amount charged for the period from 16/10/1998 to 30/09/1999. The assessee did not dispute the revenue’s contention that the minimum penalty prescribed under section 78 is equal to the amount of service tax. Based on other facts, the lower Appellate Authorities held that the assessee had suppressed facts and therefore, liable to penalty. However the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to 1.5 lakh from 6.5 lakh.

Held:

The penalty equal to the amount of service tax was minimum and Tribunal’s order reducing penalty was set aside.

levitra

Revised Schedule VI — An Analysis

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction
Section 211(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 requires all companies to draw up the Balance Sheet and Statement of Profit and Loss account as per the form set out in Schedule VI. The pre-revised Schedule VI was introduced in 1976.

As mentioned in the Foreword of the ICAI Guidance Note on Revised Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 (ICAI GN), “to make Indian business and companies competitive and globally recognisable, a need was felt that format of Financial Statements of Indian corporates should be comparable with international format. Since most of the Indian Accounting Standards are being made at par with the international Accounting Standards, the changes to format of Financial Statements to align with the Accounting Standards will make Indian companies competitive on the global financial world. Taking cognisance of imperative situation and need, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs revised the existing Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956”.

The Ministry of Company Affairs (MCA) vide Notification dated 28th February 2011 notified the format of Revised Schedule VI. Further vide Notification dated 30th March 2011, it was clarified that the “The new format shall come into force for the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account to be prepared for the financial year commencing on or after 1st April 2011”.

The ICAI GN issued in December 2011 gives detailed guidance on the Revised Schedule VI and the manner in which the various instructions contained in Revised Schedule VI are to be interpreted.

The structure of Revised Schedule VI is as under:

(a) General Instructions
(b) Part I — Form of Balance Sheet
(c) General Instructions for preparation of Balance Sheet
(d) Part II — Form of Statement of Profit and Loss
(e) General Instructions for preparation of Statement of Profit and Loss

It should be noted that besides the format for preparation of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss statement as notified by the Revised Schedule VI, there are other disclosure requirements also. These disclosures are:

(a) Disclosures as per the notified Accounting Standards i.e., as per the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006;

(b) Disclosures under the Companies Act, 1956 (e.g., on buyback of shares — section 77, political contributions — section 293, etc.);

(c) Disclosures under Statutes (e.g., as per the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006);

(d) Disclosures as per other ICAI pronouncements (e.g., disclosure on MTM exposure for derivatives);

(e) In case of listed companies, disclosures under Clause 32 of the Listing Agreement (e.g., Loans to associate companies, etc.)

Applicability of the Revised Schedule

VI As mentioned in the Notification dated 30th March 2011, financial statements for all companies have to be prepared using the format given by Revised Schedule VI for financial years commencing on or after 1st April 2011.

A company having its financial year ending on, say, 30th June 2011, 30th September 2011 or 31st December 2011 cannot adopt the new format since their financial years have not commenced on or after 1st April 2011. Since the format of Revised Schedule VI is a statutory format, a company cannot decide to follow the same even on a voluntary basis. However, if a company decides to prepare its financial statements from 1st April 2011 to 31st December 2011 (i.e., for a period of 9 months), it will have to prepare the same using the format of Revised Schedule VI.

All companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 have to prepare their financial statements using Revised Schedule VI. However, proviso to section 211 exempts banking companies, insurance companies and companies engaged in generation or supply of electricity from following the said format since these are governed by their respective statutes. However, since the Electricity Act 2003 and the Rules thereunder do not prescribe any format for preparing financial statements, such companies will have to follow the format laid down by the Revised Schedule VI till a separate format is prescribed.

Listed companies require to publish information on quarterly and annual basis in the prescribed format in terms of clauses 41(l)(ea) and 41(l)(eaa) of the Listing Agreement. These formats are inconsistent with formats under the Revised Schedule VI. However, since the formats are statutory formats as per the Listing Agreement, the same will have to be followed till the time a new format is prescribed under Clause 41 of the Listing Agreement.

Companies which are in the process of making an issue of shares (IPO/FPO) have to file ‘offer documents’ containing among other details, financial information of the last 5 years. The formats of Balance Sheet and Statement of Profit and Loss prescribed under the SEBI (Issue of Capital & Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (‘ICDR Regulations’) are inconsistent with the format of the Balance Sheet/Statement of Profit and Loss in the Revised Schedule VI. However, since the formats of Balance Sheet and Statement of Profit and Loss under ICDR Regulations are only illustrative, to make the data comparable and meaningful for users, companies will be required to use the Revised Schedule VI format to present the restated financial information for inclusion in the offer document. It may also be noted that the MCA had vide General Circular No. 62/2011, dated 5th September 2011 has clarified that ‘the presentation of Financial Statements for the limited purpose of IPO/FPO during the financial year 2011-12 may be made in the format of the pre-revised Schedule VI under the Companies Act, 1956. However, for period beyond 31st March 2012, they would prepare only in the new format as prescribed by the present Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956’.

Revised Schedule VI requires that except in the case of the first financial statements (i.e., for the first year after incorporation), the corresponding amounts for the immediately preceding period are to be disclosed in the Financial Statements including the Notes to Accounts. Accordingly, corresponding information will have to be presented starting from the first year of application of the Revised Schedule VI. Thus, for the Financial Statements for the financial year 2011-12 corresponding amounts need to be given for the financial year 2010-11. This will require all companies to take an extra effort to compile the corresponding amounts for 2010-11 for disclosing in Revised Schedule VI prepared for the financial year 2011-12.

All companies whether private or public, whether listed or unlisted, and irrespective of their size in terms of turnover, assets, etc. (other than those mentioned in para 9 above) will have to adhere to the new format of financial statements from 2011-12 onwards. Many small or family-owned companies which are run as an extension of partnerships will have difficulties in adopting the new formats since they may not have the necessary trained manpower or infrastructure for such changeover.

Major principles as per Revised Schedule
VI

Revised Schedule VI has eliminated the concept of ‘Schedules’. Such information will now have to be provided in the ‘Notes to accounts’. Accordingly, the manner of cross-referencing to various other information contained in financial statements will also be changed to ‘Note number’ as against ‘Schedule number’ in pre-revised Schedule VI.

As per general instructions contained in the Revised Schedule VI, the terms used shall carry the meanings as per the applicable Accounting Standards (AS). As per the ICAI GN, the applicable AS for this purpose shall mean the AS notified by the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006.

Revised Schedule VI requires that if compliance with the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) and/or AS requires a change in the treat-ment or disclosure in the financial statements, the requirements of the Act and/or AS will prevail over Revised Schedule VI.

As per preface to the AS issued by ICAI, if a par-ticular AS is not in conformity with law, the provi-sions of the said law or statute will prevail. Using this principle, disclosure requirements of existing Schedule VI were considered to prevail over AS. However, since the Revised Schedule VI gives specific overriding status to the requirements of AS notified by the Companies (Accounting Stan-dards) Rules, 2006, the same would prevail over the Revised Schedule VI.

There are several instances of conflict between provisions of the Revised Schedule VI and the notified AS e.g., definition of Current Investments as per the Revised Schedule VI and AS -11, definition of Cash and Cash Equivalents as per the Revised Schedule VI and AS-3, treatment of proposed dividend as per the Revised Schedule VI and AS- 4, etc. In all such cases, provisions of the AS will prevail over the Revised Schedule VI.

The nomenclature for the Profit and Loss account is now changed to ‘Statement of Profit and Loss’. Also, only the vertical format is prescribed for both Balance Sheet and the Statement of Profit and Loss.

The format of the Statement of Profit and Loss as per the Revised Schedule VI does not contain disclosure of appropriations like transfer to reserves, proposed dividend, etc. These are now to be disclosed in the Balance Sheet as part of adjustments in ‘Surplus in Statement of Profit and Loss’ contained in ‘Reserves and Surplus’. Further, debit balance of ‘profit and loss account’, if any, is to be disclosed as a reduction from ‘Reserves and Surplus’ (even if the final figure of Reserves and Surplus becomes negative).

It is clarified by the Revised Schedule VI that the requirements mentioned therein are minimum requirements. Thus, additional line items, sub-line items and sub-totals can be presented as an addition or substitution on

the face of the financial statements if the company finds them necessary or relevant for understanding of the company’s financial position. Also, in preparing the financial statements, a balance will have to be maintained between providing excessive detail that may not assist users of the financial statements and not providing important information as a result of too much aggregation.

Revised Schedule VI requires use of the same unit of measurement uniformly throughout the financial statements and ‘Notes to Accounts’. Rounding off requirements, if opted, are to be followed uniformly throughout the financial statements and ‘Notes to Accounts’. The rounding off requirements as per pre-revised Schedule VI and as per the Revised Schedule VI are summarised in the following table:


Some disclosures no longer required in the Revised Schedule VI

The disclosure requirements as per the Revised Schedule VI do not contain several disclosures which were required by pre-revised Schedule VI. Some of these are:

(a)    Disclosures relating to managerial remuneration and computation of net profits for calculation of commission;
(b)    Information relating to licensed capacity, installed capacity and production;
(c)    Information on investments purchased and sold during the year;
(d)    Investments, sundry debtors and loans & advances pertaining to companies under the same management;
(e)    Maximum amounts due on account of loans and advances from directors or officers of the company;
(f)    Commission, brokerage and non-trade discounts; and
(g)    Information as required under Part IV of pre-revised Schedule VI.

Major changes in the format of Balance Sheet
Equity and Liabilities

A new disclosure requirement regarding details of number of shares held by each shareholder holding more than 5% shares in the company is inserted by the Revised Schedule VI. The ICAI GN has clarified that in the absence of any specific indication of the date of holding, such information should be based on shares held as on the Balance Sheet date. For this disclosure, the names of the shareholders would be normally available from the Register of Members required to be maintained by every company.

Details pertaining to number of shares issued as bonus shares, shares bought back and those allot-ted for consideration other than cash needs to be disclosed only for a period of five years immediately preceding the Balance Sheet date including the current year. Under the pre-revised Schedule VI requirement is to disclose such items at all times.

In case of listed companies, share warrants are issued to promoters and others in terms of SEBI guidelines. Since such warrants are effectively and ultimately intended to become part of capital, Revised Schedule VI requires that the same be disclosed as part of the Shareholders’ funds as a separate line-item — ‘Money received against share warrants.’ In case the said warrants are forfeited, the amount already paid up would be transferred to ‘Capital Reserve’ and disclosed as part of ‘Reserves and Surplus’.

There are specific disclosures required by the Re-vised Schedule VI for ‘Share Application money pending allotment’. It has been also stated that share application money not exceeding the issued capital and only to the extent not refundable is to be included under ‘Equity’ and share application money to the extent refundable is to be separately shown under ‘Other current liabilities’. Disclosures required regarding share application, whether included under ‘Equity’ or under ‘Other current li-abilities’ are as under:

(a)    terms and conditions;
(b)    number of shares proposed to be issued;
(c)    the amount of premium, if any;
(d)    the period before which shares are to be allotted;
(e)    whether the company has sufficient authorised share capital to cover the share capital amount on allotment of shares out of share application money;
(f)    Interest accrued on amount due for refund;
(g)    The period for which the share application money has been pending beyond the period for allotment as mentioned in the share application form along with the reasons for such share application money being pending.

A major change in the format of balance sheet as per the Revised Schedule VI is the classification of all items of liabilities and assets into Current and Non-Current. The terms ‘Current’ and ‘Non-Current’ are defined by Revised Schedule VI as under:

(a)    A liability is classified as Current if it satisfies any of the following criteria:
(i)    it is expected to be settled in the company’s normal operating cycle;
(ii)    it is held primarily for the purpose of being traded;
(iii)    it is due to be settled within 12 months after the reporting date; or
(iv)    The company does not have an unconditional right to defer settlement of the liability for at least 12 months after the reporting date.

All other liabilities shall be classified as non-current.

  (b)  An asset shall be classified as current when it satisfies any of the following criteria:
  (i)  It is expected to be realised in, or is intended for sale or consumption in the company’s normal operating cycle;
  (ii)  It is held primarily for the purpose of being traded;
  (iii)  It is expected to be realised within 12 months after the reporting date; or
  (iv)  It is cash or cash equivalent unless it is restricted from being exchanged or used to settle a liability for at least 12 months after reporting period date.

All other assets shall be classified as non-current.

  (c)  ‘Operating Cycle’ is defined by Revised Schedule VI as “An operating cycle is the time between the acquisition of assets for processing and their realisation in cash or cash equivalents. Where the normal operating cycle cannot be identified, it is assumed to have duration of twelve months”.

  (d)  Thus, all companies will need to bifurcate balances in respect of all liabilities and assets into ‘current’ and ‘non-current’. The definitions contain four conditions out of which even if one is satisfied, the said liability or asset would be classified as ‘current’. If none of the conditions are satisfied the said liability or asset will be classified as ‘non-current’. The four conditions are quite subjective since they use phrases like ‘expected’, ‘held primarily’, ‘due to be settled’, etc.

  (e)  As per the definition, current liabilities would include items such as trade payables, employee salaries and other operating costs that are expected to be settled in the company’s normal operating cycle or due to be settled within twelve months from the reporting date. Thus, liabilities that are normally payable within the normal operating cycle of a company, are classified as current even if they are due to be settled more than twelve months after the end of the balance sheet date.

  (f)  Similarly, as per the definition, current assets would include assets like raw materials, stores, consumable tools, etc. which are intended for consumption or sale in the course of the company’s normal operating cycle. Such items of inventory are to be classified as current even if the same are not actually consumed or realised within twelve months after the balance sheet date. Current assets would also include inventory of finished goods since they are held primarily for the purpose of being traded. They would also include trade receivables which are expected to be realised within twelve months from the balance sheet date.

  (g)  A company can have multiple operating cycles in case they are manufacturing/dealing in different products. In such cases, the bifurcation into ‘current’ and ‘non-current’ can become difficult.

  (h)  Companies will also need to bifurcate all their borrowings into ‘current’ and ‘non-current’. It is possible that the same borrowing will be classified into two components depending on the portion repayable within/after twelve months from the balance sheet date. Other detai ls in respect of borrowings such as  whether secured (with terms of security) or unsecured, whether guaranteed or not, details of repayment of loans, details of redemption in case of debentures, etc. are also required to be disclosed.

  (i)  Since the format of the balance sheet mentions Deferred Tax Liability (DTL)/Deferred Tax Asset (DTA) as a non-current liability/asset, the same is to be always classified as non-current and cannot be classified as ‘current’ even if the deferred tax liability/asset would become payable or receivable within twelve months of the balance sheet date. It should be also noted that such DTL/DTA is always disclosed on a net basis as required by AS-22.

(j)    For several items of liabilities/assets, the aforesaid classification exercise can become quite cumbersome and time-consuming for companies especially since the same is also required to be done for 2010-11.

In case of loans taken by a company, Revised Schedule VI requires specific disclosure of period and amount of continuing default as on the balance sheet date in repayment of loans and interest to be specified separately in each case.

Revised Schedule VI requires disclosure of loans and advances taken from related parties. ‘Related Parties’ for this purpose would mean those parties as defined by AS-18.

Revised Schedule VI requires disclosure of ‘Trade Payables’ as part of ‘other non-current liabilities’ or ‘current liabilities’. A payable can be classified as ‘trade payable’ if it is in respect of amount due on account of goods purchased or services received in the normal course of business. As per the pre-revised Schedule VI, the term used was ‘Sundry Creditors’ which included amounts due in respect of goods purchased or services received as well as in respect of other contractual obligations. Since amounts due under contractual obligations can no longer be included within ‘trade payables’, items like dues payables in respect of statutory obligations like contribution to provident fund, purchase of fixed assets, contractu-ally reimbursable expenses, interest accrued on trade payables, etc. will need to be classified as ‘others’.

Assets

As per Revised Schedule VI, the disclosure for fixed assets is to be segregated into:

(a)    Tangible assets;
(b)    Intangible assets;
(c)    Capital work-in-progress; and
(d)    Intangible assets under development

The classification of tangible assets is similar to the one under pre-revised Schedule VI, but has a separate item for ‘Office Equipment’. Besides, ‘Plant and Machinery’ is now renamed as ‘Plant and Equipment’.

Classification of intangible assets as a separate item of Fixed Assets is introduced by Revised Schedule VI. It is also required to classify ‘Computer Software’ separately within ‘Intangible Assets’.

It is also necessary to separately disclose, a reconciliation of the gross and net carrying amounts of each class of assets at the beginning and end of the reporting period showing additions, disposals, acquisitions through business combinations (i.e., on account of amalgamations/demergers, etc.) and other adjustments (like capitalisation of borrowing costs as per AS-16) and the related depreciation/ amortisation and impairment losses/reversals.

Since Revised Schedule VI specifically requires capital advances to be included under long-term loans and advances, the same cannot be included under capital work-in-progress. The same also cannot be therefore included within current assets.

There is also a specific requirement to include ‘assets given/taken on lease’, both tangible and intangible under each of the items of fixed assets.

As per Revised Schedule VI, all Investments are to be bifurcated into ‘current’ and ‘non-current’. They also further need to be classified (as in the pre-revised Schedule VI) into trade/non-trade and
quoted/unquoted.

The classification of investments is to be done as under:

(a)    Investment property;
(b)    Investments in Equity Instruments;
(c)    Investments in preference shares;
(d)    Investments in Government or trust securities;
(e)    Investments in debentures or bonds;
(f)    Investments in Mutual Funds;
(g)    Investments in partnership firms; and
(h)    Other investments (specifying nature thereof).

Revised Schedule VI also requires that under each classification, details need to be given of names of bodies corporate indicating separately whether they are:
(a)    subsidiaries,
(b)    associates,
(c)    joint ventures, or
(d)    controlled special purpose entities.

In regard to investments in the capital of partnership firms, the names of the firms (with the names of all their partners, total capital and the shares of each partner) need to be given. It is possible that the partnership firm maintains both ‘capital’ and ‘current’ accounts of its partners. In that case, the bal-ance in ‘capital’ account will be clas-sified as a ‘non-current’ investment in the balance sheet of the company, whereas the balance in ‘current’ account is classified as ‘current’ investment.

In case the company has an investment in a ‘Limited Liability Partnership’ (LLP), the disclosure norms of ‘partnership firm’ (as discussed in para 41 above) will not apply since an LLP is considered as a ‘body corporate’.

As per Revised Schedule VI, all loans and deposits, deposits, etc. given by a company
are to be classified into ‘current’ and ‘non-current’.

Revised Schedule VI requires disclosure of loans and advances given to related parties. ‘Related Parties’ for this purpose would mean those parties as defined by AS-18.

Revised Schedule VI requires disclosure of ‘Trade Receivables’ as part of ‘other non-current assets’ or ‘current assets’. A receivable shall be classified as ‘trade receivable’ if it is in respect of the amount due on account of goods sold or services rendered in the normal course of business. As per the pre-revised Schedule VI, the term ‘sundry debtors’ included amounts due in respect of goods sold or services rendered or in respect of other contractual obligations as well. Since, amounts due under contractual obligations cannot be included within ‘Trade Receivables’, items like dues in respect of insurance claims, sale of fixed assets, contractually reimbursable expenses, interest accrued on trade receivables, etc. will need to be classified within ‘others’.

The pre-revised Schedule VI required separate presentation of debtors for those outstanding for a period exceeding six months (based on billing date) and ‘other debtors’. However, for the ‘current’ portion of ‘Trade Receivables’, the Revised Schedule VI requires separate disclosure of ‘Trade Receivables outstanding for a period exceeding six months from the date they became due for payment’. This requirement can result in a lot of work for companies since it would mean modifying their accounting systems to compile the amounts exceeding six months based on the due date. Giving corresponding data for 2010-11 would also result in added work for most companies.

The requirement for classifying ‘loans and advances’ and ‘trade receivables’ into secured/unsecured and good/doubtful also continues in Revised Schedule VI.

The Revised Schedule VI does not contain any specific disclosure requirement for the unamortised portion of expense items such as share issue expenses, ancillary borrowing costs and discount or premium relating to borrowings. These items were included under the head ‘Miscellaneous Expenditure’ as per the pre-revised Schedule VI. Though, Revised Schedule VI does not mention disclosure of any such item, since additional line items can be added on the face or in the notes, unamortised portion of such items can be disclosed (both ‘current’ as well as ‘non-current’ portion), under the head ‘other current/non-current assets’ depending on whether the amount will be amortised in the next 12 months or thereafter.

The term ‘cash and bank balances’ existing in the pre-revised Schedule VI is replaced under Revised Schedule VI by ‘Cash and Cash Equivalents’. These are to be classified into:

(a)    Balances with banks;
(b)    Cheques, drafts on hand;
(c)    Cash on hand; and
(d)    Others (specify nature).

For ‘Cash and Cash Equivalents’, disclosure is also separately required as per Revised Schedule VI for:

(a)    Earmarked balances with banks (for example, for unpaid dividend);
(b)    Balances with banks to the extent held as margin money or security against the borrowings, guarantees, other commitments;
(c)    Repatriation restrictions, if any, in respect of cash and bank balances shall be separately stated;
(d)    Bank deposits with more than twelve months maturity shall be disclosed separately.

Major changes in the format of Statement of Profit and Loss

Revised Schedule VI requires disclosure of ‘Revenue from Operations’ on the face of the statement of profit and loss. In the case of a company other than a finance company, such ‘Revenue from Operations’ is to be disclosed as:

(a)    Sale of products
(b)    Sale of services
(c)    Other operating revenues
(d)    Less: Excise duty

Though Revised Schedule VI specifically requires disclosure of Sale of Products on ‘gross of excise’ basis, there is no mention of whether Sales Tax/VAT and Service Tax is also to be included or not in sale of products or sale of services, respectively. Though not entirely free of doubt, the ICAI GN has stated that “Whether revenue should be presented gross or net of taxes should depend on whether the company is acting as a principal and hence responsible for paying tax on its own account or, whether it is acting as an agent i.e., simply collecting and paying tax on behalf of government authorities. In the former case, revenue should also be grossed up for the tax billed to the customer and the tax payable should be shown as an expense. However, in cases, where a company collects tax only as an intermediary, revenue should be presented net of taxes.” (Also refer BCAJ February 2012 ‘Gaps in GAAP’ for a discussion on whether taxes should be disclosed gross or net).

In addition to Revenue from Op-erations, Revised Schedule VI also requires disclosure of ‘Other Operating Revenue’ as well as ‘Other Income’. The term ‘Other Operating Revenue’ is not defined by Revised Schedule VI. The ICAI GN has how-ever clarified that “this would include revenue arising from a company’s operating activities, i.e., either its principal or ancillary revenue-generating activities, but which is not revenue arising from the sale of products or rendering of services. Whether a particular income constitutes ‘other operating revenue’ or ‘other income’ is to be decided based on the facts of each case and detailed understanding of the company’s activities. The classification of income would also depend on the purpose for which the particular asset is acquired or held”.

In respect of a finance company, Revised Schedule VI requires ‘Revenue from Operations’ to include revenue from:
(a)    Interest and
(b)    Other financial services.

Though the term ‘finance company’ is not defined by Revised Schedule VI, the ICAI GN states that “the same should be taken to include all companies carrying on activities which are in the nature of ‘business of non-banking financial institution’ as defined in section 45I(f) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935”.

In    case    of    all    companies, Revised Schedule VI requires ‘Other income’ to be disclosed on the face of the statement of profit and loss. For this purpose ‘Other Income’ is to be classified as:

(a)    Interest Income (in case of a company other than a finance company);
(b)    Dividend Income;
(c)    Net gain/loss on sale of Investments;
(d)    Other non-operating income (net of expenses directly attributable to such income).

As can be seen from the above, in the case of all company (including a finance company) Dividend income and Net gain/loss on sale on investments will be always classified as ‘Other Income’.

‘Other Income’ will also include share of profits/ losses in a partnership firm. Though there is no specific requirement mentioned for the same in the Revised Schedule VI, the ICAI GN mentions that the same should be separately disclosed. The ICAI GN also requires that in case the financial statements of the partnership firm are not drawn up to the same date as that of the company, adjustments should be made for effects of significant transactions and events that occur between the two dates and in any case, the difference between the two reporting dates should not be more than six months.

Revised Schedule VI requires the aggregate of the following expenses to be disclosed on the face of the Statement of Profit and Loss:

(a)    Cost of materials consumed
(b)    Purchases of stock-in-trade
(c)    Changes in inventories of finished goods, work in progress and stock in trade
(d)    Employee benefits expense
(e)    Finance costs
(f)    Depreciation and amortisation expense
(g)    Other expenses.

The ICAI GN mentions that for the purpose of disclosure, ‘Cost of materials consumed’, should be based on ‘actual consumption’ rather than ‘derived consumption’. In such a case, excesses/shortages should be separately disclosed rather than included in the amount of ‘cost of materials consumed’. This requirement was also contained in the ICAI pronouncements on the pre-revised Schedule VI.

As per Revised Schedule VI separate disclosure is also required for the following items which are classified under ‘Other Expenses’:

(a)    Consumption of stores and spare parts;
(b)    Power and fuel;
(c)    Rent;
(d)    Repairs to buildings;
(e)    Repairs to machinery;
(f)    Insurance;
(g)    Rates and taxes, excluding taxes on income;
(h)    Miscellaneous expenses.

The threshold for disclosure of ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’ is changed to those that exceed ‘1% of revenue from operations or Rs.100,000 whichever is higher’ as against the requirement of pre-revised Schedule VI of ‘1% of total revenue or Rs.5,000 whichever is higher’.

The format of Statement of Profit and Loss in Revised Schedule VI also requires specific disclosures of ‘Exceptional’, ‘Extraordinary’, items and ‘Discontinuing Operations’. These terms are defined by AS -4, AS-5 and AS-24, respectively and disclosures should be done in accordance with these definitions.

Disclosures by way of Notes

Besides the above disclosures, Revised Schedule VI also requires disclosures by way of Notes attached to the financial statements. Some of the major requirements are as under:

(a)    For manufacturing companies: raw materials consumed and goods purchased under broad heads;
(b)    For trading companies: purchases of goods traded under broad heads;
(c)    For companies rendering services: gross income derived from services rendered under broad heads.

Revised Schedule VI does not require disclosure of quantitative details for any of the above categories of companies. The same is also clearly mentioned in para 10.7 of the ICAI GN.

The ICAI GN also mentions that ‘broad heads’ for the purpose of the disclosure in para 62 above are to be decided taking into account the concept of materiality and presentation of ‘True and Fair’ view of financial statements. The said GN also mentions that normally 10% of the total value of sales/services, purchases of trading goods and consumption of raw materials is considered as an acceptable threshold for determination of broad heads.

Revised Schedule VI requires disclosures of ‘Contingent liabilities and commitments’. For this purpose, besides others, ‘other commitments’ are also to be disclosed. Such disclosure of ‘other commitments’ was not required as per pre-revised Schedule VI.

There is no explanation of what would be covered as part of ‘other commitments’ in Revised Schedule VI. The ICAI GN has however clarified that disclosures required to be made for ‘other commitments’ should include ‘only those non-cancellable contractual commitments (cancellation of which will result in a penalty disproportionate to the benefits involved) based on the professional judgment of the management which are material and relevant in understanding the financial statements of the company and impact the decision making of the users of financial statements. Examples may include commitments in the nature of buyback arrangements, commitments to fund subsidiaries and associates, non-disposal of investments in subsidiaries and undertakings, derivative related commitments, etc.’ Most of the other disclosure requirements as per Revised Schedule VI in Notes are similar to the requirements of pre-revised Schedule VI.


Implementation of Revised Schedule VI

As can be seen from the above, disclosure requirements of Revised Schedule VI are quite different from those existing in the pre-revised Schedule VI. Many of these disclosures and concepts (like ‘current’, non-current’) are similar to terms and concepts used in IFRS. Unless, companies gear up well in time to adhere to these new requirements for 2011-12 (and corresponding figures for 2010-11), it will be difficult for them to meet the reporting deadlines of the Companies Act, 1956.

AGRICULTURAL LAND LAWS: MALCHA, 1961

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction: In the previous four articles, we examined the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. We continue our study of laws pertaining to Agricultural Lands in the State of Maharashtra by examining a very important Act which imposes a ceiling on Agricultural Land — the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (‘MALCHA’).

This article gives a bird’s-eye view of the MALCHA (also ‘the Act’). This Act is relevant to companies since it lays down the ceiling/maximum limit on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra. The Act also provides that the excess land can be acquired by the Government and distributed. The idea behind the Act is to ensure equality of agrarian land since agricultural is the main form of livelihood for the rural India. The Act is a part of the Government’s efforts to create social justice.

The Act applies to the whole of the State of Maharashtra.

Family Unit: U/s.4 of the Act the ceiling on the holding of agricultural lands is per ‘Family Unit’. This is a very unique and important concept introduced by the Act. It is very essential to have a clear picture as to who is and who is not included in one’s ceiling computation since that could make all the difference between holding and acquisition of the land. A family unit is defined to mean the following:

A person

His spouse or more than one spouse if that be the case — thus, if a person dies leaving two or more widows, then they would constitute one consolidated family unit for considering the ceiling — State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Banabai and Anr., (1986) 4 SCC 281.

His minor sons

His minor unmarried daughters

If his spouse is dead, then the minor sons and minor unmarried daughters from that spouse.

The definition of the term is exhaustive and hence, only the classes of relatives defined would be covered. Thus, the married daughter of a person, whether minor or major, would constitute a separate family unit and hence, any land held by such a daughter would not be included in computing the ceiling for a person. This is the reason why the simplest form of planning involves transferring land to one’s married daughter so as to exclude it from the ceiling limits. Since a daughter is a relative u/s.56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, the transaction is out of the purview of that Section. Similarly, a daughter is a relative under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and hence, a gift to one’s married daughter attracts a concessional stamp duty @ 2% instead of the standard rate of 5%. However, as in the case of any planning, commercial considerations must take precedence over tax concessions.

Further, it is important to note that a person’s parents are not included in his ceiling and hence, if either or both of one’s parents are alive and holding land, then the same would not be included in the person’s ceiling computation.

Similarly, land held by one’s major son and/or his wife is not included in a person’s ceiling computation.

Even in case of a joint family where a father and his sons and possibly are living and working together, the ceiling would be separate for each major male and his immediate family. For instance, in a joint family where there are two brothers and each of them has two major sons, there would be six separate ceilings and not one consolidated ceiling for the family even though they are joint in residence and business.

A very interesting scenario arises in the case of testate/intestate succession. For instance, there is a person who is holding land up to the maximum limit permissible. His major son is also independently holding another piece of land up to the maximum limit permissible. The father dies and his sole legal heir is his son. On his death, the land becomes that of the son. Can the son contend that since he has received the land by inheritance, the ceiling should not apply to the second land received by him? The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this issue in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Annapurnabai and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1403. The facts were that the declarant died pending determination of excess ceiling area. A contention was raised that on his death the proceedings stand abated and that therefore, the authorities have no jurisdiction to proceed further with the determination of the excess land under the Act. The Supreme Court held that until the proceedings are completed, there is no abatement and the excess ceiling land has to be computed pursuant to the declaration under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act and that therefore, the Government continues to have jurisdiction to determine the excess land. It held that the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased holder cannot be treated as independent tenure holders for fixing ceiling. Therefore, each heir would not be treated as independent tenure holders for fixing the ceiling.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal v. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed, 1982 SCR (3) 218 held that the persons on whom his ‘holding’ devolves on his death would be liable to surrender the surplus land as on the appointed day, because the liability attached to the holding of the deceased would not come to an end on his death. The heirs of the deceased cannot be permitted to contend to the contrary and allowed to get more land by way of inheritance than what they would have got if the death of the person had taken place after the publication of the Notification u/s. 21.

Where the family unit consists of more than five members, the unit would be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of 1/5th of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five members. However, the total holding of the family cannot exceed twice the ceiling area.

It may be noted that under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, land is said to be cultivated personally if a land is cultivated by the labour of one’s family members, i.e., spouse, children or siblings in case of a joint family. A joint family under that Act is defined to mean an HUF and in case of other communities, a group or unit the members of which are by custom joint in estate or residence. In one case, even a married sister living with her husband has been regarded as a part of the family — Case No. 8953 O/154 of 1954. Thus, the definition of family is different under different laws.

Ceiling area: No person or family unit can hold land in excess of ceiling area. Any excess is deemed to be surplus land. The Ceiling Area is fixed u/s.5 r.w. First Schedule to the Act. The ceiling varies depending upon the class of the land in question. The five classes of land and their respective ceilings are as given in Table-1:

Ceiling area:

No person or family unit can hold land in excess of ceiling area. Any excess is deemed to be sur-plus land. The Ceiling Area is fixed u/s.5 r.w. First Schedule to the Act. The ceiling varies depending upon the class of the land in question. The five classes of land and their respective ceilings are as given in Table-1:

No.

Class of land

Ceiling

(in acres)

 

 

 

 

 

1.

Land with assured water supply for

18

 

irrigation and capable of  yielding at

 

 

least 2 crops/year

 

 

 

 

2.

Land (other than land falling in class

27

 

3) with no assured water supply for

 

 

irrigation and capable of yielding only

 

 

1 crop/year

 

 

 

 

3.

Land irrigated seasonally by flow irriga-

36

 

tion from any source constructed or

 

 

maintained by the State Government

 

 

or Zilla Parishad or from any natural

 

 

source of water with unassured water

 

 

supply, i.e., where supply is given under

 

 

temporary water sanctions or those

 

 

which are dependent upon the avail-

 

 

ability of water in the storage

 

 

 

 

4.

Dry crop land (land other than the

36

 

above 3 classes of land) in Bombay,

 

 

Thana, Kolaba, Ratnagiri, etc., which is

 

 

under paddy cultivation for continuous

 

 

period of three years from 2nd Octo-

 

 

ber 1972, to 2nd October 1975

 

 

 

 

5.

Dry crop land other than the

54

 

above 4 classes of land

 

 

 

 


Various classes of land and respective ceilings

The above ceilings are mutually exclusive. Hence, a person can, at the same point of time, hold 54 acres of dry crop land as well as 18 acres of a land with an assured water supply.

The principle is better the irrigation and crop yielding capabilities of a land, the lower the ceiling and vice versa. Land which is totally unfit for cultivation is not to be included while computing the above ceilings. Thus, it becomes very important to ascer-tain the irrigation source of a particular land. For instance, in one case which I have come across the land holder was granted permission by a Collector to operate an electric water pump for irrigation at his own responsibility. The question arose that since the Collector’s permission was required for the pump, could it be said that the land was a Class 3 land and hence, the land was subject to a ceiling of 36 acres or was it a dry crop land and hence, subject to a ceiling of 54 acres. It is essential to note that it is not every case of a sanction which attracts a 36 acre ceiling. Only if the water sanctions are temporary or are linked to the quantity of water availability, the land becomes a Class 3 land. Hence, in this case, the ceiling was 54 acres and not 36 acres.

Restriction on transfer:

Any person holding surplus land cannot transfer the same. Transfer for this purpose means:

    Sale

    Gift

    Mortgage with possession

    Exchange

    Lease

    Assignment for maintenance

    Surrender of tenancy

Similarly, no person or family unit can acquire land by transfer in excess of the ceiling area. If any person transfers any surplus land, then in computing the ceiling limit of that person, the land transferred would also be considered and the excess would be deemed to be excess land even though he may be divested of its possession. This is true even if after the transfer the transferor’s land holding is lower than the permissible ceiling.

In Kewal Keshari Patil v. State of Mah., 1966 Mah LJ 94 it was held that a Will is not a transfer. When will was executed, it is not a transaction which is contravening the Act.

Surplus land:

If any person is in possession of surplus land in excess of the ceiling area, then he must, within a period of one month from the date of possessing the excess land, furnish a return to the Collector. The Collector would then determine the surplus land by such person or family unit. The Collector can do so even suo moto without a person filing a return. The Collector can acquire the surplus land by determining the compensation in the manner laid down in the Act. While determining the compensation, the Collector would give a notice to interested persons to submit their claims for compensation.

Significance of agricultural land laws:

Over the past few months, we have analysed three laws dealing with agricultural lands. Laws dealing with agricultural land are very important since they provide for acquisition of surplus land by the State Government in case of violation of the laws. Further, in case of acquisition of agricultural land, the buyer of the land should ensure that he is getting a valid title.

An auditor basically conducts audit under the provisions of a statute. His report is also according to the requirements of the relevant statute, e.g., report under Section 227 of the Companies Act, 1956. An auditor is not an investigator and hence, does not make roving enquiries. Hence, in case the auditor comes across documents dealing with agricultural land, he may consider whether or not the auditee should obtain an opinion on the legality of its title.

By broadening his peripheral knowledge, the auditor can make intelligent enquiries and thereby add value to his services. He can caution the auditee of likely unpleasant consequences which might arise. It needs to be repeated and noted that an audit is basically under the relevant law applicable to an entity and an auditor is not an expert on all laws relevant to business operations of an entity. All that is required of him is exercise of ‘due care’ and ‘diligence’.

Double Dip Recession

fiogf49gjkf0d
Recession is a dreaded phenomenon in the world. It connotes economic misery for the people during its onset as well as its existence. It can be described as a period when economic activity in a country or a region, measured in terms of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), declines and such a decline persists for at least two quarters. A recession is a business cycle contraction resulting in a general slowdown in the economic activity. It is understood as a period in which an economy achieves negative growth of its GDP.

Economic growth is primarily measured in the value of GDP achieved by the economy over a particular period as compared to the earlier period of similar duration. When the economic expansion is positive, as compared to the previous period, the period is considered as that of a positive growth. However, if growth falters and enters in the negative territory in a period as compared to the immediately preceding period, that period is called as a recessionary period. Most countries in the world, majority of the times, achieve positive growth of GDP, which is generally measured on month-on-month, quarter-on-quarter or year-onyear basis. The recessionary periods, wherein a country is not able to achieve GDP equal to or more than its last comparable period of measurement, generally indicates that there is something seriously wrong in the state of affairs of the economy, as the GDP is not able to grow, which is expected to be its natural movement in today’s world. In a period of recession, as the economy slows down, there is a slowdown of demand due to reduction in disposable income in the hands of the consumers in the economy. This reduction in demand has a negative effect on business activities in the economy. The decrease in the economic activities may lead to increase in unemployment and consequentially, may reduce liquidity and purchasing power in the hands of consumers, which is very essential for sustenance of demand in an economy. A recession can lead to a vicious circle of negative growth and may cause substantial economic misery, on the back of sustained high unemployment, unless intervened by the Government directly. Such intervention can be done by easing liquidity, by increasing money supply, by increasing public spending or by a combination of monetary measures to boost the economy. In the under-developed and even the developing countries, it can be achieved by liberalising trade and promoting foreign investment. Everybody dreads the recession because it brings in dissatisfaction and unhappiness amongst the people affected by it. It generally results in increase in unemployment, liquidity drying off, fall in per capita income, reduction of new investment and clouding of the investment climate in the economy. It may result in an increase in the stress levels in the minds of the people and can cause harm to the morale of the subjects of a country. A prolonged recession may even destabilise the political equation in a country. Therefore, recession is considered as socially and even politically a dangerous phenomenon by one and all across the globe.

A double dip recession is a rare phenomenon, wherein after continuing in recession for a short period, an economy bounces back and there is positive growth for a while. But the economy is not able to sustain the positive tempo of growth. It again buckles under recession and it registers negative GDP growth. Generally, a double dip recession denotes negative growth of an economy for a while, a turn around after the phase with a positive growth for a short while and thereafter another period with negative growth before the economy decisively comes out of recession with positive growth numbers. Typically, the second dip of the recession creeps in suddenly when the economic numbers are looking on an upswing. There occurs a sudden slippage and it is realised only after passage of some time. The second dip of the recession is not as severe as the first one, but the upward movement from the former happens more gradually as compared to the first dip. Further, during the period of the second dip, the sentiment in the economy is more deteriorated as compared to the period during the first dip.

In the case of a double dip recession, movement of the GDP numbers are somewhat like shown in the diagram on the next page. Movement of GDP numbers: The graphical representation of a double dip recession on a chart is like the alphabet ‘W’ with an uneven bottom level, but it can take various shapes depending upon whether the recovery out of the second dip is ‘V’ shaped, ‘U’ shaped, ’J’ shaped or ‘L’ shaped. In the ‘V’ shape, the recovery is swift. In ‘U’ shape, it is slower than that of the ‘V’ shape but which catches momentum after some time. In ‘J’ shape the initial recovery is slow, and the improvement is gradual. In ‘L’ shape, the recovery after the dip is slow and painful. The rate of recovery flattens out at the bottom of recession and the upward movement does not start quickly enough.

History of double dip recession:
A double dip recession is rare. In the 150 years of economic history, it is said that double dip recession has happened three times. In the recent years since World War II, there was a double dip recession during the period 1980-1982 in the US. The economy was in recession in second and third quarter of 1980. It then recovered but fell back into recession in the fourth quarter of 1981 and remained in recession in the first quarter of 1982. Since then, there has not been any double dip recession in the developed world, but the fear of such a phenomenon lingers on even today.

Factors which contribute to a recession and a double dip recession:

1. Inflation:
High inflation can erode the investors’ confidence in an economy, which may result in the exodus of funds from the economy, especially those of the foreign investors. It may make even the local investors lose their faith in the economy. Though they may not have many good options for investment of their funds and may be restricted from taking their investible funds out of the country, they would like to reduce their risk. In such a situation, they may prefer to invest more money in debt or fixed income earning instruments as compared to equity or new businesses, though the post of tax returns on investments may be lower than the rate of inflation. High inflation causes uncertainty for investors and increases their risk aversion. Reduction in the rate of fresh investments can slow down an economy. If the economy is already growing at a low rate, a marginal change in the investment sentiment may push it in recessionary conditions.

2. Unemployment
: Unemployment can slow down consumption. High level of unemployment is not only politically troublesome, but it can even be economically disastrous. High unemployment reduces the earnings of the subjects of a state and also reduces the consumable money in the hands of the society. Availability of lesser money for consumption can reduce the demand for food and consumer goods. It can also reduce the demand for value added products and services. The reduction in demand may prove to be deterrent for the capital goods industry as well. Sustained high unemployment levels can reduce the consumption in an economy and cause a possibility of recession.

3.  Consumer confidence:
Consumer confidence is purely a psychological factor. An upbeat sentiment can influence an economy positively and a downbeat sentiment can have negative impact. A low consumer confidence can cause reduction of spending by the consumers as they would like to save their earnings or surplus for a future about which they are not certain. Level of the hold back of consumption is based on the perceived risk which is a matter of sentiment. The reduced level of consumption in an economy can cause economic slowdown due to inadequacy of demand and result in reduction of economic activities. Such a slowdown in an economy having already a low growth rate can push the economy into a recession.

  4.  Stock Market:


The stock market movements have a positive correlation with the consumption in an economy. A decline in stock markets can add fuel to the fire of slowing consumption. If the immediate future of the stock market is pointing towards a bear market, then it is likely that the consumers in the country may reduce their spending, not only of the essentials but on durables as well. Falling stock market may affect the sentiment in the housing sector as well, as buying of houses may get postponed. The reduction of spending can reduce the demand of capital goods which are used for capacity building to cater to expected consumption. Low demand means low turnover and low profits for the businesses, and even to the corporate sector in the economy. Lower corporate profits can further dampen the sentiments in the stock markets and further slowdown the economy. In fact, the stock market can be a lead indicator of a recessionary period as the professionals operating in the market are able to sense the economic future in a much better way than the common public and many a time even better than the Government and the policy-makers.

    5. Natural catastrophe:


If an economy gets subjected to a major national catastrophe, such a catastrophe can lead to a slow down and the economy may face a recession. This cause of a recession is generally out of the control of any individual or group of individuals or even the policy-makers. Not only major natural calamities such as flood, drought and tsunami can cause a recession; but even man-made cause such as a war can lead an economy to a recession. When an economy has just come out of a recession, a major natural calamity can push back its growth to a negative zone and the economy may face a double dip recession. In the early phase of recovery, an economy is fragile and does not have adequate strength to deal with adverse conditions. So the economy remains vulnerable to double dip.

   6. Misguided economic regulations:


Misguided economic regulations such as major embargoes on import-export, stringent exchange controls and curbs on foreign investment can cause economic pain and can lead the economy into a recession. Such regulations can hamper free trade in the country, deter the new domestic as well as foreign investments and spoil the sentiments. If damaging regulations are not reviewed and amended, they can cause serious detriment to the prospects of an economy over a short as well as long term. If the damaging regulations are introduced in the initial period of economic recovery, they may force the economy into a double dip recession.

    7. Failure of economic policies:

A country takes number of initiatives to improve its economy so that the best growth rate can be achieved. In recessionary days, policies are devised to curb the recession and to get out of it, as fast as possible. To stimulate growth in a sagging economy; rate of interest may be reduced, the rate of taxes may be pruned, the Government may increase spending, liquidity may be pumped into the economy or any other stimulant measures may be taken. These are described as the policy measures and they may be implemented and regulated by the Government directly or through designated authorities. These measures may have their negative side effects. As a direct result of these policy measures; the budgetary deficit in an economy can increase, there can be noticeable increase in inflation rate and the currency of the nation can be volatile or can weaken. To over-come the side effects of the policy measures, the Government may change the policies prematurely which can give a jerk to the slowly improving economy. Ill-conceived changes in policies can push the economy back in to recession. If these changes are made at an inappropriate time when the economy has just struggled out of recession, then it may even cause a double dip recession.

    8. Untimely withdrawal of stimulus or concessions:

Many weak economies and even some developing economies are habituated to various concessions given by their respective Governments and continued over a period. In today’s world, more and more countries are under pressure from the developed countries to create a fair play in their economies by reducing curbs and concessions so that the goods and services can flow easily across economies and give best deals to the consumers. Such changes, when initiated in an economy, can slow down the economy on a temporary basis and they can cause recessionary conditions. Similarly, when an economy which was in recession, is struggling to get out of the recession with the help of stimulus given by its Government, the untimely withdrawal of the stimulus due to inflationary pressure or any other political or socio-economic reasons may push the economy back into recession, thereby causing a double dip recession. When an economy is coming out of recession, the task of the policy-makers is extremely critical and any error of judgment in decision making may prove to be costly for the struggling economy.

The GDP numbers, which decide the growth rate, may fluctuate from period to period. An economy may post higher or lower GDP numbers from period on period as a normal phenomenon. The monthly or quarterly fluctuations are not given so much significance in ordinary situations. However, if the growth number goes into a negative territory or even goes to a low level and fails to bounce back, it is a serious matter of concern for the economy. A failure to hold on to the economic growth after a recession can lead to a double dip recession. A fluctuating chart pattern with double or triple dips much above the baseline of zero rate of growth does not cause any alarm bells in an economy, but its movement just below the par line is described as recession and becomes a major cause of concern. A double dip recession has always to be understood as unique phenomena and should not be confused with the fall in economic growth over a short to medium term.

Occurrence of double dip recessionary conditions in certain sectors of economy is not an uncommon phenomenon. While the economy may grow in totality, certain sectors of it may be in recessionary conditions at various times and for various reasons. Such conditions are usually not glaring as they are restricted to a limited segment of the overall economy and the country is not seriously affected by such situations as the negativity is more than balanced by the positive growth in other sectors. The factors causing such conditions and the remedies to the same are similar to those applicable to a double dip recession. Therefore understanding of the rare phenomenon of double dip recession is important for economists and the policy-makers of a country.

There was a great hue and cry about the impending double dip recession in various economies across the globe in the third quarter of 2010. After a painful recessionary period during 2008-2009, and a fragile recovery in early 2010 this was a dreaded phenomena. Fortunately, the current indicators are that the world has overcome the possibility and fear of a double dip recession for the time being and from here onwards most of the economies are likely to grow in positive territories for some years to come. Country-specific minor recessionary trends such as the one noticed in the UK in the last quarter of 2010, cannot be ruled out, but by and large it seems that the world will not face the phenomena of double dip in the near future. The concentrated efforts of the Governments of all the countries and their central banks have helped the world to surmount this major catastrophe and it is a great achievement.

SPREADING OUT: AIMING HIGHER OR . . . ?

fiogf49gjkf0d
For the past several months, our financial press as
also other print media have been excitedly raving about our nationals
and corporations spreading their wings beyond India. They write about an
Indian company buying an oil refinery outside India; about our telecom
giant acquiring large non-Indian companies at a price that, till about a
decade ago, appeared unthinkable. They also write about Indian sugar
manufacturing companies trying to acquire agricultural lands in less
developed African/Latin American countries to support their existing
Indian business. There are also write-ups telling us that large Indian
companies engaged in steel/cement business are looking at acquiring
mining interests elsewhere in the world to meet their ever-growing
demand for inputs for their manufacturing business in India. There are
now definite reports about a successful Indian pharmaceutical company
acquiring, in the teeth of bitter litigation, a substantial non-Indian
company engaged in manufacturing and marketing generic drugs for global
sale.

All these indicate a sea change from our earlier record as
cost-effective manufacturers of basic inputs being exported to feed
large global entities in their manufacture of products that require
further value addition — in the manufacturing as well as marketing
field.

So, I started musing over these reports and asked myself
the question: Is this something that should gladden our hearts or, aside
from our usual national pride, it should provoke deeper thinking about
where are we heading?

I think about Indo-Aryans migrating 3,000
to 4,000 years ago in search of a more hospitable climate, bringing
along with them their advanced techniques and erudition. But my mind
also goes back to what happened to the people of Zoroastrian faith who
were persecuted by the fanatic spread of Islam in their home country —
Persia as it then was. My mind goes back to some newspaper reports that
the largest number of people who illegally sneak into North America from
Mexican borders are people of Indian origin.

Clearly, migration
signifies a kind of restlessness of mankind to be better tomorrow than
what they were yesterday. But the universally acclaimed success of our
software personnel does suggest that, apart from greater economic
success, they have enriched India and they have not been any less
attached to their motherland.

I have heard that one of our most
outstanding intellectuals — alas, no more — was asked by some
interviewers as to what part of his decisions concerning his personal
self and career he would have handled differently, if he was in a
position to do so. The answer was full of melancholic despair when he
said that his earlier steadfast decision to live and work in India could
have been otherwise.

I, therefore, realised that migration is
wholesome when dictated by a desire for enrichment — material and
otherwise — for self without losing faith in and love for one’s own
country. But when it is triggered by disappointment or fear, it is not
necessarily a happy phenomenon.

Take the case of Indian steel
companies seeking mining rights outside India. Perhaps they do so
because of unenlightened local governments whose desire to enrich their
power-brokers overrides that for economic development. And this is
compounded by mindless activism of people lacking knowledge about
economic home-truths, their ignorance being amply compensated by their
foolhardy bravado.

Again, take the case of Indian sugar
companies seeking farm lands elsewhere. Why have they been working in
that direction? I guess, it is because of antiquated agricultural
policies worsened by rampant political opportunism and bribery. The
great enthusiasm of our present Prime Minister about India opening a new
chapter in economic liberalisation through SEZs is all but dead. There
are credible stories about some authority in charge of granting approval
for an applicant for a unit in SEZ asking for bribes and sitting over
the application frustrating the honest efforts of the applicant to
participate in this economic reform.

So, my mind is more
burdened by the thought that this trend of ‘spreading out’ is no less
triggered by the foolish way in which we govern our polity, marked by
sloth, delays, counter-tenor of ‘activism’ and, worst of all,
engulfingly corrupt administration partnering some in the political wing
that are no less venal.

It is, of course, true that Indians by
their upbringing are more venturesome when it comes to spreading out.
Why, Mahatma Gandhi started his legal profession by seeking to work in
South Africa. Our native wit and the spirit of enterprise of our trading
community were responsible for the economic progress in some parts of
South Africa. All this appears to me as matters of pride.

But,
the recent trends do unmistakably point to the Zoroastrian syndrome:
persecution leading to migration. As Mr. Palkhivala used to eloquently
thunder, “In economics there are no miracles: only consequences”.

That is why I am raising the issue that is captured in the title of this article.

levitra

Income from house property: Deemed owner: Section 27 of Income-tax Act, 1961: Assessee giving its building on sub-licence basis without charging any lease rent or licence fee but received interest free security deposits: Sub-licencees transferred their rights in favour of others and charged rent: Sub-licensees are deemed owners u/s.27(iii) and would be liable to be assessed u/s.22: AO directed not to charge annual letting value of said building under head ‘Income from house property’ in assesse<

fiogf49gjkf0d
[CIT v. C. J. International Hotels Ltd., 197 Taxman 230 (Del.)]

The assessee-company was running a five-star hotel. The lawn on which the hotel was constructed belonged to NDMC which had executed a licence deed in favour of the assessee granting it licence for a period of 99 years for running of the aforesaid hotel. Adjacent to the hotel, there was another building constructed on that very lawn. Admittedly, that building was not used for hotel business of the assessee, but the apartments of that building were given on sub-licence basis to different parties for carrying on business as specified in the sub-licence agreements. The sub-licences were given for a period of 9 years and 11 months, which were renewable at the request of the sub-licensees. The assessee was not charging any lease rent or licence fee from those parties, instead it had received interest-free security deposits in the year of original sub-licence, which receipts were shown by it as unsecured loans in its balance sheet. The sub-licence deeds, which were executed by the assessee with the sublicensees, permitted the sub-licensees to transfer the same to any other person on payment of transfer charges to the assessee-company. Almost all the sub-licensees had transferred their sub-licences and, thus, various other persons were occupying those premises. The said persons were paying rents to the sub-licensees, which amount had been taxed in the hands of sub-licensees under the head ‘income from house property’. The Assessing Officer, calculated the annual letting value of the said property on the basis of rent/licence fee paid by the occupiers to the sub-licensees and added same to the assessee’s income under the head ‘Income from house property’. The Tribunal accepted the submissions of the assessee that in view of the provisions of section 27(iii) it was the sub-licensee who would be ‘deemed owner’ of those premises who would be assessable and not the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the addition.

On appeal by the Revenue the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“The approach of the Tribunal in deciding the aforesaid issue was perfectly justified. There was no reason to interfere with the same. The Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer not to charge the annual letting value of the said buildings under the head ‘Income from house property’.”

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 94, dated 19-3- 2012 — Clarification — Prior intimation to the Reserve Bank of India for raising the aggregate Foreign Institutional Investors/Non- Resident Indian limits for investments under the Portfolio Investment Scheme.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Presently, Foreign Institutional Investors (FII) and Non-Resident Indians (NRI) are allowed to purchase/ sell shares and convertible debentures of an Indian company (through registered brokers) on recognised stock exchanges in India within the aggregate investment limit of 24 and 10%, respectively, of the paid-up equity capital or value of each series of convertible debentures of the Indian company.

This Circular requires all Indian companies raising the aggregate FII & NRI investment limit to the sectoral cap/statutory limit, to immediately intimate the said increase in limits to RBI along with a Certificate from the Company Secretary stating that all the relevant provisions of FEMA and the Foreign Direct Investment Policy have been complied with.

levitra

[2014] 151 ITD 642 (Mum) ITO vs. Gope M. Rochlani AY 2008-09 Order dated – 24th May, 2013

fiogf49gjkf0d
Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), read with
section 139. In absence of any limitation or restriction relating to
words ‘due date’ as given in clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section
271(1)(c), it cannot be read as ‘due date’ as provided in section 139(1)
alone, rather it can also mean date of filing of return of income u/s.
139(4). Therefore, where pursuant to search proceedings, assessee files
his return before expiry of due date u/s. 139(4) surrendering certain
additional income, he is entitled to claim benefit of clause (b) of
Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c).

FACTS
The
assessee firm was carrying out business of housing development. A search
and seizure action u/s. 132(1) was carried out in case of assessee on
16th October 2008. In course of said proceedings, one of partners of
firm made statement u/s.132(4) declaring certain undisclosed income and
subsequently, the return was filed by the assessee declaring the amount
surrendered as income.

In the assessment order passed u/s.143(3)
read with section 153A, the assessment was completed on the same income
on which return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer also
initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c).

The assessee,
before the Assessing Officer, submitted that this additional income was
offered voluntarily which was on estimate basis and the same has been
accepted in the assessment order as such, therefore, provisions of
section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. The Assessing Officer rejecting
assessee’s explanation levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c).

In
appellate proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee also
submitted that in view of clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section
271(1)(c) penalty could not be levied as the assessee filed return of
income on the due date which could also be inferred as return of income
filed u/s.139(4).

The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the
assessee’s explanation on Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), but
deleted the penalty on the ground that the income which was offered was
only on estimate basis, therefore, additional income offered by the
assessee could neither be held to be concealed income or furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income.

On appeal by Revenue

HELD
There
is a saving clause in the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) wherein
penalty cannot be held to be leviable u/s. 271(1)(c); according to which
if the assessee is found to be the owner of any asset/income and the
assessee claims that such assets/income represents his income for any
previous year which has ended before the date of search and the due date
for filing the return of income for such previous year has not expired
then the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) shall not be levied.

The due
date for filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) for assessment year
2008-09 was 30-9-2008, whereas the assessee has filed the return of
income on 31-10- 2008 i.e., after one month from the date of filing of
the return of income as provided in section 139(1). However the due date
for filing of the return of income u/s. 139(4) for the assessment year
2008-09 was 31-3-2010 and thus, the return of income filed by the
assessee in this case was u/s. 139(4).

The issue however is
whether the return of income filed u/s. 139(4) can be held to be the
‘due date’ for filing the return of income for such previous year as
mentioned in clause (b) of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c).

For
the purpose of the instant case, one has to see whether or not the
assessee has shown the income in the return of income filed on the ‘due
date’. Provisions of section 139(1) provides for various types of
assessees to file return of income before the due date and such due date
has been provided in the Explanation 2, which varies from year-to-year.
Whereas, provisions of section 139(4) provide for extension of period
of ‘due date’ in the circumstances mentioned therein and it enlarges the
time-limit provided in section 139(1). The operating line of
sub-section (4) of section 139 provides that ‘any person who has not
furnished the return within the time allowed’, here the time allowed
means u/s. 139(1), then in such a case, the time-limit has been
extended. Wherever the legislature has specified the ‘due date’ or has
specified the date for any compliance, the same has been categorically
specified in the Act.

In the aforesaid Explanation 5A, the
legislature has not specified the due date as provided in section 139(1)
but has merely envisaged the words ‘due date’. This ‘due date’ can be
very well-inferred as due date of the filing of return of income filed
u/s. 139, which includes section 139(4). Where the legislature has
provided the consequences of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(4),
then the same has also been specifically provided.

Once the
legislature has not specified the ‘due date’ as provided in section
139(1) in Explanation 5A, then by implication, it has to be taken as the
date extended u/s. 139(4). In view of the above, it is held that the
assessee gets the benefit /immunity under clause (b) of Explanation to
section 271(1)(c) because the assessee has filed its return of income
within the ‘due date’ and, therefore, the penalty levied by the
Assessing Officer cannot be sustained on this ground.

Thus, even
though the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals), is not affirmed,
yet penalty is deleted in view of the interpretation of Explanation 5A
to section 271(1)(c).

In the result, revenue’s appeal is treated as dismissed.

levitra

Remuneration from foreign enterprise – Deduction u/s. 80-O – A. Y. 1994-95 – Assessee conducting services for benefit of foreign companies – Services rendered “from India” and “in India” – Distinction – Report of survey submitted by assessee not utilised in India though received by foreign agency in India – Mere submission of report within India does not take assessee out of purview of benefit –

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Peters and Prasad Association; 371 ITR 206 (T&AP):

The assessee was an agency undertaking the activity of conducting services for the benefit of foreign companies or agencies. After conducting a survey on the assigned subject, the reports were submitted to the foreign agencies. For the A. Y. 1994-95, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80-O in respect of the remuneration received from the foreign enterprise for such services. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction on the ground that the survey report was submitted in India and thereby section 80-O was not attracted. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim..

On appeal by the Revenue, the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) It was not the case of the Revenue that the report of survey submitted by the assessee was utilised within India, though it was received by the foreign agency within India. It is only when it was established that the survey report submitted to the foreign agency was, in fact, used or given effect to, in India, that the assessee becomes ineligible for deduction.

ii) The mere fact that the submission of the report was within India, did not take away the matter from the purview of section 80-O. If that was to be accepted, the very purpose of providing the Explanation becomes redundant.

iii) Thus, the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s. 80-O.”

levitra

Exemption from late fee u/s. 20(6) of the MVAT Act Trade Circular 8T of 2014 dated. 11-03-2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
By this Circular, the Commissioner has explained different contingencies in which late fee would be exempt.

Notification No. VAT 1513/CR-109/Taxation-1 dated 13-01-2014

By this Notification Schedule Entry D-11 has been amended to add more areas.

Notification No. VAT 1514/CR-8/Taxation-1 dated 20-02-2014

By this Notification Schedule Entry A-9A: paddy rice, wheat, etc.; A-51: papad, gur, etc.; A-59: raisins and currants, C-108: tea in leaf or powdered form etc., have been amended by extending the period up to 31st March, 2015.

Notification No. VAT 1514/CR-10/Taxation-1 dated 20-02-2014

By this Notification Schedule Entry B-1, B-2 has been amended by reducing rate from 1.1% to 1 % again.

levitra

Exemption w.r.t. rice

fiogf49gjkf0d
Notification No. 04/2014-ST read with Circular No.177/03/2014 – ST dated 17th February, 2014

This Notification has been issued by CBEC for implementing the changes proposed in the Interim Budget presented by the Finance Minister.

The Notification amends Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST to provide that service tax would not be payable on rice from the staple’s loading to the storage stage. It may be noted that rice was originally exempt from service tax. However, later, the Finance Ministry had taken a view that only paddy is an agricultural produce, while rice is a processed item.

This notification also exempts services provided by cord blood banks by way of preservation of stem cells or any other service in relation to such preservation.

levitra

[2014] 42 taxmann.com 51 (Allahabad) – CCE vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Rule 9(3) of CCR- What constitutes reasonable steps to ensure the validity of the CENVAT?

Facts:
The Assessee took credit of duty paid on inputs based on invoices issued by the First Stage Dealer (FSD). Inputs were used for the manufacture of final products which were cleared against the payment of duty. The Department sought to deny credit on the ground that original manufacturer of said goods was found to be non-existent.

The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in terms of Rule 7(4) read with Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR), the assessee submitted Form 31 issued by Trade Tax Department, the ledger account evidencing payments by cheques made to the FSD and Form RG 23-A, Part-II. It was held that the assessee had received goods against the invoices of FSD for which payment was made by cheque and that the manufactured goods were cleared against the payment of central excise duty. He, therefore, allowed the Appeal on the ground that the transaction was bona fide and a buyer can take only those steps which are within his control and would not be expected to verify the records of the supplier to check whether, in fact, he had paid duty on the goods supplied by him. Tribunal also observed that, the fact that FSD is a registered dealer is undisputed and held that, it would be sufficient for the assessee to buy the goods from the FSD whose status he has checked and verified and dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal.

Before the High Court, the Revenue contended that the assessee ought to have made an enquiry which would have indicated that the original manufacturer that had supplied the raw material was a fictitious entity.

Held:
The Hon’ble High Court while examining the provisions of Rule 9(3) of CCR held that, the Explanation to Rule 9(3) provides a deeming definition as to when a manufacturer or a purchaser of excisable goods would be deemed to have taken reasonable steps. However, even in a situation where the Explanation to Rule 9(3) is not attracted, it would be open to an assessee to establish independently that he had in fact taken reasonable steps. Whether an assessee has in fact taken reasonable steps, is a question of fact. The High Court observed that both fact finding authorities found that assessee have duly acted with all reasonable diligence in its dealings with the first stage dealer and held that, the assessee has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs for which the CENVAT credit was taken were the goods on which appropriate duty of excise was paid within the meaning of Rule 9(3) of CCR.

levitra

IDBI Capital Market Services Ltd. vs. DCIT ITAT “I” Bench, Mumbai Before N.K. Billaiya, (A. M.) & Amit Shukla (J. M.) I.T.A. No. 618/Mum/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09. Decided on 18.02.2015 Counsel for Assessee/Revenue: N.C. Jain/Kishan Vyas

fiogf49gjkf0d

Section 37(1) – Loss arising from valuation of interest rate swap contracts as at the end of the year is allowable as deduction.

Facts:
The assessee is engaged in the business of investment, share broking and dealing in Government securities and it is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange as well as National Stock Exchange. While scrutinising the return of income the AO noticed that as on 31st March 2008 the assessee had valued the outstanding interest swap contracts and the loss of Rs.18.3 crore determined was debited to P&L Account. According to the AO, the assessee had recognised only the loss and not the profit. Further, he observed that the assessee was not consistent and definite in making entries in the account books in respect of losses and gains and accordingly denied the claim of deduction. On appeal, the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Ruia in ITA No.1539 of 2010 and treated the loss as speculation loss and confirmed the disallowance.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that it was an undisputed fact that the assessee had made the valuation of interest rate swap contracts as at the end of the year and had incurred losses on such valuation. Further, it also noted that the assessee had made the entries following Accounting Standard AS- 11 of the ICAI. The Tribunal further found the observations of the AO that the assessee had never accounted for the gains on such transactions as totally misplaced and against the facts of the case. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal Special Bench Mumbai in the case of Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait, ITA No.4404 & 1883/Mum/2004 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC), the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.18.3 crore.

levitra

Provisions of S. 45(5) relating to compulsory acquisition do not apply to compulsory requisition of land and building, and the compensation received is also not taxable as rent, as there was no element of income.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

8. (2010) 122 ITD 457 (Chennai)

DCIT, Business Circle X, Chennai v. Udhava Das
Fomra

A.Y. : 2001-02. Dated : 27-3-2009

 

Provisions of S. 45(5) relating to compulsory acquisition do
not apply to compulsory requisition of land and building, and the compensation
received is also not taxable as rent, as there was no element of income.

Facts :

The assessees were the co-owners of land and building. The
State Government exercising powers u/s. 3(1) of the West Bengal (Requisition and
Acquisition) Act, 1948 requisitioned the said land and building on 23-4-1976.
The said property was later on acquired by the Government by issuing
Notification on 7-4-1990. Compensation was paid for requisition of property from
23-4-1976 to 7-4-1990. The assessee filed appeal for enhanced compensation which
was allowed on 20-4-2000. As the jurisdictional High Court by its order held
that interim compensation could not be taxed till the High Court reached
finality on the issue of enhanced compensation, the assessment proceedings for
A.Y. 2000-01 were reopened. The Assessing Officer taxed the entire compensation
u/s.45(5)(a) and S. 45(5)(b). The CIT(A) directed to delete requisition
compensation as the same amounted to capital receipt. The Department filed
appeal against the order of the CIT(A).

Held :

The Tribunal held that requisition of land was not a transfer
within the meaning of the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 as
it was only taking of possession of the land by the State and owners of the land
were only deprived from use and enjoyment of the land. The compensation was
received for the period from 23-4-1976 to 7-4-1990 for requisition of land. The
provisions of S. 45(5) could not be attracted as there was no transfer of
capital asset. Moreover, the compensation was also not an income of the
owner/assessee, because it was neither a rent nor a receipt in lieu of loss of
income or transfer of any right by the
assessee. Therefore, the compensation received for requisition could not be
taxed as an income of the assessee.

In view of the above, it was held that the said compensation
did not have any element of income, and hence, was not liable to tax either
under the head ‘capital gains’ or under other heads.

levitra

S. 36(1)(vii) read with S. 263 — Bad debts written off — Assessing Officer allowed it after due verification of all facts and evidence — CIT invoked S. 263. Held : CIT has no power to rectify assessment order u/s.263 when Assessing Officer has duly verifi

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

7. (2010) 122 ITD 228 (Ahd.)

Matrix Logistics (P) Ltd. v. CIT

A.Ys. : 1999-2000 & 2000-2001. Dated : 4-1-2008

 

S. 36(1)(vii) read with S. 263 — Bad debts written off —
Assessing Officer allowed it after due verification of all facts and evidence —
CIT invoked S. 263. Held : CIT has no power to rectify assessment order u/s.263
when Assessing Officer has duly verified all facts and evidence.

Facts :

The assessee is a limited company engaged in providing
technical and management services. Other ancillary objects of the assessee
included carrying out financing and investment and trading in shares and
securities.

For the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed return
of income, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the
Act’). The Assessing Officer later on reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act
to verify the claim of bad debts written off in the return. The assessee
furnished all details and evidences to support its claim of bad debts. The bad
debts were in relation to loan advanced to some R during the financial years
1996-97 to 1998-99. Interest earned on this loan was offered to tax. The
Assessing Officer noted the fact that the loan was given in the normal course of
business of financing of the assessee in view of resolution passed by the Board
of Directors on 15-3-1999. After due verification and examination, the Assessing
Officer allowed the bad debts, stating that the conditions of S. 36(i)(vii) read
with S. 36(2) of the Act are fulfilled.

The CIT invoked S. 263 of the Act on the grounds that the
assessee is not engaged in the business of banking and money lending, changes in
the memorandum have been effected in violation of certain provisions of the
Companies Act and that provisions of S. 36(1)(vii) and S. 36(2) of the Act are
not satisfied.

Held :

The Ahmedabad Tribunal held as follows :

(1) The CIT has no jurisdiction to set aside the assessment
order merely to conduct another inquiry and reach the same result. The
Assessing Officer had considered all the facts and had taken a view which is a
possible view.


(2) There is no default committed by the assessee under the
Companies Act. Even if there was any irregularity committed under the
Companies Act, it will not affect the chargeability and computation under the
Income-tax Act.


(3) Since the assessee company had been lending money to
various parties right from its inception, it can be seen that it was carrying
on the business of money lending in its ordinary course though it may not be
the main business of the company. The income earned out of the monies lent was
offered as business income from time to time.


Even the treatment in the books of account were done
accordingly.


Accordingly the revision order passed u/s.263 was quashed.



levitra

S. 54F — Long-term capital gains invested by purchasing a row house — Subsequently, agreement to purchase row house cancelled — Another agreement entered with S company to purchase shares of S company engaged in building — Through this agreement assessee

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

6. (2010) 122 ITD 212 (Mum.)

Mukesh G. Desai (HUF) v. ITO

A.Y. : 1996-97. Dated : 24-6-2008

 

S. 54F — Long-term capital gains invested by purchasing a row
house — Subsequently, agreement to purchase row house cancelled — Another
agreement entered with S company to purchase shares of S company engaged in
building — Through this agreement assessee was entitled to block no. 5 of one
Abhijit building — Whether this transaction would qualify for benefit of S. 54F
— Held, Yes.

The assessee HUF sold shares during the period from May 1995
to January 1996 and earned long- term capital gains of Rs.27,01,204. It then
entered into an agreement to purchase a row house with one Mr. H and paid
Rs.30.50 lakhs. The agreement was dated 26-8-1996. However, the above agreement
was cancelled due to a demolition drive by the Thane District Authorities. Mr. H
paid back the money on 15-5-1997 and 7-6-1997.

Subsequently, the assessee entered into an agreement with S
company engaged in construction of a building known as Abhijit. The said
building was under construction. The assessee paid Rs.30.50 lakhs on 28-3-1996
and purchased a ‘Block of Shares’ of S company. Through this, he became entitled
to flat no. 5 of the under-construction building. The assessee got occupancy
certificate on 5-12-1998. The Assessing Officer held that :

(a) the assessee’s investment in the row house is a
purchase of ‘new asset’ within the meaning of S. 54F.

(b) the cancellation of transaction with Mr. H is to be
treated as transfer of ‘new asset’. Since this ‘new asset’ is transferred
before completion of 3 years, the condition of S. 54F(3) is violated. The
Assessing Officer ignored the investment in Abhijit building and denied
exemption u/s.54F.

On appeal the CIT(A) held that :

(a) in view of cancellation of agreement for purchase of
row house, there was neither purchase nor any construction within the
stipulated time limit of S. 54F.

(b) considering January 1996 i.e., the last date on which
capital gains arose, the last date for purchase of new asset is March 1998.

(c) The assessee’s case is that of purchase of
asset and not construction of asset.

(d) The assessee has not utilised the capital gains before
filing of return and has also not deposited in capital gains scheme.

On appeal, the Mumbai Tribunal held from the sequence of
events :

(a) The assessee’s intention to invest the capital gains
was a bona fide one. The Assessing Officer has not brought any mala fide
intention. The assessee cannot buy a defective house i.e., row house just to
qualify for exemption under the Income-tax Act. Therefore the contention of
the lower authorities in treating the row house is misplaced.

(b) As regards, the capital gains scheme, the assessee had
already parted with capital gains by paying for acquisition of row house.
There is no way it would have complied with the condition of depositing in
bank for capital gains scheme.

(c) The assessee purchased certain shares of S company.
This entitled him to block no. 5 of Abhijit building. Hence the transactions
are interlinked. So the purchase of shares in S company is nothing but
investment in residential house.

(d) As regards, the time limitation of two years, a
combined reading of Board Circulars Nos. 471 and 672 show that the assessee’s
case has to be treated as that of ‘construction’.

levitra

S. 28(i) — Letting out of property used to run business centre — Whether rent income or business income.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

5. 122 ITD 93 (Mum)

Harvindarpal Mehta (HUF) v.

DCIT, Mumbai

A.Y. : 2002-03. Dated : 22-5-2008

 

S. 28(i) — Letting out of property used to run business
centre — Whether rent income or business income.

Facts :

The assessee was running two business centres. One of the
properties in which a business centre was functioning was owned by the assesee,
while the other was taken on lease. The spaces in the property were given to
various customers on short-term basis and customers kept on changing from time
to time.
Additionally, other common services/facilities like receptionist, telephone
operator, house-keeping staff, common waiting rooms, etc. were also provided.

The receipts and expenditure incurred in running the business
centres were routed through profit & loss account. The assessee declared income
as business income. The Assessing Officer treated the receipts from business
centre situated in the property owned by the assessee as income from house
property. According to him, the assessee was the owner of the said property and
this property was let out by the assessee. Hence the receipt out of it shall be
treated as income from house property. In the case of business centre situated
in property taken on lease by the assessee, the receipt from the same was
treated as ‘income from other sources’. As far as the service charges are
concerned, the same were treated as ‘income from other sources’.

On appeal to the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the assessment
order.

Held :

Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. (2003) (263 ITR 143), the Tribunal held that the
fact whether a receipt is a business receipt or a receipt from mere letting out
of property, depends on the facts of the case and intention of the assessee.

Further in the present case, various facilities like
receptionist, telephone operator, common waiting rooms, etc. are also provided.
The ultimate control over the premises is with the assessee. There is
no intention of mere letting out the property and earn the rental income.
Business centres have
peculiar characteristics wherein space is provided for temporary period along
with other business-like facilities.

The intention of the assessee is thus to run the
business centre by exploiting the property and not mere letting out the
property. Hence the receipts are business receipts.

levitra

S. 54F — Assessees sold shares and earned long-term capital gains — The said gains were invested in purchasing land and building — The building was demolished and a new building was constructed — Whether the cost of construction of new building was eligib

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

4. (2010) 122 ITD 15 (Bang.)

M. Vijaya Kumar v. ITO

A.Y. : 2004-05. Dated : 25-1-2008

 

S. 54F — Assessees sold shares and earned long-term capital
gains — The said gains were invested in purchasing land and building — The
building was demolished and a new building was constructed — Whether the cost of
construction of new building was eligible u/s.54F — Held, Yes.

The assessees, husband and wife, sold shares and purchased
property, land and building in joint name. They demolished the building and
constructed a new building. They claimed benefit of S. 54F in respect of cost of
construction of house property. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit
thereby, holding that once the capital gains are invested in purchase of house
property, the application of S. 54F ends. The CIT(A) seconded the AO’s opinion.

On appeal, the Bangalore ITAT held in favour of the assessee
relying on the case of Union Co. (Motors) Ltd. and CBDT Circular No. 667, which
clarified that for exemption meant construction of a residential house after
demolishing the existing structure. It held that the existing structure was
demolished so as to make way for the new asset. The intention of the assessee
was to create and stay in a residential property. Hence the cost of construction
of new property is allowed as deduction u/s.54F.

levitra

S. 17(2) – Employer’s contribution towards social security scheme, made under a statutory provision, is not a perquisite —Even in ex-parte cases the CIT(A) is required to decide appeal on merit after considering material on record — For computing tax effe

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

3. 2010
TIOL 103 ITAT (Mum.)



ACIT v. Harashima Naoki Tashio

A.Y. : 2004-05. Dated : 8-2-2010

 

S. 17(2) – Employer’s contribution towards social security
scheme, made under a statutory provision, is not a perquisite —Even in ex-parte
cases the CIT(A) is required to decide appeal on merit after considering
material on record — For computing tax effect interest is not to be taken into
account.

Facts :

The assessee, not an ordinary resident in India, worked as a
General Manager with M/s. Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. in the period relevant to
the assessment year under consideration. While assessing the total income of the
assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.5,00,629 representing
contribution made by the assessee’s employer in Japan towards social security,
health insurance, etc. The assessee’s contention that the contribution was under
a statutory provision and only a contingent benefit which did not give any
vested right to the assessee, as the assessee may or may not get any benefit
depending upon happening or non-happening of an event which is beyond the
control of the appellant, was not accepted. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an
appeal to the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) examined the scheme under which the payment was
made and following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Eric
Matthew Gottesman, 15 SOT 301 (Del.) deleted the addition.

Aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held :

The Tribunal noted that in the following cases, which are
binding on it, similar contribution to social security made by the employer in
the home country of the foreign national was held to be not taxable as a
perquisite :

1. ACIT v. Eric Matthew Gottesman, (2007) 15 SOT 301
(Del.)

2. ACIT, Circle 47(1) v. Hideki Ishihara in ITA No.
1906/Del./2008 dated 31-12-2008

3. ITO v. Lukas Fole, (2009) 124 TTJ 965 (Pune)

4. Gallotti Raoul v. ACIT, 61 ITD 453 (Bom.)


The objection on behalf of the Revenue that since none
appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) should have
decided the issue against the assessee the Tribunal held that even in ex-parte
cases the CIT(A) is required to decide appeal on merit after considering
material on record.

The Tribunal held that interest for computing tax
effect is not to be taken into account, but since how much interest has been
charged was not available on record, the contention on behalf of the
assessee that the tax effect is less than Rs.2 lakhs was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the
Revenue.

levitra

S. 244A – Interest is payable even on refund arising out of self-assessment tax paid from the date of payment of self-assessment tax.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

2. 2010 TIOL 126 ITAT (Mum.)

ADIT v. GE Asset Mgt. Inc A/c General Electric Pension Trust

A.Ys. : 1999-2000 & 2003-04. Dated : 5-2-2010

S. 244A – Interest is payable even on refund arising out of
self-assessment tax paid from the date of payment of self-assessment tax.

Facts :

Pursuant to the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 3rd October, 2008 the assessee was entitled to refund of
Rs.1,99,47,368. This refund comprised tax paid on regular assessment and also
part of self-assessment tax paid on 13-2-2006. The AO granted interest on refund
arising on the amount of tax paid on regular assessment, but did not grant
interest on refund arising on amount of tax paid as self-assessment tax. He did
not assign any reason for not granting interest on refund of self-assessment tax
paid on 13-2-2006.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
held that the provisions of S. 244A(1)(b) include all situations of refund other
than those covered by S. 244A(1)(a) i.e., refunds arising out of advance tax or
TDS. He held that interest u/s. 244A(1)(b) is payable even if refund arises on
account of self-assessment tax paid by the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the
appeal and held that the assessee is entitled to additional interest u/s.244A on
the amount of self-assessment tax paid from the date of payment till the date of
granting
of refund.


Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an
appeal to the Tribunal.

Held :

The Tribunal noted that while allowing the claim of the
assessee the CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. BSES Ltd., (113 TTJ 227) (Mum).
The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not assigned any reasons for not
granting interest on refund arising on account of payment of self-assessment
tax. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.


levitra

S. 10A/S. 10B – Deduction u/s.10A/10B cannot be denied to software developer exporting software merely on the ground that it hires IT professionals on man-hour basis whenever it has assignments and does not have many employees on payroll.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

1. 2010 TIOL 132 ITAT (Mum.)

ACIT v. Meridian Enterprises Computing
Solutions P. Ltd.

A.Ys. : 2002-03 to 2004-05. Dated : 8-3-2010

 

S. 10A/S. 10B – Deduction u/s.10A/10B cannot be denied to
software developer exporting software merely on the ground that it hires IT
professionals on man-hour basis whenever it has assignments and does not have
many employees on payroll.

Facts :

The assessee company was having an office located in STP and
was carrying on the business of on-site software development. It had claimed
exemption u/s.10A/10B of the Act. There was no dispute about satisfaction of any
of the conditions prescribed for claiming exemption. The Assessing Officer (AO)
observed that the assessee company hired IT professionals on a man-hour basis;
its Managing Director and other directors were old people and their son was the
only employee on the payroll of the assessee; the assessee did not have
infrastructure facilities in India except four walls in STP. He examined the
agreement entered into by the assessee with M/s. Alpharma, its customer, and
noted that the assessee was to get remuneration on an hourly basis and that the
assessee was referred to in the agreement as ‘supplier’. For all these reasons
he came to the conclusion that the assessee was supplying man-power and was not
engaged in software development. He, denied exemption u/s.10A/10B.

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
examined the matter in detail and observed that the agreement entered into by
the assessee was for provision of information technology consulting services and
procuring of services of individual consultants was incidental to rendering this
service and was not service in itself; the description on the invoice was ‘technical service’; the remittance advice to the
bank corroborated this fact; since the assessee had only one employee, he held
that it would be improper to conclude that the assessee is engaged in supply of
manpower; the overseas company paid the assessee amount based on invoices raised
from time to time. He also held that since it was an on-site assignment, there
was no need to have infrastructure in India to render such services. He also
noted that the assessee was liable for damages in case of non-performance or
lapses of their employee. The fact that by taking the contract from Alpharma the
assessee had put itself to stake of USD 50,000 in terms of warranted encumbrance
which was independent of earnings from the said company was held to be very
vital to decide the issue since if it was a transaction of merely manpower
supply then taking such a risk was unwarranted. The CIT(A) held that thecontract of the assessee with M/s. Alpharma was not for manpower supply. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal.

Aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held :

The Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the findings of
the CIT(A). It upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by
the Revenue.

levitra

S. 149(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether the time limit provided u/s.149(3) applies to the asses-see who has voluntarily filed the return of his principal non-resident, and in whose case no order u/s.163 has been passed treating him as the agent of

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 28 2009 TIOL 168 ITAT Mum. (SB)


J. M. Baxi & Co., as agents of Chartering
Singapore Pte Ltd. v. DDIT
ITA No. 2965/M/2006 to ITA No. 2968/M/2006
A.Ys. : 1998-99 to 2002-2003. Dated : 5-3-2009

S. 149(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 —
Whether the time limit provided u/s.149(3) applies to the asses-see who has
voluntarily filed the return of his principal non-resident, and in whose case
no order u/s.163 has been passed treating him as the agent of the non-resident
— Held, No.

Facts :

M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. (‘the assessee’) filed
returns for A.Ys. 1998-99 to 2002-03 as agent of non-resident Singapore
company, M/s. Thaoresen Chartering Singapore Pte Ltd. (TCSPL). In the returns
filed the assessee and its principal claimed that under Article 8 of Double
Tax Avoidance Treaty, the freight collected in India on account of various
vessels owned/ chartered by TCSPL was taxable at a lower rate. The returns
filed were accepted u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notices
u/s.148 dated 6-1-2005 to the assessee as agent of non-resident.

Since the notices issued u/s.148 in the first
three assessment years i.e., 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 20002001 were
issued after the expiry of period of two years from the end of the relevant
assessment year the same were claimed to be out of time u/s.149(3) on the
ground that the assessee was an agent of a non-resident. On the other hand,
the Revenue contended that the provisions of S. 149(3) do not apply to a
person who is ‘agent’ under general law and that since the assessee has never
been ‘treated as an agent’ u/s.163, the notices issued are not barred by the
limitation prescribed u/s.149(3).

Since the Regular Bench found conflict of
decisions between various authorities, the matter was referred to the Special
Bench.

Held :

S. 160 to S. 166 are machinery and enabling
provisions and give the Department the option to either assess the
non-resident or his agent. A non-resident or his agent cannot claim that he be
assessed under a particular clause of S. 163 and not u/s.160(1)(i) read with
S. 161.

Under provisions of S. 160 to S. 166, there are
agents of two types : (1) agents who admit their liability as agents of
non-resident. Such liability may be expressly admitted or it may be implied
from their act and conduct. Having accepted themselves to be ‘agent’ of the
non-resident, the question of giving opportunity of being heard to such agents
or passing order, treating them as agent of non-resident, would not arise. (2)
There can be agents u/s.160(1)(i) or u/s.163(1), who deny their liability to
be agents of the non-resident assessee. Because of their stand, it becomes
necessary for the AO to allow them an opportunity of being heard and then
adjudicate the matter relating to their liability to be agent in terms of S.
163(2). When an order u/s.163(2) is passed holding such persons to be agent of
the non-resident, such person falls in the category of persons who are treated
as agents u/s.163. Whether a particular person would fall under first category
or second category, would depend upon facts and circumstances of the case.

S. 149(3) applies only in a case where a person
is ‘treated as an agent’ of a non-resident u/s.163 i.e., persons
disputing their liability as agent. It does not apply to persons who have
voluntarily treated themselves as agent of the non-resident.

The SB upon going through the various clauses of
the agreement entered into by the assessee with its principal and upon
consideration of other facts viz. that the assessee had not disputed
its liability to be assessed as an agent of the non-resident; it had signed
income-tax returns and had filed them as agent for and on behalf of the
non-resident, several documents were furnished with the income-tax authorities
including an undertaking that taxes due from the non-resident would be paid by
the asses-see, came to a conclusion that the assessee had treated himself as
the ‘agent’ and that it was not necessary for the authorities in this case to
provide any opportunity of being heard to the assessee as regards its
liability to be treated as an agent under the Act, nor was there any necessity
to pass any order in terms of S. 163(2). The time limit prescribed in S.
149(3) was held to be not applicable. The question referred to the SB was
answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.


levitra

S. 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act, provision for diminution in value of investments can be added back by invoking clause (c) of Explanation below S. 115JB on the ground that it is not an ascer

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 27 2009 TIOL 131 ITAT Bang.


Rajmahal Trade & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
ITA No. 68/Bang./2008
A.Y. : 2003-2004. Dated : 8-8-2008

S. 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 —
Whether while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act, provision for
diminution in value of investments can be added back by invoking clause (c)
of Explanation below S. 115JB on the ground that it is not an ascertained
liability — Held, No.

Facts :

For the A.Y. 2003-04, the profit & loss account
prepared by the assessee had adjustments in two parts, namely, adjustments
above the line and adjustments below the line. Profit of Rs.1,47,15,215 was
shown as net profit ‘above the line’. The following two adjustments were
made below the line :

Provision for diminution in value of investments Rs. 32,66,947

Provision for taxes Rs. 10,00,000

After the above two adjustments, the profit
transferred to balance sheet was shown at Rs.1,04,42,268. The assessee while
computing book profit added back the provision for taxes and computed the
book profit to be Rs.1,14,42,268.

While assessing the income of the assessee u/s.
143(3) of the Act, the AO while computing the book profits u/s.115JB held
that provision for diminution in the value of investments was not an
ascertained liability and therefore he invoked clause (c) of Explanation
below the Section and added this sum of Rs.32,66,947 to the profit as per
profit & loss account.

On an appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) held
that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres
the AO had no power to re-compute the book profit if the profits of the
assessee have been ascertained in accordance with Part II and Part III of
Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. He agreed with the assessee’s
contention that the provision for diminution in the value of investments did
not represent any unascertained liability and, therefore, cannot be added
back under Explanation

(c) below S. 115JB. He, however, held that the
shares were held as investments and not as stock-in-trade and, therefore,
held that the AO was right in adding back the provision to the book profit.
Accordingly, he confirmed the assessment order on this point.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to
the Tribunal.

Held :

The Tribunal held that in view of the
observations of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. it is not in
order for the AO or the CIT(A) to rescrutinise the assessee’s accounts to
find out whether the provision has been made for diminution in respect of
shares held as stock-in-trade or as investments. Part III of Schedule VI to
the Companies Act only requires a provision to be created for diminution in
the value of assets and no distinction has been made between an asset which
is held as stock-in-trade and assets which are held as investments by the
assessee. In rescrtuinising the accounts of the assessee and questioning
their correctness the CIT(A) has overlooked the observations of the SC in
the case of Apollo Tyres.

Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the
Companies Act do not recognise any distinction between above the line
adjustments and below the line adjustments. Therefore, the assessee itself
has not recognised any such distinction.


The contentions of the assessee were accepted
and the Tribunal directed the AO to reduce the book profit by Rs.32,66,947
being the provision for diminution in the value of investments.

levitra

Debitum in Presenti

fiogf49gjkf0d
The

Debitum in presenti’ refers to the debt which is a present obligation in contradistinction to the debt which may become an obligation in future on the happening of certain event. When a statute mentions ‘debt’ in any context or, where a debt is implied, it refers to ‘debitum in presenti’ i.e., a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation.

2 Existence of an obligation to pay is the essence of a debt. The same may be payable in present in which case it is ‘debitum in presenti, solvendum in presenti’ or payable on future when it is ‘debitum in presenti solvendum in futuro’. Irrespective of the time of payment, an obligation in order to become enforceable debt has to exist in presenti. The debt payable in present may be termed as ‘debt accruing or due’ and one payable in future as ‘debt owing’ but in both the cases they are debt represented by an existing obligation. The Supreme Court of California in People v. Arguello, (1969) 37 calif 524 observed “Standing alone , the word ‘debt’ is as applicable to a sum of money which has been promised at a future day as to a sum now due and payable. If we wish to distinguish between the two, we say of the former that it is a ‘debt owing’, and of the latter that it is a ‘debt due’. Where no obligation exists, it is only a contingent debt howsoever probable and howsoever soon it may become a debt.


3 The significance of ‘debitum in presenti’ may be understood with reference to certain decided cases where the decision depended on existence of debt. The material point of consideration in a such cases was whether an obligation is created or is yet to be created. In Shanti Prasad Jain v. The Director of Enforcement, 1962 AIR 1764 (SC), the appellant had a claim against a foreign company, in settlement of which the company deposited certain amount in the appellant’s account with a foreign bank in India on the condition that the amount can be withdrawn only for the purpose of purchase of machinery from the foreign company after obtaining import licence from the Government. In a dispute arising under FERA, the appellant was charged u/s.4(1) of the Act for giving loan to a non-resident bank in violation of the FERA regulations. The Supreme Court held that there was no present debt owing to the appellant, as the right of the appellant to the amount in deposit in the bank was to arise only on happening of contingency such as grant of import licence. The Court quoted with approval the observations of Lord Lindley in Webb v. Stanton, (1883) QBD 518,




where the point for decision was whether an amount payable by a trustee to the beneficiary in futuro could be attached by a judgment creditor as a debt ‘owing or accruing’. Answering in negative, the Court observed, “I should say, apart from any authority, that a debt legal or equitable can be attached whether it be a debt owing or accruing; but it must be debt, and a debt is a sum of money which is now payable or, will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation, debitum in presenti, solvendum in futuro”. It was held that money which may or may not become payable from a trustee to his cestui que trust are not debts.


4 A similar issue arose in Raymond Synthetics Ltd. & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 1992 AIR 847(SC), where the company issued shares and was required to make allotment within 10 weeks of the closure and refund the excess share application money within 8 days of the company becoming liable to repay. Allotment was made before the expiry of permitted period of 10 weeks and the issue arose whether interest is payable from the expiry of 10 weeks or from the date of allotment. The Court considered the issue together with the provisions of S. 73(1A) of the Companies Act, whereunder in the event of permission not being granted by the Stock Exchange before the expiry of ten weeks from the closure, the allotment is to become void and held that a debt remains contingent till the permission is received or the period of ten weeks is over. In the facts of the case it was held that the debt became due on expiry of 10 weeks.

5.    The issue generally arises in matters of income taxation where there is change of ownership of business or managing agency rights in the middle of the accounting period. In E. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. the CIT, (1954 AIR 470) where the managing agency was transferred by the appellant before the completion of the definite period of one year service which was a condition precedent to their being entitled to receive the remuneration or commission.

The question arose as to whether the appellant was chargeable to tax in respect of the commission for the broken period up to which they rendered services. It was held that no debt payable by the companies was created in favour of transferor. No remuneration or commission could, therefore, be said to have accrued to them at the date of transfer. Even though they rendered services as managing agents for the broken period, their contribution or parenthood cannot be said to have brought into existence a debt or a right to receive the payment or in other words I debitum in presenti solvendum in futuro’.

6.    Similar issue was decided in Cottons Agents Ltd. Bombay v. CIT Bombay, 1960 AIR 1279 (SC), where answering the question as to whether any income accrued to the transferor from transfer of managing agency agreement before the end of the financial year, the Court observed, “On our view of the managing agency agreement, the commission of the managing agents became due at the end of financial year and that is when it accrued; and there were neither any debt created nor any right to receive payment when each transaction of sale took place.”

7.    An interesting  question  came for decision  in J. Jermons v. Aliammal & Ors., (1999) INSC 275. The tenant in that case was served with a prohibitory order restraining payment of debt due from him to the defaulter viz. the landlord. The tenant in compliances to the notice stopped payment of rent after the receipt of notice. Thereafter, on receipt of notice u/s.226(3), he made payment to the TRO. The landlord sued him for eviction on ground of default in payment of rent to him. Accepting the argument that the rent which became due after the receipt of notice was not a debt covered by the notice, the Court held that the word ‘debt’ in the said prohibitory order is used in the sense that it is ‘debitum in presenti’ or ‘debitum in presenti, solvendum in futuro’. In that sense, rent that would become due and payable in future is in the nature of contingent debt and was not covered by the notice which was good only for rent that had become due up to the date of notice.

8.    The relevance of ‘debitum in presenti’ was elaborately discussed and applied in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT, (1966) 59 ITR 767 (SC). In this case the dividend proposed to be distributed was shown in P & L A/c. but declared at the general meeting held after the close of the year. The question arose as to whether the amount set apart as dividend was a debt owed by the company on the valuation date. It was held that nothing had happened as on the valuation date beyond a mere recommendation of the directors as to the amount that might be distributed as dividend, there was no debt owed by the company on that date. A further question arose as to whether the provision made for taxes in respect of the year was a debt. Even though the judgment was divided, both majority as well as minority decision examined the issue of creation of ‘debitum in presenti’. Whereas the majority decision held that it was a present liability of ascertained amount and, therefore a debt, the minority view was that the liability to pay tax arises only on the 151 day of April of the assessment year and hence was not a debt on the valuation date.

9.    In tax matters ‘debitum in presenti’ is the basis for determining accrual of income and expenditure under mercantile system. The material point is I whether any debt became due to or from the assessee. As held by the Supreme Court in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, 82 ITR 835 (SC), income accrues when if becomes due. The postponement of the date of payment does not affect accrual of income. The fact that the amount of income is not subsequently received would also not detract from or efface the accrual of the income.

Sub-silentio

fiogf49gjkf0d

The Word

Literally sub-silentio means ‘under or in silence’.
When used in relation to a finding in a judicial decision, it refers to ‘without
notice being taken or without making a particular point of the matter in
question’ [Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law]. As a doctrine, it determines
the value, as a precedent, of a decision to be followed in other cases.

2. The cardinal rule of ‘Stare Decisis’ requires
standing by the decided cases, upholding precedents and maintaining former
adjudication. The doctrine of binding precedence ensures stability and
uniformity in judicial interpretation and keeps the scale of justice even and
steady without being liable to waiver with every new judge’s opinion. The
question, however, arises as to whether all declarations or conclusions
constitute binding precedents. A decision which is not express and is not
founded on reasons, nor does it proceed on consideration of issues, cannot be
deemed to be a law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Such
a decision is sub-silentio and is deprived of its value as precedent. As
observed by R. M. Sahai J in State of U.P. and Anr. v. M/s. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.,
(1992) 87 STC 289 (SC), “Restraint in dissenting or
overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity, but rigidity beyond
reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law. Law declared is not that can
be culled out, but that which is stated as law to be accepted and applied. A
conclusion without reference to relevant provisons of law is weaker than casual
observation. In the absence of any discussion or any argument, the order was
founded on a mistake of fact and, therefore, it could not be held to be law
declared”. Overruling its own earlier decision in Synthetics and Chemicals
Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr.,
(1990) 1 SCC 109, the Court held that the
decision fell in both the exceptions viz. the rule of sub-silentio
and being in per incurrium to the binding authority of the precedents.

3. The issue involved in the case was the competency of the
U.P. State Legislature to impose sales tax on industrial alcohol in view of the
Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Order, enabling the Central Government to control
its prices. The High Court, following the earlier 1990 decision of the Supreme
Court (supra) held the levy as beyond the legislative competence. In
appeal, it was argued before the Supreme Court that reference to sales tax in
their earlier decision was accidental, in per incurrium and not arising
from the judgment. The levy of sales tax was not in question at any stage of
arguments, nor was the question considered as it was not in issue and the Court
gave no reason whatsoever for abruptly stating that sales tax was not leviable.
Agreeing with the arguments, the Court in 1992 decision held the earlier
decision as not an authority for the proposition canvassed by the assessee.

4. In Armit Das v. State of Bihar, 2000 AIR SCW 2037,
where the issue involved was the crucial date for determination whether a person
is juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice Act. Various decisions were cited to
canvass the view that the crucial date was commission of offence. Disagreeing
with their value as precedent, the Court observed that “a decision not
expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on conscious
consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a
binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the
judgment is not ratio decidendi. This is the rule of sub-silentio
in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously
determined”.

5. In CIT v. Kanji Shivji & Co., (242 ITR 0124) where
there were conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court itself as to the
applicability of Explanation to S. 40(b) — whether prospective or retrospective
— the Court overruled its own decision in Rasik Lal & Co. v. CIT, (229
ITR 458), which held the explanation as prospective on the ground that in that
case, the explanation was not really an issue. In Chamber of Income-Tax
Consultants v. Central Board of Direct Taxes,
(1994) 209 ITR 660, the Bombay
High Court considered the observations of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement
Co. (1993) 201 ITR 435 as to the inclusion of professional services within the
ambit of S. 194 C and held the same as not constituting a precedent when read as
a whole.

6. A decision is the outcome of consideration of the facts of
the case in reference to different related and inter-dependent provisions of
law. A declaration as to the meaning of any word or expression in the statue is
possible on reading the provision as a whole. If, for whatever reason, including
the failure on the part of the party to the proceeding to bring it to the
Court’s notice, the decision is made without consideration of another provision
or aspect of the matter which would have had a material influence on the
outcome, the declaration or conclusion becomes sub-silentio. In
Dhrangadhra Municipality v. Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd.,
[174 ITR 77 (Guj.)],
where the issue concerned maintainability of suit u/s.72 of the Contract Act for
claiming refund of octroi paid under mistake and reliance was placed on the
Supreme Court decisions in Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1959 SC
135 and D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1975 SC 813 upholding
such maintainability, the Gujarat High Court did not go by those decisions for
the reason that in these cases the Court’s attention was never invited on that
aspect of the matter which concerned any prejudice or legal injury suffered by
the aggrieved party. The Court cannot be assumed to have spoken on it though it
was never canvassed before it. “Precedents sub-silentio and without
arguments are of no moment”, observed the Court in Divisional Controller
KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty,
7 SCC (2003) 199.

7. Courts may sometimes conclusively decide in favour or
against a party because of some legal point which it pronounces upon, ignoring
another point which too should have been decided in favour or against for
arriving at the conclusion reached. In such a case, that point passes sub-silentio
and the decision cannot be an authority so far as the point ignored is
concerned.

8. It is now well settled that a decision is not deprived of
the authority of precedent merely because it was badly argued or inadequately
reasoned. While total absence of argument and consideration vitiates the
precedent, inadequate arguments or consideration do not, unless they miss
something vital to the total outcome in a decision.

levitra

S. 271B : If income of a partner, excluding the income from the firm, less than Rs.10 lacs, not liable to audit u/s.44AB — Penalty deleted.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

1) Hitesh D. Gajaria v. ACIT


ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai

Before J. Sudhakar Reddy (AM) and

P. Madhavi Devi (JM)

ITA No. 992/Mum./2007

A.Y. : 2003-04. Decided on : 22-2-2008

Counsel for assessee/revenue : Deepak Shah/

Manvendra Goyal

S. 271B r.w. S. 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty
for failure to get accounts audited — Assessee, a chartered accountant by
profession, being proprietor and also a partner in a firm — Gross receipts
excluding his share of income from the firm was less than Rs.10 lacs — Penalty
imposed for failure to get the accounts audited — Whether AO justified — Held,
No.

Per P. Madhavi Devi :

Facts :

The assessee was a chartered accountant by profession. He had
a proprietory concern besides being a partner in Bharat S. Raut & Co. During the
year, he received share of profit and remuneration from the said firm, each of
which was more than Rs.10 lacs. However, the gross receipts earned by his
proprietary concern were less than Rs.10 lacs. According to the AO, the
provisions of S. 44AB were applicable. However, the assessee relying on the
opinion of the senior counsel contended that partner’s allocated amounts were
not gross receipts as contemplated in S. 44AB and accordingly, he was not
required to get the accounts audited. However, the AO did not agree and levied a
penalty u/s.271B r.w. S. 274 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the
AO’s order.

Held :

The Tribunal noted that assessee’s major income was not from
profession, but from the share of his profit from the professional firm.
According to it, share of profit cannot be equated with income from profession.
Further, it noted that the assessee had relied on the opinion of the senior
counsel, where-in it was opined that it was not necessary to get the accounts
audited. Therefore, relying on the Jodhpur Bench decision in the case of Dr.
Sunderlal Surana, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for
the failure to get his accounts audited as required u/s.44AB of the Act.
Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the lower authorities was deleted.

Case referred to :


Dr. Sunderlal Surana v. ITO, (2006) 105 TTJ (Jd) 907

levitra

Amendment in Service Tax Return ST-3 to capture details of Service Tax Return Preparer. Notification No. 10/2009 — Service Tax, dated 17-3-2009

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

11 Amendment in Service Tax Return ST-3 to capture
details of Service Tax Return Preparer. Notification No. 10/2009 — Service
Tax, dated 17-3-2009 :


ST-3 form has been amended by this Notification by adding entries for
Identification No. and name of Service Tax Return Preparer.

levitra

Exemption on services provided in relation to the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone, and received by a developer or units of a Special Economic Zone, whether or not the said taxable services are provided inside the Special Economic Zone

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

10 Exemption on services provided in relation to the
authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone, and received by a
developer or units of a Special Economic Zone, whether or not the said
taxable services are provided inside the Special Economic Zone

Notification No. 09/2009-Service Tax, dated 3-3-2009 :

By this Notification the taxable services specified in
clause (105) of S. 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which are provided in
relation to the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone, and
received by a developer or units of a Special Economic Zone, whether or not
the said taxable services are provided inside the Special Economic Zone, are
exempt from the whole of the Service Tax leviable thereon u/s.66 of the said
Finance Act, subject to conditions specified in this Notification.

levitra

Reduction in Service Tax rate to 10% plus education cess. Notification No. 08/2009-Service Tax, dated 24-2-2009

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

9 Reduction in Service Tax rate to 10% plus education
cess. Notification No. 08/2009-Service Tax, dated 24-2-2009 :

Service Tax rate has been reduced from 12% to 10%

w.e.f. 24-2-2009, so that the effective rate will be
10.3%. There is no change in works contract composition rate.

levitra

Export of Services Rules, 2005 applicable when benefits accrue outside India Circular No. 111/2009, dated 24-2-2009

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

8 Export of Services Rules, 2005 applicable when
benefits accrue outside India Circular No. 111/2009, dated 24-2-2009 :


In terms of Rule 3(2)(a) of the Export of Services Rules
2005, a taxable service shall be treated as export of service if “such
service is provided from India and used outside India
”. By this
Circular, it has been clarified that export of service may take place even
when all the relevant activities take place in India so long as the benefits
of these services accrue outside India.

levitra

Reference from Commissioner, Nashik, seeking clarification in respect of levy of Service Tax on repair/renovation/widening of roads. Circular No. 110/2009, dated 23-2-2009

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

7 Reference from Commissioner, Nashik, seeking
clarification in respect of levy of Service Tax on
repair/renovation/widening of roads. Circular No. 110/2009, dated 23-2-2009
:

It has been clarified that management, maintenance or
repair of roads are in the nature of taxable services and attracting Service
Tax u/s.65(105) (zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. In this Circular, activities
called as ‘construction of road’ and ‘maintenance or repair of roads’ have
been categorised as follows :

(A) Maintenance or repair activities :

I. Resurfacing

II. Renovation

III. Strengthening

IV. Relaying
 
V. Filling of potholes

(B) Construction activities :

I. Laying of a new road

II. Widening of narrow road to broader road (such as
conversion of a two-lane road to a four-lane road)

III. Changing road surface (gravelled road to metalled
road/metalled road to black-topped/ black-topped to concrete, etc.)

levitra

Filing of claim for refund of Service Tax paid under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6-10-2007. Circular No. 112/2009, dated 12-3-2009 :

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

6 Filing of claim for refund of Service Tax paid under
Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6-10-2007. Circular No. 112/2009, dated
12-3-2009 :


In this Circular procedural clarifications have been
given in relation to claiming refund of Service Tax paid under Notification
No. 41/2007-ST, dated 6-102007. which provides exemption by way of refund on
account of specified taxable services used for export of goods.
Clarification under this Circular are in addition to Circulars issued
earlier No. 101/4/ 2008-ST, dated 12-5-2008 and No. 106/9/2008-ST, dated
11-12-2008.

levitra

Service Tax on movie theatres.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

5 Service Tax on movie theatres.

Circular No. 109/2009, dated 23-2-2009 :

It has been clarified that screening of a movie is
not a taxable service except where the distributor leases out the
theatre and the theatre owner get a fixed rent. In such case, the
service provided by the theatre owner would be categorised as ‘Renting
of immovable property for furtherance of business or commerce’ and the
theatre owner would be liable to pay tax on the rent received from the
distributor. All pending cases to be disposed of accordingly.

levitra

Clarification regarding approvals of 100% EOUs for the purpose of deduction u/ s.10B of the Act — Instruction No. 2/2009, dated 9-3-2009 (reproduced).

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

4 Clarification regarding approvals of 100% EOUs for
the purpose of deduction u/ s.10B of the Act — Instruction No. 2/2009, dated
9-3-2009 (reproduced).

S. 10B of the Income-tax Act provides for exemption of
income in case of hundred percent export-oriented undertakings subject to
prescribed conditions. Explanation 2(iv) below to the said Section defines a
‘hundred percent export-oriented undertaking’ as an undertaking so approved
by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government u/s.14 of
the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951. Subsequent to the
delegation of this power by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries to the
Development Commissioners, such approvals to 100% EOU’s are now being
granted by the Development Commissioners, which are later ratified by the
Board of Approvals.

The matter regarding validity of approvals given by
Development Commissioners has been examined in the Board. It has been
decided that an approval granted by the Development Commissioner in the case
of an export-oriented unit set up in an Export Processing Zone will be
considered valid, once such approval is ratified by the Board of Approval
for EOU scheme.

F.No.178/19/2008-ITA-1

(Padam Singh)

Under Secretary (ITA-I)

levitra

The Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2009 — Notification No. 24/2009, dated 12-3-2009.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

3 The Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2009 —
Notification No. 24/2009, dated 12-3-2009.


Rule 67 regulates the manner of investment of Recognised
Provident Funds. This rule has been amended and now these funds can invest
up to 55% in Government securities and units of mutual funds which invest in
Government securities, 40% in prescribed debt securities and time deposit
receipts, 5% in money market instruments and 15% in derivatives of companies
available on BSE/NSE and equity-linked schemes of regulated mutual funds.
There are certain restrictions and conditions prescribed for each individual
limit aforementioned.

levitra

Insertion of Rules 37BA and 37I — Income-tax (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2009, — Notification No. 28/2009, dated 16-3-2009.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

2 Insertion of Rules 37BA and 37I — Income-tax (Sixth
Amendment) Rules, 2009, — Notification No. 28/2009, dated 16-3-2009.

Rule 37BA has been inserted wherein the CBDT has
clarified certain issues relating to credit available u/s.199 of the Act on
TDS and TCS. Important clarifications issued are as under :

  • Credit shall be available based on the information
    provided by the tax deductor to the tax authorities in the E-TDS returns
    filed by them.

     

    • Credit
      shall be available to persons other than the deductee in case :


       


      • clubbing provisions are attracted, or

         


      • income is taxed in the hands of beneficiaries of a trust or an AOP,

         


      • partner of a firm or karta of an HUF,

         

      • cases of joint ownership when the income is
        clubbed with
        the other person’s income, and the deductee provides details of name,
        address and PAN of such other person to the deductor by way of a
        declaration. In such cases the deductor needs to issue the certificate
        in the name of the other person mentioned in the declaration.

  •  Credit for TDS would be given in the year in which the
    income is assessable to tax. In case the taxability of the income is
    deferred, then the credit for tax would be allowed over the said period of
    years in proportion to the income charged for each year.


Rule 37I has also been inserted with similar provisions
relating to tax collection at source.

levitra

CBDT has started issuing Annual Tax Statement to assessees

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

1 CBDT has started issuing Annual Tax Statement to
assessees

The CBDT has started issuing Annual Tax Statement to
assessees, a consolidated statement in Form 26AS which gives details for a
particular tax year of details of tax deducted by the employer/others and
the taxes by way of advance tax/self-assessment tax during the said tax
year. The intention is verification of these details by the taxpayer for
getting suitable tax credit. The Department would rely on this while
processing the returns of assessees. In case there is some discrepancy
noticed by the tax payer, they should contact the tax deductor/relevant bank
to sort the same. Also the Tax Department should be intimated about the
errors.

levitra

Press Note No. 6 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. —FDI Policy for mining of titanium bearing minerals and ores.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI/FEMA

Given below are the highlights of 6 Press Notes issued by the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

 

21 Press Note No. 6 (2008), dated 12-3-2008.
—FDI Policy for mining of titanium bearing minerals and ores.

The guidelines for mining of titanium bearing minerals and
ores are :

 

FDI up to 100% is allowed after obtaining prior approval of
FIPB in mining and mineral separation of titanium bearing minerals and ores, its
value addition and integrated activities, subject to sectoral regulations and
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

 

In case of separation of titanium bearing minerals and ores,
the following additional conditions will apply :



(a) Value addition facilities are set up in India along
with transfer of technology.

(b) Disposal of tailing during mineral separation will be
carried out in accordance with regulations framed by the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board.

 


FDI will not be allowed in mining of ‘prescribed substances’
listed in the Government of India Notification No. S.O. 61(E), dated 18-1-2006
issued by the Department of Atomic Energy.

 

FDI policy Annexed to Press Note No. 4 (2006), dated 10-2-2006 stands
modified to the extent stated above.

levitra

Press Note No. 5 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — Rationalisation of FDI Policy for the Petroleum & Natural Gas Sector.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI/FEMA

Given below are the highlights of 6 Press Notes issued by the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

 

20 Press Note No. 5 (2008), dated 12-3-2008.
— Rationalisation of FDI Policy for the Petroleum & Natural Gas Sector.

FDI policy in the Petroleum & Natural Gas sector has been
rationalised as under :



(a) The condition of compulsory divestment of up to 26%
equity within 5 years, in case of 100% foreign ownership in companies engaged
in actual trading and marketing of petroleum products, stands deleted.

(b) FDI up to 49% is allowed after obtaining prior approval
of FIPB in petroleum refining by Public Sector Undertakings (PSU) without
involving any divestment or dilution of equity in existing PSU.

 


FDI policy Annexed to Press Note No. 4 (2006), dated
10-2-2006 stands modified to the extent stated above.

levitra

Press Note No. 4 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — FDI Policy for the Civil Aviation Sector.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI/FEMA

Given below are the highlights of 6 Press Notes issued by the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

 

19 Press Note No. 4 (2008), dated 12-3-2008.
— FDI Policy for the Civil Aviation Sector.

The guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Civil
Aviation sector are :

Airports :



(a) Greenfield projects — FDI up to 100% is permitted under
the automatic route.

(b) Existing projects — FDI up to 100% is allowed. However,
investment beyond 74% will require FIPB approval.

 


Air Transport Services :



(a) Scheduled Air Transport Service/Domestic Scheduled
Passenger Airline — FDI up to 49% and investments by Non-Resident Indians (NRI)
up to 100% under the automatic route. However, foreign airlines cannot make
any investment, direct or indirect.

(b) Non-Scheduled Air Transport Service/Non-Scheduled
Airlines & Chartered Airlines — FDI up to 74% and investments by NRI up to
100% under the automatic route. However, foreign airlines cannot make any
investment, direct or indirect.

(c) Cargo Airlines — FDI up to 74% and investments by NRI
up to 100% under the automatic route.

(d) Helicopter Services/Seaplane Services requiring DGCA
approval — FDI up to 100% allowed under the automatic route.

 


Civil Aviation Sector :



(a) Ground Handling Services — FDI up to 74% and
investments by NRI up to 100% under the automatic route. This is subject to
sectoral regulations and security clearances.

(b) Maintenance and Repair organisations, flying training
institutes and technical training institutions — FDI up to 100% allowed under
the automatic route.

 


FDI policy Annexed to Press Note No. 4 (2006), dated
10-2-2006 stands modified to the extent stated above.

levitra

Press Note No. 3 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Credit Industrial Parks.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI/FEMA

Given below are the highlights of 6 Press Notes issued by the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry.


 


18 Press Note No. 3 (2008), dated 12-3-2008.
— Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Credit Industrial Parks.

This press note clarifies that FDI up to 100% under the
automatic route will be allowed in established Industrial Parks as well as for
setting new Industrial Parks and the conditions mentioned in Press Note 2 (2005)
would not be applicable, provided :

1. The Industrial Park comprises of 10 units and no single
unit occupies more than 50% of the allocable area.

2. The minimum area allocated for industrial activity is
not less than 66% of the total allocable area of the Industrial Park.


levitra

Press Note No. 2 (2008), dated 12-3-2008 — Guidelines for foreign Investment in Commodity Exchanges.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI/FEMA

Given below are the highlights of 6 Press Notes issued by the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry.


17 Press Note No. 2 (2008), dated 12-3-2008
— Guidelines for foreign Investment in Commodity Exchanges.

The guidelines for foreign investment in Commodity Exchanges
are :



1. Foreign investment i.e., Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) and Portfolio Investment Scheme (PIS) is allowed up to 49%
after obtaining prior approval from FIPB.

2. Investment by FII under PIS will be limited to 23% and
they can buy only in the secondary market.

3. Investment under FDI will be limited to 26%.

4. No foreign investor/entity, including persons acting in
concert, can hold more than 5% of the equity in these companies.



levitra

Press Note No. 1 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — Guidelines for Foreign Investment in Credit Information Companies.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI/FEMA

Given below are the highlights of 6 Press Notes issued by the
Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

 

16 Press Note No. 1 (2008), dated 12-3-2008.
— Guidelines for Foreign Investment in Credit Information Companies.

The guidelines for foreign investment in Credit Information
Companies (CIC) are :



1. Foreign investment in CIC is subject to the Credit
Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.

2. Foreign investment i.e., Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) and Portfolio Investment Scheme (PIS) is allowed up to 49%
after obtaining prior approval from Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB)
and regulatory clearance from RBI.

3. Foreign Institutional Investors (FII) can invest up to
24% in CIC listed on Stock Exchanges, provided :



(a) No single FII can directly or indirectly hold more
than 10% of the equity.

(b) Any acquisition in excess of 1% will have to be
reported to RBI.

(c) FII cannot seek representation on the Board of
Directors based on their shareholding.

 




In Annex to Press Note No. 4 (2006), dated 10-2-2006 ‘Credit
Reference Agencies’ is deleted from list of NBFC activities.

 

levitra

Non-filing of VAT returns : Trade Cir. No. 7T of 2008, dated 5-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Maharashtra VAT :


 

15 Non-filing of VAT returns : Trade Cir.
No. 7T of 2008, dated 5-3-2008.

The Circular states that in cases where show-cause notices
for prosecution due to non-filing of returns have been issued, and pursuant to
notices, the dealers file their returns before actual launch of prosecution
proceedings, the prosecution proceedings would be dropped. However, the interest
and penalty provisions would apply in these cases also. This relaxation would be
available only till 31-3-2008.

levitra

E-returns under MVAT : Trade Cir. No. 8T of 2008 No. VAT/AMD-1007/1B/Adm-6 Mumbai, dated 19-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Maharashtra VAT :

14 E-returns under MVAT : Trade Cir. No. 8T
of 2008 No. VAT/AMD-1007/1B/Adm-6 Mumbai, dated 19-3-2008.

It has now been made mandatory for registered dealers of
Maharashtra, whose tax liability in the previous year was Rs.1 crore or more to
file returns electronically for the periods starting on or after 1st February
2008. The condition which has been prescribed is that the tax payment needs to
be made first before filing the e-return. New forms have been prescribed in this
new scheme. Since it is a new scheme, for these dealers who are e-filing their
return of Vat, for the month of March, the due date has been extended till 31
March 2008. Templates of new return forms as well as detailed guidance is
provided on the new website of the Sales Tax Department www.mahavat.gov.in In
case the dealer has a digital signature, then the return can be uploaded along
with the signature, otherwise a paper return needs to be filed within 10 days of
uploading the e-return. In case of dealers not required to file the e-return,
they have the option to file their returns in the old or new forms. There is a
new procedure prescribed for certain dealers under the Package Scheme of
Incentives. Certain dealers were permitted to file separate returns for their
respective places or constituents of the business. This permission stands
withdrawn. There are other amendments also made for filing of returns by deemed
authorised dealers, as also change in periodicity for newly registered dealers.

levitra

Service Tax (Publication of Names) Rules, 2008 : Notification No. 15/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


 

13 Service Tax (Publication of Names) Rules,
2008 : Notification No. 15/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

These Rules have been notified so as to prescribe the rules
for publication of names and particulars of specified persons who have
intentionally evaded or failed to pay Service Tax. These names could be
published only after due dates of filing appeals at various stages have expired
and no appeals have been filed in this respect. Also, the jurisdictional
Commissioner of Excise would forward the proposal to print the names of
defaulters in the format prescribed to the Chief Commissioner who would in turn
clear/reject it within 15 days. In case it is cleared, then the proposal is
passed on to the Board, who on their own also, would publish such names. Further
guidelines have been issued in this matter vide Circular No. 100/3/2008-ST,
dated 12-3-2008.

levitra

In case of a person located outside India, who for his customer who is also located outside India, books accommodation in hotel in India, then provision of taxable service by such person is exempted from Service Tax : Notification No. 14/2008-Service Tax,

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


 

12 In case of a person located outside
India, who for his customer who is also located outside India, books
accommodation in hotel in India, then provision of taxable service by such
person is exempted from Service Tax : Notification No. 14/2008-Service Tax,
dated 1-3-2008.

levitra

Unconditional exemption from service tax is being provided to the extent of 75% of the gross amount charged as freight for services provided by a goods transport agency in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage : Notification No. 13/20

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


11 Unconditional exemption from service tax
is being provided to the extent of 75% of the gross amount charged as freight
for services provided by a goods transport agency in relation to transport of
goods by road in a goods carriage : Notification No. 13/2008-Service Tax, dated
1-3-2008.

levitra

Goods Transport Agency service is being excluded from the scope of output service under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 : Notification No. 12/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


 

10 Goods Transport Agency service is being
excluded from the scope of output service under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 :
Notification No. 12/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

levitra

Limit for registration of special category of persons and exemption from registration has been increased from 7 lacs to 9 lacs w.e.f. 1-4-2008 : Notification No. 9/2008, 10/2008 and 11/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


 

9 Limit for registration of special
category of persons and exemption from registration has
been increased
from 7 lacs to 9 lacs w.e.f. 1-4-2008 : Notification No. 9/2008, 10/2008 and
11/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

levitra

Exemption limit for small service providers increased from 8 lacs to 10 lacs with effect from 1 April, 2008 : Notification No. 8/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


 

8 Exemption limit for small service providers
increased from 8 lacs to 10 lacs with effect from 1 April, 2008 : Notification
No. 8/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

 

levitra

Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax Amendment) Rules, 2008 : Notification No. 7/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


 7 Works Contract (Composition Scheme for
Payment of Service Tax Amendment) Rules, 2008 : Notification No. 7/2008-Service
Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

The rate prescribed for optional scheme for payment of
Service Tax for works contract service has been enhanced from the present rate
of 2% of the total value of the contract to 4% of the total value of the
contract.

levitra

Taxation of Services (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 : Notification No. 6/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax


6 Taxation of Services (Provided from outside
India and received in India) Rules, 2006 : Notification No. 6/2008-Service Tax,
dated 1-3-2008.

Under the reverse charge method, provision of notified
services through Internet, etc. in relation to any goods or materials or any
immovable property, as the case may be, situated in India at the time of
provision of service, whether or not partly performed outside India, shall be
treated as performed in India and leviable to Service Tax.

levitra

Export of Services (Amendment) Rules, 2008 : Notification No. 5/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax

5 Export of Services (Amendment) Rules, 2008
: Notification No. 5/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.

Export of service rules have been amended to consider
services including management, maintenance or repair, technical testing and
analysis and technical inspection and certification services which are provided
remotely through Internet or an electronic network including a computer network
or any other means, in relation to any goods or materials or any immovable
property, situated outside India at the time of provision of service, whether or
not partly performed in India, shall be treated as performed outside India and
treated as export of service.

levitra

Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2008 : Notification No. 4/2008-Service Tax dated 1-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Service tax

4 Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2008 :
Notification No. 4/2008-Service Tax dated 1-3-2008.

The following major amendments have been carried out by this
notification :


à
The Board has allowed payment of advance Service Tax, provided intimation is
submitted with the jurisdictional office and in the next return of Service
Tax, the said advance tax is duly disclosed.

à
Self-adjustment of excess service tax paid is enhanced from Rs.50000 up to
Rs.1 lakh for a relevant month or quarter, as the case may be.

à
Period for filing of revised return has been increased from sixty days to
ninety days.

à
Penalty for late filing of return may be reduced or waived by the concerned
officer on being satisfied that there was reasonable cause for delay.

 


levitra

Clarification issued by the Finance Ministry on retrospective amendment to S. 271(1)(c) : Press Release BSC/SS/GN-67/08 dated 14-3-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

3 Clarification issued by the Finance
Ministry on retrospective amendment to S. 271(1)(c) : Press Release BSC/SS/GN-67/08
dated 14-3-2008.


It has been clarified that the amendment has been made only
to settle the contrary views expressed by different Courts. However,
retrospective amendment will not prejudice taxpayers’ right to agitate the levy
of penalty on merits. Further, while no separate satisfaction is required to be
recorded before initiating penalty proceedings, it is still incumbent upon the
Assessing Officer to record his satisfaction before levying the penalty.
Accordingly, there is neither violation of the principle of natural justice, nor
any prejudice caused to the taxpayer as a result of the retrospective amendment.

levitra

Clarification regarding transactions under Securities Lending and Borrowing Scheme issued by SEBI : Circular No. 2/2008, dated 22-2-2008.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

2 Clarification regarding transactions under
Securities Lending and Borrowing Scheme issued by SEBI : Circular No. 2/2008,
dated 22-2-2008.


It has been clarified that the exemption under Section 47(xv)
of the Act would apply to transfers/ transactions under the new scheme notified
by SEBI vide Circular No. MRD/DoP/SE/DEP/Cir. 14/2007, dated 20-12-2007.
Consequently there would be no capital gains liability on these transfers/
transactions. Also securities transaction tax would not be levied on these
transactions.

levitra

Explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2007 : Circular no. 3/ 2008, dated 12-3-2008

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

1 Explanatory notes to the provisions of the
Finance Act, 2007 : Circular no. 3/ 2008, dated 12-3-2008.


A detailed Circular has been issued by the CBDT to clarify as
well as explain the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2007 i.e., the
Budget of last year.

levitra

S. 36(1)(va), S. 43B, S. 37(1) — Delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC beyond the grace period but before due date of filing return of income is allowable. Unrecoverable advances made for purchase of capital asset are allowable as revenue e

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

(Full texts
of the following Tribunal decisions are available at the Society’s office on
written request. For members desiring that the Society mails a copy to them,
Rs.30 per decision will be charged for photocopying and postage.)

 




3. Pik Pen Private Ltd. v. ITO


ITAT ‘C’ Bench, Mumbai

Before P. M. Jagtap (AM) and

R. S. Padvekar (JM)

ITA No. 6847/Mum./2008

A.Y. : 2005-06. Decided on : 28-1-2010

Counsel for assessee/revenue : K. Shivaram/ Chandra
Ramakrishnan

S. 36(1)(va), S. 43B, S. 37(1) — Delayed payment of employees
contribution to PF/ESIC beyond the grace period but before due date of filing
return of income is allowable. Unrecoverable advances made for purchase of
capital asset are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s.37(1).

Per R. S. Padvekar :

Facts I :

The assessee made payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC
for the month of February, beyond the grace period but before due date of filing
return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the payment of Rs.43,721
u/s.36(1)(va) as he was of the opinion that the employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC
even if made before filing of the return of income is not covered u/s.43B of the
Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
confirmed the action of the AO.

Facts II :

The assessee had debited a sum of Rs.2,96,135 which
represented advances made for purchase of machinery, but since the machinery was
not supplied the unrecovered amount of advances was written off and treated as
revenue expenditure allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO)
was of the view that since the advances were made for purchase of capital asset,
un-recovered amount of advances represented a capital loss and was not
allowable. He disallowed the sum of Rs.2,96,135.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
confirmed the action of the AO.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held I :

In the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) it has
been held that the omission of the second proviso to S. 43B of the Act by the
Finance Act, 2003 operated retrospectively w.e.f. 1-4-1988. In the said case
also, the issue was concerning the contribution payable by the employer to the
PF/Superannuation Fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees. The
Court held that the contribution paid before due date of filing return of income
is allowable. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the issue is covered in
favour of the assessee and the deduction is allowable.

Held II :

The Tribunal following the principles laid down by the
Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Anjanikumar Co. Ltd., (259 ITR 114)
decided the issue in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition by treating
the write-off as revenue expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act, as admittedly, no
capital asset came into existence. This ground was decided in favour of the
assessee.

 

levitra

S. 40(b) — Remuneration to working partner as per the partnership deed — Partnership deed gave power to modify the terms of remuneration — Whether the existence of such term would render remuneration not qualified for deduction — Held, No.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

(Full texts
of the following Tribunal decisions are available at the Society’s office on
written request. For members desiring that the Society mails a copy to them,
Rs.30 per decision will be charged for photocopying and postage.)

 



2. Shabro International v. Addl. CIT


ITAT ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai

Before R. S. Sayal (AM) and

V. Durga Rao (JM)

ITA No. 6629/Mum./2008

A.Y. : 2005-06. Decided on : 20-3-2010

Counsel for assessee/revenue : Pradip Kapasi/ A. K. Kadam

S. 40(b) — Remuneration to working partner as per the
partnership deed — Partnership deed gave power to modify the terms of
remuneration — Whether the existence of such term would render remuneration not
qualified for deduction — Held, No.

Per R. S. Sayal :

Facts :

The assessee, a firm, executed a supplementary partnership
deed on 20-6-2004 to provide for the payment of interest and remuneration to the
working partners. As per the deed, the remuneration was to be calculated as a
percentage of the profit as per S. 40(b) of the Act. One of the clauses in the
deed further provided that the partners may decide to pay remuneration at a
lower amount or not to pay remuneration or to pay remuneration on any other
criteria or ratio. According to the AO, as explained in Circular No. 739, dated
25-3-1996, since the partnership deed did not contain a specific provision for
calculating the amount of remuneration, no remuneration was allowable. He
further held that in any case, the remuneration for the period till 20-6-2004,
since it pertained to the period prior to the date of the execution of the deed,
cannot be allowed. The CIT(A) on appeal upheld the order of the AO.

Held :

According to the Tribunal, the Board Circular referred to by
the Tribunal required that either the remuneration payable to each of the
working partners is laid down in the deed or the deed must lay down the manner
of ascertaining such remuneration. Referring to the supplementary deed, the
Tribunal noted that the deed did provide the manner of quantifying the
remuneration to the partners. According to the Tribunal, the presence of clause
3(d) which empowered the partners to lower the remuneration or to not pay the
remuneration, did not erase the other clauses which clearly laid down the amount
of remuneration payable. It further observed that even in the absence of the
said clause 3(d), the partners had the power to alter the remuneration payable.
Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities were modified to the said
extent.

levitra

S. 41(1) — Remission or cessation of liability — Receipt of advance money against order remaining unclaimed — Creditor under liquidation — Whether AO justified in treating the unclaimed sum as income — Held, No.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 2

(Full texts
of the following Tribunal decisions are available at the Society’s office on
written request. For members desiring that the Society mails a copy to them,
Rs.30 per decision will be charged for photocopying and postage.)

 

1. Nash Machines & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v.
Jt. CIT

ITAT ’A’ Bench, Pune

Before Mukul Shrawat (JM) and

D. Karunakara Rao (AM)

ITA Nos. 163/PN/2008

A.Y. : 2004-05. Decided on : 30-11-2009

Counsel for assessee/revenue : C. N. Vaze/

Amrinder Kumar

S. 41(1) — Remission or cessation of liability — Receipt of
advance money against order remaining unclaimed — Creditor under liquidation —
Whether AO justified in treating the unclaimed sum as income — Held, No.

Per Mukul Shrawat :

Facts :

The assessee had received the sum of Rs.36.33 lacs in the F.Y.
1996-97 from a party called PMA Ltd. as advance against sales. Before the
assessee could supply the material, PMA went into liquidation. The last
correspondence with the party was in February 1999 when a liquidator informed
the assessee about the fact of liquidation.

Applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of T. V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Ltd., of the Chennai High Court in the
case of Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and of the Delhi High Court in the case of
State Corporation of India Ltd., the AO treated the said unclaimed amount as the
income of the assessee. On appeal the CIT(A) agreed with the order of the AO and
noted that since the amount remained unpaid for a long period, it assumed the
character of trade receipt taxable u/s.41(1) of the Act. He also relied on the
decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Thermo Electric Pvt.
Ltd.

Held :

According to the Tribunal, the provisions of S. 41 would
apply where an allowance or deduction had been made of loss or expenditure in
the assessment of earlier year and in any subsequent years the assessee availed
the benefit by way of remission or cessation of such trading liability. In the
case of the assessee, the impugned amount was not of the character of ‘trading
liability’ for which the assessee had ever obtained any benefit or deduction or
allowance in any of the past years. Further, there was no evidence or any
specific communication to indicate the remission or waiver of debt by the
creditor. Hence, according to the Tribunal, the provisions of S. 41(1) were not
applicable. For the purpose it also relied on the decisions of the Calcutta High
Court in the case of S. K. Bhagat & Co. and of the Rajasthan High Court in the
case of Shree Pipes Ltd. According to it, all the decisions relied on by the
lower authorities were distinguishable on facts and hence, not applicable to the
case of the assessee.

Cases referred to :


1. S. K. Bhagat & Co. v. CIT, 275 ITR 464 (Cal.);

2. CIT v. Shree Pipes Ltd., 301 ITR 240 (Raj.);

3. U. B. Engineering Ltd., ITA No. 1368/PN/06 dated
31-8-2009;

4. T. V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Ltd., 222 ITR 344 (SC);

5. CIT v. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd., 255 ITR 510 (Mad.);

6. CIT v. State Corporation of India Ltd., 247 ITR 114
(Del.);

7. Mysore Thermo Electric Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 221 ITR
504 (Kar.)




levitra

Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 32(1)(ii) — Depreciation on Intangible Assets — Payment for Non-compete fees — Whether by payment of non-compete fees the assessee can be said to have acquired a commercial or business right similar to the intangible assets enume

fiogf49gjkf0d
New Page 1

6 ITO v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd.

ITAT ‘A’ Bench, Chennai

Before H. S. Sidhu (JM) and Ahmad Fareed (AM) ITA No. 2328/Mds./2007

A.Y. : 2002-03. Decided on : 16-1-2009
Counsel for revenue/assessee : Shahji P. Jacob/ K. Ravi

Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 32(1)(ii) — Depreciation on Intangible Assets — Payment for Non-compete fees — Whether by payment of non-compete fees the assessee can be said to have acquired a commercial or business right similar to the intangible assets enumerated in S. 32(1)(ii)of the Act — Held, Yes. Whether claim of depreciation is admissible on non-compete fees paid by the assessee — Held, Yes.

Facts :

The assessee-company was in the business of manufacture and distribution of bulk drugs and intermediaries, and exporting these products to the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia. Another company, Medispan Limited (MS) was engaged in the business of development and production of medical and pharmaceutical formulations and had been exporting it to various South American, African and South-East Asian countries. The assessee with an intention to expand its market reach to South American and African countries, for its own products as well as for other formulations, drugs and medicines, entered into an agreement dated 12-7-2000, whereby MS agreed to transfer the business and activities of its export division to assessee for a consideration of Rs.5.33 crores. Clause III of the agreement inter alia provided for break-up of various components of the consideration of Rs.5.33 crores. It was provided that the consideration of Rs.5.33 crores comprises Rs.2 crores towards compensation for MS accepting noncompete obligation in respect of export of bulk drugs, pharmaceutical products and formulations. In the computation of total income filed along with the return of income, the assessee had claimed the payment of Rs.2 crores towards non-compete obligation as revenue expenditure. The AO rejected the claim. The assessee made an alternative claim before the AO that depreciation be allowed u/s.32(1) of the Act on the non-compete fee. The AO rejected this claim also. The CIT(A) held that depreciation on this sum of Rs.2 crores be granted u/s.32(1) of the Act. Aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held :

The Tribunal considered the legislative history and scope of the provisions dealing with the benefit of ‘depreciation’ under the Act. It noted that the scope of S. 32(1) was widened by the Finance Act, 1999 by allowing depreciation in respect of ‘intangible assets’ w.e.f. 1-4-1999. This has been achieved by introducing clause (ii) in S. 32(1) of the Act. Prior to this, depreciation was allowable only in respect of ‘tangible assets’ viz. buildings, machinery, plant or furniture. It stated that the words ‘being intangible assets’ appear in clause (ii) by way of a nomenclature, to contradistinguish the items appearing in clause (ii) from those appearing in clause (i). It noted that the provisions of S. 32(1)(ii) w.e.f. 1-4-1999 not only extended the benefit of S. 32 to the ‘intangible assets’ but also gave therein an ‘inclusive’ definition of the ‘intangible assets’, for this purpose. It stated that one can say that clause (ii) contains an ‘inclusive’ definition of ‘intangible assets’, for the purpose of S. 32.

The Tribunal found that it was an admitted fact that the payment of Rs.2 crores was made by the asses-see-company to ward off competition in the export business which was acquired by it from MS. Therefore, it concluded that what was acquired by the assessee by paying this amount of Rs.2 crores was a business/commercial right. It observed that it is clear from the language of clause (ii) of S. 32(1) that each of the terms, know-how, patents, copyright, trade mark, licences, or franchises represents a ‘business or a commercial right’. It then proceeded to examine the ‘nature’ of these business/commercial rights and compared their ‘nature’ with the ‘nature’ of the impugned business/commercial right which was acquired by the assessee and concluded that in the case of copyright, trade mark, licence, and franchises also the owners have exclusive business/ commercial rights, and if there is a breach they can sue. It held that similar was the nature of the impugned right acquired by the assessee. It further stated that if the business/commercial right of a patent, copyright, trademark, licence and franchise fulfils the conditions of being intangible asset, then surely the impugned business/commercial right acquired by the assessee also fulfils that condition by way of a logical corollary. The decision of Madras Tribunal in the case of A. B. Mauria India Pvt. Ltd. was held to be not applicable in the facts of the present case. The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs.2 crores made by the assessee under agreement dated 12-7-2000 to ward off competition was a business/commercial right which was similar in nature to copyright, trade mark, licence and franchises and therefore qualified for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the decision of ITAT, Chennai, in the case of A. B. Mauria India Pvt. Ltd., on which reliance was placed on behalf of the Revenue, does not support the case of the Department on the facts of the case in the present appeal.

Case referred to :

1. A. B. Mauria India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1293/ Mds./2006, dated 23-11-2007)

 

S. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether an addition can be sustained merely on the basis of statement made at the time of Survey — Held, No.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

5 Dy. CIT v. Premsons

ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Mumbai
Before R. S. Syal (AM) and Asha Vijayaraghavan (JM) ITA No. 4698/Mum./2006

A.Y. : 2003-04. Decided on : 15-1-2009 Counsel for revenue/assessee : Pitambar Das/ Reepal Tralshawala

S. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether an addition can be sustained merely on the basis of statement made at the time of Survey — Held, No.

Per R. S. Syal :

Facts :

A survey action u/s.133A of the Act was conducted on the office premises of the assessee along with its two sister concerns on 15-1-2003. During the course of survey, physical stock in the case of the assessee was found to be excessive by Rs.21,14,146. Statement of Mr. Bharat Gala, partner of the assessee firm, was recorded. The assessee admitted to surrender a sum of Rs.50 lakhs as additional income over and above the income recorded in the books of accounts with the following bifurcation :

Towards excess stock Rs.21 lakhs

Towards any other discrepancy Rs.29 lakhs

After the close of survey but before the close of the year the assessee retracted from the surrender made during survey, vide its letter dated 24-3-2003. The assessee mentioned in its letter that the surrender was obtained forcefully by the survey team.

The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.25,20,483 which included the surrender of Rs.21.14 lakhs towards difference in closing stock. The remaining portion of Rs.28.85 lakhs agreed by the assessee at the time of survey was not offered for taxation.

While assessing the total income of the assessee, the AO held that retraction was an after thought and further since the assessee had not maintained quantitative stock register, it was not possible to check the sales and purchases of different items dealt in by it. He also held that accounting of sales was such that it was open to manipulation. He, therefore, made an addition of Rs.28.85 lakhs.

The CIT(A) held that the books of accounts ought not to have been rejected and also the addition of Rs.28.85 lakhs was deleted by him. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal on these two grounds.

Held :

As regards rejection of the books of accounts by the AO, the Tribunal held that the books of accounts can be said to be properly maintained when correct income can be deduced therefrom. It is not only the arithmetical inaccuracy in the books of accounts which would call for the resorting to the provisions of S. 145(3). Since during the course of survey physical stock was found to be excessive as compared to the books of accounts, the Tribunal held that the books of accounts were rightly rejected by the AO.

As regards the addition of Rs.28.85 lakhs, the Tribunal noted that the real question before it was whether addition can be sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at the time of survey. The Tribunal noted that the Kerala High Court has in the case of Paul Mathew & Sons held that addition cannot be sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at the time of survey. The Madras High Court has in the case of S. Khader Khan Son, held that S. 133A does not empower any Income-tax authority to examine any person on oath and hence such a statement has no evidentiary value. The Tribunal also observed that the Circular dated 10-3-2003 issued by the CBDT which makes it clear that no attempt should be made to obtain undue confession from the assessee during search or survey proceedings is indicative of the fact that the Department is also not oblivious of the practice by which the Revenue Authorities obtain undue confession from the assessee during search or survey. The Tribunal held that in view of the verdict of the two High Courts and the position reaffirmed by the CBDT through its Circular, it is abundantly clear that no addition can be made or sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at the time of survey/search. It further held that in order to make an addition on the basis of surrender during search or survey, it is sine qua non that there should be some other material to correlate the undisclosed income with such statement. The Tribunal noted that the surrender to the extent of Rs.28.85 lakhs was specifically ‘towards other discrepancy’. The assessment order had no mention of any such discrepancy found as a result of survey throwing light on undisclosed income. There was nothing on record which could correlate such income offered by the assessee during the course of survey with any other discrepancy. The Tribunal was of the view that there is no basis for sustaining the addition in question.

Cases referred to :

  •     Paul Mathew & Sons v. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)
  •     CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son, (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.)

S. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty for concealment — Claim made under bona fide belief rejected and penalty imposed — Whether penalty can be levied — Held, No.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

4 Kisanlal Sarda v. ACIT

ITAT Pune Bench ‘A’ Pune
Before Pramod Kumar (AM) and Mukul Shrawat (JM) ITA No. 241/PN/2006


A.Y. : 1994-95. Decided on : 29-8-2008 Counsel for assessee/revenue : B. V. Jhaveri/
S. Bains

S. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty for concealment — Claim made under bona fide belief rejected and penalty imposed — Whether penalty can be levied — Held, No.

Per Mukul Shrawat :

Facts :

The case before the Tribunal was about a penalty being levied on account of the claim of inadmissible higher rate of depreciation. The facts of the case were, the assessee in the earlier two years had claimed depreciation @ 40% in respect of two vehicles which were given on hire and the same was allowed. The assessee’s claim for the same in the year under appeal was negatived by the AO on the ground that during the year, the main activity of the assessee was not that of running the vehicles on hire, hence he was entitled to depreciation @ 25% only. On appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s order. For claiming depreciation at the higher rate, the AO levied penalty of Rs.4.68 lacs, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Before the Tribunal the Revenue relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra & Co. and contended that once the addition was accepted by not filing appeal against the same, the assessee has no right to challenge the levy of penalty.

Held :

The Tribunal noted that the claim by the assessee of depreciation at the higher rate was based on the advice given by his chartered accountant. Secondly, it was not the case of the Revenue that there was a deliberate attempt to conceal the vital facts of the case pertaining to the claim of depreciation, and all the necessary information on the basis of which the correct claim of depreciation had to be allowed was on record and furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, relying on the ratio in the decisions listed at S. Nos. 2 to 6 below, it held in favour of the assessee. Further, it also referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, where in the context of the penalty u/s.271(1)(c), the Court had observed that the AO was required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by the assessee was false. Based on the same, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the authorities below and allowed the appeal.

Cases referred to :

  •     Dilip N. Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC)
  •     Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 87 TTJ 246 (Mum.)
  •     Kalyani Enterprises v. ACIT, 86 TTJ 767 (Mad.)
  •     ITO v. Tolaram Phusanan, 88 TTJ 1040
  •     Udan Research & Flying Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT, (2007) 17 SOT 494 (Mum.)
  •     ACIT v. Malhotra Mukesh Satpal, (2008) 113 TTJ 401 (Pune)

levitra

Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 50C — Whether provisions of S. 50C are applicable only in respect of computation of income under the head ‘Income from Capital Gains’ and that the said Section cannot be invoked where the income is assessed as business income und

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

3 Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Circle 5(2)(1)
ITAT ‘I’ Bench, Mumbai
Before A. L. Gehlot (AM) and R. S. Padvekar (JM)
ITA No. 4376/Mum./2008

A.Y. : 2005-06. Decided on : 5-2-2009 Counsel for assessee/revenue : A. H. Dalal / S. K. Singh

Income-tax Act, 1961 — S. 50C — Whether provisions of S. 50C are applicable only in respect of computation of income under the head ‘Income from Capital Gains’ and that the said Section cannot be invoked where the income is assessed as business income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ — Held, Yes.

Per R. S. Padvekar : Facts :

The assessee had constructed a building on land held by it as stock-in-trade. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration two flats in the building constructed by the asses-see were sold for a consideration of Rs.60 lakhs and Rs.40 lakhs, respectively. The Stamp Authorities had for the purposes of levy of stamp duty valued the flats at Rs.78,41,500 and Rs.72,81,456, respectively. The assessee accepted the valuation done by the Stamp Authorities. The assessee declared profit @ 8% of the sale price. The profit declared by the assessee was offered for taxation under the head ‘Income from Business’. The AO assessed profit arising on sale of these two flats under the head ‘Income from Business’, but made an addition of Rs.51,22,956. This amount represented the difference between valuation adopted for the purpose of the stamp duty and actual sale consideration shown by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held :

The Tribunal noted S. 50C deals with transfer of a ‘capital asset’ being land or building or both and it provides for replacing the value adopted or assessed for the purpose of stamp duty more particularly u/s.48 of the Act in place of value or sale consideration shown by the assessee if it is lower than the value adopted or assessed for the purpose of levy of stamp duty. It observed that the expression ‘capital asset’ has specific relevance with S. 45 which provides for taxing gain on transfer of ‘capital asset’ as capital gain. The Tribunal upon consideration of the language of the provisions of S. 50C of the Act and also the intention of insertion of the provisions of S. 50C as mentioned in the Explanatory Circular No. 8, dated 27-8-2002 issued by the CBDT, held that there should not be any cloud of doubt that S. 50C has application only to the extent of determining sale consideration for computation of capital gain and it cannot be applied for determining the income under other heads.

 

levitra

S. 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether income from DEPB and drawback eligible for deduction — Held, Yes.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

2 ACIT v. Podar Associates
ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Jaipur
Before I. C. Sudhir (JM) and B. P. Jain (AM) ITA No. 579/JP/2008

A.Y. : 2003-04. Decided on : 13-8-2008 Counsel for revenue/assessee : Jai Singh/ Mahendra Gargieya

S. 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Whether income from DEPB and drawback eligible for deduction — Held, Yes.

Per B. P. Jain :

Facts :

One of the issues before the Tribunal was about the allowability of deduction u/s.80IB with respect to income earned by way of DEPB and drawback. The CIT(A) had held in favour of the assessee.

Held :

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the income from DEPB and drawback went to reduce the cost of purchase and therefore, income to that extent was derived from the eligible undertaking. According to it, a similar view was expressed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of India Gelatine and Chemical Ltd. where the Court had also distinguished the decision in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Co. Ltd.. Further, it also referred to the provisions of S. 28(iiid), whereunder such receipt is treated as business profit. Accordingly, relying on the decisions of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Industries and in the case of Garment Craft India Ltd. and also on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd., it upheld the order of the CIT(A).

Cases referred to :

  1. CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemical Ltd., 275 ITR 284 (Guj.);


  2. Vijay Industries (ITA No. 247/JP/05 dated 29-6-2007);


  3. Garment Craft India Ltd. (ITA No. 105/JP/06 dated 28-9-2007);


  4. CIT v. Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd., 300 ITR 06 (Del.);


  5. Cambay Electric Supply Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 84 (SC)

levitra

Rule 8D read with S. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Expenditure disallowable with reference to exempt income — Disallowed expenditure is the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal — Whether Revenue justified in its contention to apply the ratio o

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

1 ACIT v. Indexport Ltd.
ITAT ‘D’ Bench, Mumbai
Before Sushma Chowla (JM) and Abraham P. George (AM) ITA Nos. 1941 and 2200/Mum./2004

A.Y. : 2000-01. Decided on : 29-1-2009 Counsel for revenue/assessee : Sanjay Agarwal/ Nishant Thakkar

Rule 8D read with S. 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Expenditure disallowable with reference to exempt income — Disallowed expenditure is the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal — Whether Revenue justified in its contention to apply the ratio of the Special Bench decision rendered in the matter — Held, Yes but the disallowance cannot exceed the amount originally disallowed by the AO.

Per Sushma Chowla :

Facts :

One of the issues before the Tribunal was regarding the disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A. The AO had disallowed the aggregate sum of Rs.15.2 lacs consisting of interest of Rs.8.46 lacs and other expenses of Rs.6.74 lacs under the said provisions of S. 14A. The interest amount was computed by applying the ratio of investment attributable to tax-free income earned by the assessee to total investments, including the current assets, to the sum of interest paid by the assessee. The other expenses were estimated at 10% of the total of other expenses incurred by the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) gave partial relief by restricting the disallowance of other expenses at 5% of the total of such expense. Being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) qua the other expenses, the assessee as well as the Revenue, both appealed before the Tribunal.

Before the Tribunal, the Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) in giving partial relief to the assessee and also sought to apply the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. in support of its contention for the enhanced sum of disallowance.

Held :

The Tribunal noted that the Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are explanatory in nature and are applicable to all the pending cases. Therefore, even though the Tribunals in the case of the assessee in respect of the earlier years had fully allowed the expenses incurred, including the interest paid, following the Special Bench decision, it remitted back the matter to the AO with a direction to recalculate the disallowance. However, the order passed was with a condition that the amount of disallowance should not exceed the amount originally disallowed by the AO.

Case referred to :

ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd., 26 SOT 603 (Mum.) (SB)

levitra

S. 272A(2)(e) : No penalty imposable where net income before deduction u/s.11 below taxable limit

fiogf49gjkf0d
Tribunal News

1) Hitesh D. Gajaria v. ACIT


ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai

Before J. Sudhakar Reddy (AM) and

P. Madhavi Devi (JM)

ITA No. 992/Mum./2007

A.Y. : 2003-04. Decided on : 22-2-2008

Counsel for assessee/revenue : Deepak Shah/

Manvendra Goyal

S. 271B r.w. S. 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty
for failure to get accounts audited — Assessee, a chartered accountant by
profession, being proprietor and also a partner in a firm — Gross receipts
excluding his share of income from the firm was less than Rs.10 lacs — Penalty
imposed for failure to get the accounts audited — Whether AO justified — Held,
No.

Per P. Madhavi Devi :

Facts :

The assessee was a chartered accountant by profession. He had
a proprietory concern besides being a partner in Bharat S. Raut & Co. During the
year, he received share of profit and remuneration from the said firm, each of
which was more than Rs.10 lacs. However, the gross receipts earned by his
proprietary concern were less than Rs.10 lacs. According to the AO, the
provisions of S. 44AB were applicable. However, the assessee relying on the
opinion of the senior counsel contended that partner’s allocated amounts were
not gross receipts as contemplated in S. 44AB and accordingly, he was not
required to get the accounts audited. However, the AO did not agree and levied a
penalty u/s.271B r.w. S. 274 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the
AO’s order.

Held :

The Tribunal noted that assessee’s major income was not from
profession, but from the share of his profit from the professional firm.
According to it, share of profit cannot be equated with income from profession.
Further, it noted that the assessee had relied on the opinion of the senior
counsel, where-in it was opined that it was not necessary to get the accounts
audited. Therefore, relying on the Jodhpur Bench decision in the case of Dr.
Sunderlal Surana, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for
the failure to get his accounts audited as required u/s.44AB of the Act.
Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the lower authorities was deleted.

Case referred to :


Dr. Sunderlal Surana v. ITO, (2006) 105 TTJ (Jd) 907


2) ITO
v.
Lalitaben B. Kapadia



ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai

Before J. Sudhakar Reddy (AM) and

P. Madhavi Devi (JM)

ITA No. 8763/Mum./2004

A.Y. : 2001-02. Decided on : 20-9-2007

Counsel for assessee/revenue : N. R. Agarwal/

Milind Bhusari

S. 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Reference to
Valuation Officer — Value returned by the assessee was more than the fair market
value arrived at by the Valuation Officer and accepted by the AO — Whether
action of the AO in making reference to the Valuer justifiable — Held, No.


Per P. Madhavi Devi :

Facts :

The assessee had returned income under the head long-term
capital gain from the sale of immovable property. For the purpose, the assessee
had shown fair market value (FMV) as on 1-4-1981 as Rs.10 lacs. U/s.55A, the AO
made reference to the Valuation Officer who valued the property at Rs.6.6 lacs
as on the said date. On appeal, the CIT(A) took the FMV at Rs.9.36 lacs. Being
aggrieved, the Revenue appealed before the Tribunal.

Held :

According to the Tribunal, reference u/s.55A could be made
only if the AO was of the opinion that the value returned by the assessee was
less than its FMV. The act of the AO in accepting the valuation made u/s.55A,
which was undoubtedly less than the FMV claimed by the assessee, proved that the
AO was of the opinion that the assessee’s claim was more than its FMV. Thus,
according to the Tribunal, the AO was not justified in making reference to the
Valuation Officer. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in
the case of Rubab M. Kazerani, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the
Revenue.

Case referred to :


Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT, 97 TTJ (TM) 698 (Mum.)


3. Manisha R. Chheda v. ITa Mukesh P. Chheda v. ITa ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Mumbai Before J. Sudhakar Reddy (AM) and P. Madhavi Devi OM) ITA No. 5961 and 5962/Mum./2004
A.Y. : 2001-02. Decided on: 17-8-2007 Counsel for assessee/revenue: Pradeep Kapasi/ Chet Ram

s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Power to revise AO’s order – AO making certain additions to the income returned – Whether the Commissioner has power to revise AO’s order in order to sustain the addition but on different reasons – Held, No.

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy:

Facts:

In their return of income filed, both the assessees had returned besides other income, income from agriculture. According to the AO, the assessees had not proved with evidence that they were engaged in agricultural activities. Therefore, the income so declared was treated by the AO as income from other sources.

According to the CIT, the reasons for additions given by the AO were grossly inappropriate and inadequate for sustaining the additions. In order to strengthen the case of the Revenue, he held both the orders passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he directed the AO to make fresh assessment. The assessees challenged the orders passed by the CIT before the TribunaL

Held:

According to the Tribunal, the crr wanted to indicate the same thing what the AO had indicated, but for different reasons. It further observed that an order u/ s.263 cannot be passed for giving additional reasons or substituting reasons by a higher authority to support the same cause. According to it, when the AO had in fact rejected the claim of the assessee, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the Revenue. Merely because the CIT was not happy with the reasons given by the AO, the same did not give jurisdiction to invoke the powers conferred on him u/ s.263. The Tribunal further observed that once an addition was made, the issue if appealed against, travelled to the First Appellate Authority whose powers were co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. The first appellate authority, according to the Tribunal, can always, if he feels that the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer was not sufficient, strengthen the order by giving his own reasons, if the situation so permitted. If the assessees did not carry the matter in appeal, the assessment orders attain finality. Thus, it was noted that, in either case, the scheme of the Act does not permit the supervisory Commissioner to give additional reasons for supporting the same additions that had been made by the AO.

For the reasons stated as above, the Tribunal quashed both the orders passed by the CIT u/ s.263 and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee.

4. Boon Industries v. ITO ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai Before O. K. Narayanan (AM) and Sushma Chowla OM) ITA No. 6736 and  6737/Mum./2006 A.Ys. : 1998-99 & 1999-2000. Decided on: 27-11-2007

Counsel  for assessee Zrevenue :

Prakash  Jhunjhunwala/Malathi Sridharan

S. 271(1)(b) read with S. 142(1) and S. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Penalty for non-compliance with notices issued – On the facts held that penalty cannot be imposed.

Per O. K. Narayanan:

Held:

The penalty of Rs.0.2 lac each imposed for the years under appeal for non-compliance of statutory no-tices issued u/s.142(1) and S. 143(2) were deleted by the TribunaL According to it, it cannot be said that the assessee was indifferent in the matter and did not co-operate with the assessing authorities, when it complied with the requirements twelve times out of the sixteen times. It further held that the non-compliance cannot be said to be willful when the time given to the assessee to attend be-fore the AO was only four to six days. According to it, the failure of the assessee to sought adjournment or inform the AO was not that much material in the light of the conduct of the assessee by appearing before the AO for not  less  than twelve times.

5. Jayram Rajgopal Poduval v. ACIT ITAT ‘H’ Bench, Mumbai Before R. S. Syal (AM) and Sushma Chowla OM) ITA No.  7072/M/2004 AY. : 2001-02. Decided on:    18-1-2008 Counsel for assessee/revenue: Rajan Vora/ B. K. Singh

S. 6(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 – Resident but not ordinarily resident – Whether the two conditions specified in the provisions are cumulative – Held, No.

Per  R. S. Syal :

Facts:

The  assessee’s stay in India in the  preceding 10 years was as under:


According to the AO, the assessee was not ‘non-resident’ in 9 out of 10 years and had also resided in India for more than 730 days in the preceding 7 years. Hence, he held that the status of the assessee was ‘Resident and ordinarily resident’ (ROR). According to the CIT(A), in order that a person could be considered as Resident but not ordinarily resident (RNOR), he must fulfil the following two conditions given in S. 6(6)(a) viz. :

  •     He has not been resident in India in nine out of the ten previous years; and


  •     He has not during the seven previous years preceding that year been in India for a period of 730 days or more.

 
Since the assessee’s stay in India was for more than 730 days in the 7 preceding years, he, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pradeep J. Mehta, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Held:

The Tribunal noted that the provisions of S. 6(6)(a) uses the term ‘or’ and not ‘and’ between the two conditions given therein. Accordingly, the person would be considered as RNOR if he complies with either of the two conditions given therein. It dis-agreed with the CIT(A) that in order to qualify as RNOR, the assessee should fulfil both the condi-tions. In the case of the assessee, since he was not resident in India in nine out of ten previous years, his status would be that of RNOR. In support it also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case 4 of Morgenstern Werner.

Cases referred to :

1. Cl’T and Another v. Morgenstern Werner, (2003) 259 ITR 486 (SC)
2. PradeepJ. Mehta v. CIT, (2202) 256 ITR 647 (Guj.)

Note: The provisions of S. 6(6) have been substituted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1-4-2004. As per the substituted provisions, in order to qualify as RNOR, the person should be non-resident in nine out of ten previous years. The other alternative condition remains unchanged.


6. Innerwheel Club of Bombay v. ADIT ITAT ‘e’ Bench, Mumbai Before O. K. Narayanan (AM) and P. Madhavi Devi OM) ITA No.  4855/Mum.l2003

AY. : 1999-2000.  Decided on: 12-10-2007 Counsel for assessee/revenue: Jayesh Dadia/ J. K. Garg

S. 272A(2)(e) r.w. S. 139(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Penalty for failure to file return of income – Net income before claiming deduction u/s.11 be-low the taxable limit – Whether AO justified in levying penalty for delay in filing of return – Held, No.

Per  P. Madhavi Devi  :

Facts:

The assessee was a public charitable trust eligible for deduction u/s.ll. During the year under appeal, its gross total income was Rs.0.71 lac and after deducting establishment expenses of Rs.0.7Iac, the surplus remained was only Rs.353. It filed its return of income on 15-5-2000. For delay in filing return of income, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs.13,500 which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Held:

The Tribunal noted that the AO had not rejected the audited accounts of the assessee. And as per the accounts, the net income of the assessee was below taxable limit even before claiming deduction u/s.11.
 
Therefore, relying on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Durgadevimata and of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Purakh Chand Askaran Pugella Charitable Trust, the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in levying penalty.

Cases  referred to:

1. Durgadevimata  v. lTG,  (ITA No. 36/M/2000)
2. Purakh Chand Askaran Pugella Charitable Trust, 124 Taxman (Mag) 74 (Del.)

S. 6(6) : The two conditions specified in the provision are not cumulative

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

5) Jayram Rajgopal Poduval
v. ACIT


ITAT ‘H’ Bench, Mumbai

Before R. S. Syal (AM) and

Sushma Chowla (JM)

ITA No. 7072/M/2004

A.Y. : 2001-02. Decided on : 18-1-2008

Counsel for assessee/revenue : Rajan Vora/

B. K. Singh

S. 6(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 — Resident but not
ordinarily resident — Whether the two conditions specified in the provisions are
cumulative — Held, No.

Per R. S. Syal :

Facts :

The assessee’s stay in India in the preceding 10 years was as
under :

No.


Assessment Year

No. of
days in India

1.

1991-92

29

2.

1992-93

15

3.

1993-94

23

 

(A)

67

 4.

1994-95

24

5.

1995-96

92

6.

1996-97

366

7.

1997-98

365

8.

1998-99

359

9.


1999-2000

365

10.

2000-01

366

 

(B)


1,937

 

(A)
+ (B)

2004

According to the AO, the assessee was not ‘non-resident’ in 9
out of 10 years and had also resided in India for more than 730 days in the
preceding 7 years. Hence, he held that the status of the assessee was ‘Resident
and ordinarily resident’ (ROR). According to the CIT(A), in order that a person
could be considered as Resident but not ordinarily resident (RNOR), he must
fulfil the following two conditions given in S. 6(6)(a) viz. :

  • He has not been resident in India in nine out of the ten previous years; and

  •     He has not during the seven previous years pre-ceding that year been in India for a period of 730 days or more.

Since the assessee’s stay in India was for more than 730 days in the 7 preceding years, he, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pradeep J. Mehta, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Held:

The Tribunal noted that the provisions of S. 6(6)(a) uses the term ‘or’ and not ‘and’ between the two conditions given therein. Accordingly, the person would be considered as RNOR if he complies with either of the two conditions given therein. It disagreed with the CIT(A) that in order to qualify as RNOR, the assessee should fulfil both the conditions. In the case of the assessee, since he was not resident in India in nine out of ten previous years, his status would be that of RNOR. In support it also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case 4 of Morgenstern Werner.

Cases referred to :

    1. CIT and Another v. Morgenstern Werner, (2003) 259 ITR 486 (SC)

    2. PradeepJ. Mehta v. CIT, (2202) 256 ITR 647 (Guj.)

Note: The provisions of S. 6(6) have been substituted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1-4-2004. As per the substituted provisions, in order to qualify as RNOR, the person should be non-resident in nine out of ten previous years. The other alternative condition remains unchanged.


S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty for non-compliance with notices deleted, where inadequate notice given

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

4) Boon Industries v. ITO


ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai

Before O. K. Narayanan (AM) and

Sushma Chowla (JM)

ITA No. 6736 and 6737/Mum./2006

A.Ys. : 1998-99 & 1999-2000. Decided on : 27-11-2007

Counsel for assessee/revenue :

Prakash Jhunjhunwala/Malathi Sridharan

S. 271(1)(b) read with S. 142(1) and S. 143(2) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 — Penalty for non-compliance with notices issued — On the
facts held that penalty cannot be imposed.

Per O. K. Narayanan :

Held :

The penalty of Rs.0.2 lac each imposed for the years under
appeal for non-compliance of statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) and S. 143(2)
were deleted by the Tribunal. According to it, it cannot be said that the
assessee was indifferent in the matter and did not co-operate with the assessing
authorities, when it complied with the requirements twelve times out of the
sixteen times. It further held that the non-compliance cannot be said to be
willful when the time given to the assessee to attend before the AO was only
four to six days. According to it, the failure of the assessee to sought
adjournment or inform the AO was not that much material in the light of the
conduct of the assessee by appearing before the AO for not less than twelve
times.

 

levitra

S. 263 : Commissioner has no power to revise AO’s order by giving additional reasons for sustaining same additions

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

3) Manisha R. Chheda
v.
ITO


Mukesh P. Chheda


v. ITO


ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Mumbai

Before J. Sudhakar Reddy (AM) and

P. Madhavi Devi (JM)

ITA No. 5961 and 5962/Mum./2004

A.Y. : 2001-02. Decided on : 17-8-2007

Counsel for assessee/revenue : Pradeep Kapasi/

Chet Ram


S. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Power to revise AO’s
order — AO making certain additions to the income returned — Whether the
Commissioner has power to revise AO’s order in order to sustain the addition but
on different reasons — Held, No.

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :

Facts :

In their return of income filed, both the assessees had
returned besides other income, income from agriculture. According to the AO, the
assessees had not proved with evidence that they were engaged in agricultural
activities. Therefore, the income so declared was treated by the AO as income
from other sources.

According to the CIT, the reasons for additions given by the
AO were grossly inappropriate and inadequate for sustaining the additions. In
order to strengthen the case of the Revenue, he held both the orders passed by
the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly,
he directed the AO to make fresh assessment. The assessees challenged the orders
passed by the CIT before the Tribunal.

Held :

According to the Tribunal, the CIT wanted to indicate the
same thing what the AO had indicated, but for different reasons. It further
observed that an order u/s.263 cannot be passed for giving additional reasons or
substituting reasons by a higher authority to support the same cause. According
to it, when the AO had in fact rejected the claim of the assessee, it cannot be
said that any prejudice was caused to the Revenue. Merely because the CIT was
not happy with the reasons given by the AO, the same did not give jurisdiction
to invoke the powers conferred on him u/s.263. The Tribunal further observed
that once an addition was made, the issue if appealed against, travelled to the
First Appellate Authority whose powers were co-terminus with that of the
Assessing Officer. The first appellate authority, according to the Tribunal, can
always, if he feels that the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer was not
sufficient, strengthen the order by giving his own reasons, if the situation so
permitted. If the assessees did not carry the matter in appeal, the assessment
orders attain finality. Thus, it was noted that, in either case, the scheme of
the Act does not permit the supervisory Commissioner to give additional reasons
for supporting the same additions that had been made by the AO.

For the reasons stated as above, the Tribunal quashed both
the orders passed by the CIT u/s.263 and allowed the appeals filed by the
assessee.




levitra

S. 55A : AO cannot make reference to valuation officer when value returned as at 1-4-1981 is more than fair market value determined by valuation officer

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

2) ITO
v.
Lalitaben B. Kapadia



ITAT ‘K’ Bench, Mumbai

Before J. Sudhakar Reddy (AM) and

P. Madhavi Devi (JM)

ITA No. 8763/Mum./2004

A.Y. : 2001-02. Decided on : 20-9-2007

Counsel for assessee/revenue : N. R. Agarwal/

Milind Bhusari


S. 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Reference to
Valuation Officer — Value returned by the assessee was more than the fair market
value arrived at by the Valuation Officer and accepted by the AO — Whether
action of the AO in making reference to the Valuer justifiable — Held, No.

Per P. Madhavi Devi :


Facts :

The assessee had returned income under the head long-term
capital gain from the sale of immovable property. For the purpose, the assessee
had shown fair market value (FMV) as on 1-4-1981 as Rs.10 lacs. U/s.55A, the AO
made reference to the Valuation Officer who valued the property at Rs.6.6 lacs
as on the said date. On appeal, the CIT(A) took the FMV at Rs.9.36 lacs. Being
aggrieved, the Revenue appealed before the Tribunal.

Held :

According to the Tribunal, reference u/s.55A could be made
only if the AO was of the opinion that the value returned by the assessee was
less than its FMV. The act of the AO in accepting the valuation made u/s.55A,
which was undoubtedly less than the FMV claimed by the assessee, proved that the
AO was of the opinion that the assessee’s claim was more than its FMV. Thus,
according to the Tribunal, the AO was not justified in making reference to the
Valuation Officer. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in
the case of Rubab M. Kazerani, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the
Revenue.

Case referred to :


Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT, 97 TTJ (TM) 698 (Mum.)


levitra

Revision of Form 32 pertaining to change in directors, manager, secretaries (vide Notification GSR 68(E), dated 10-2-2010), with effect from 14-3-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part D : Company Law updates





15 Revision
of Form 32 pertaining to change in directors, manager, secretaries (vide
Notification GSR 68(E), dated 10-2-2010), with effect from 14-3-2010.

Under the Notification :


1. Form 32 can be filed
for those directors who do not have a DIN and who have ceased to be
associated with the company on or before 31-10-2006.

2. Signatory to the form
has to verify that the director has given declaration to the company in
writing that he is not restrained/disqualified/removed of, for being
appointed as a director under the provisions of the Act including S. 203, S.
274 and S. 388E.



levitra

Criteria for identification of a vanishing company — Clarification on MCA website

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part D : Company Law updates


18 Criteria
for identification of a vanishing company — Clarification on MCA website

A company would be deemed to
be a vanishing
company, if it is found to have :


(a) Failed to file
returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years;

(b) Failed to file
returns with Stock Exchange (SE) for a period of two years (if it continues
to be a listed company);

(c) It is not
maintaining its registered office of the company at the address notified
with the Registrar of Companies/Stock Exchange; and

(d) None of its
directors are traceable.



Notes :




(i) All the conditions
mentioned above would have to be satisfied before a listed company is
declared as a vanishing company; and

(ii) The conditions
mentioned at (a), (c) and (d) would suffice to declare a company as
vanishing if such company has been de-listed from the Stock Exchange.




erala, Lakshadweep, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu,
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal with effect from 1st April 2010.

levitra

Updated list of S. 25 companies is available at the following : URL http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/S. 25 — Companies — 6nov2008.pdf

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part D : Company Law updates





 




17 Updated
list of S. 25 companies is available at the following : URL http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/S.
25 — Companies — 6nov2008.pdf

levitra

New Form 68 (vide Notification GSR 177(E), dated 5-3-2010) pertaining to application for rectification of mistakes apparent on record in e-Form 1A, e-Form 1 and Form 44 with effect from 14-3-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part D : Company Law updates


16 New Form
68 (vide Notification GSR 177(E), dated 5-3-2010) pertaining to application for
rectification of mistakes apparent on record in e-Form 1A, e-Form 1 and Form 44
with effect from 14-3-2010.

Under the Notification
u/s.20G(1), an application for rectification of mistakes made while filing Form
No. 1, Form No. 1A and Form No. 44 electroncially on the Ministry’s website,
shall be made to the Registrar of Companies in Form No. 68 and such application
shall be accompanied by fee of Rs.1000 for rectification of mistakes in Form No.
1 and Form No. 1A, and Rs.10,000 for rectification of mistakes in Form No. 44,
respectively. An application in Form 68 complete in all respects shall be made
to the Registrar within 365 days from the date of approval of Form No. 1, Form
No. 1A and Form No. 44, respectively by the Registrar.

This rectification of
mistakes is also applicable to Form 1, Form 1A and Form 44 approved by the
Ministry prior to 14th March, 2010 and the mistakes shall be examined, approved
and intimated to the applicant within 60 days of filing the Form. It is also
provided that the rectification of mistakes shall be allowed only once in
respect of one company.

levitra

E-payment of Stamp Duty.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part D : Company Law updates





 




19
E-payment of Stamp Duty.

Vide Notifications Number
GSR 642(E) and SO 2276(E), dated 7-9-2009 and SO 3314(E), dated 31-12-2009,
Payment of Stamp Duty for Form No. 1, Memorandum of Association, Articles of
Association, Form No. 5 and Form No. 44 is mandatory to be paid electronically,
through MCA portal (www.mca.gov.in) in respect of the States and Union
Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh,
Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka,
Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal with
effect from 1st April 2010.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 40, dated 2-3-2010 — External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy — Structured Obligations.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI / FEMA


Given below are the
highlights of certain RBI Circulars.

14 A.P.
(DIR Series) Circular No. 40, dated 2-3-2010 — External Commercial Borrowings (ECB)
Policy — Structured Obligations.

This Circular permits Indian
companies who have raised debt through issue of capital market instruments such
as bonds and debentures, as well as Infrastructure Development Companies (IFCs)
to obtain credit enhancement facility from eligible non-resident entities. This
is subject to the following terms and conditions :


(i) Credit enhancement
will be permitted to be provided by multilateral/regional financial
institutions and Government-owned development financial institutions;

(ii) The underlying debt
instrument should have a minimum average maturity of seven years;

(iii) Prepayment and
call/put options would not be permissible for such capital market
instruments up to an average maturity period of 7 years;

(iv) Guarantee fee and
other costs in connection with credit enhancement will be restricted to a
maximum 2% of the principal amount involved;

(v) On invocation of the
credit enhancement, if the guarantor meets the liability and if the same is
permissible to be repaid in foreign currency to the eligible non-resident
entity, the all-in-cost ceilings, as applicable to the relevant maturity
period of the Trade Credit/ECBs, would apply to the novated loan. Presently,
the all-in-cost ceilings, depending on the average maturity period, are
applicable as follows :

Average
maturity period of the loan on invocation

All-in-cost
ceilings over 6 month Libor for the respective currency of borrowing or
applicable benchmark

Up to three
years

200 basis
points

Three years and up to five years

300 basis
points

More than five years

500 basis
points

(vi) In case of default
and if the loan is serviced in Indian Rupees, the applicable rate of
interest would be the coupon of the bonds or 250 bps over the prevailing
secondary market yield of 5 years Government of India security, as on the
date of novation, whichever is higher;

(vii) IFCs proposing to
avail of the credit enhancement facility should comply with the eligibility
criteria and prudential norms laid down in the Circular DNBS.PD.CC No.
168/03.02.089/ 2009-10, dated February 12, 2010 and in case the novated loan
is designated in foreign currency, the IFC should hedge the entire foreign
currency exposure; and

(viii) The reporting
arrangements as applicable to the ECBs would be applicable to the novated
loans.



levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 39, dated 2-3-2010 — External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI / FEMA


Given below are the
highlights of certain RBI Circulars.

13 A.P.
(DIR Series) Circular No. 39, dated 2-3-2010 — External Commercial Borrowings (ECB)
Policy.

Presently, Non-Banking
Finance Companies (NBFC) which are exclusively engaged in financing of
infrastructure sector are permitted to avail of ECB from recognised lenders,
including international banks, under the approval route, for on-lending to the
infrastructure sector.

This Circular states that
with the coming into existence of separate category of NBFC viz. Infrastructure
Finance Companies (IFC) vide guidelines contained in Circular DNBS.PD.CC No.
168/03.02.089/2009-10, dated February 12, 2010, NBFC are no longer permitted to
avail ECB for on-lending to the infrastructure sector.

IFC can avail of ECB for
on-lending to the infrastructure sector after obtaining RBI permission under the
‘approval route’, subject to the following conditions :


(i) Compliance with the
norms prescribed in the aforesaid DNBS Circular, dated February 12, 2010;

(ii) Hedging of the
currency risk in full; and

(iii) The total
outstanding ECBs including the proposed ECB not exceeding 50% of the Owned
Funds.



levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 38, dated 2-3-2010 — External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI / FEMA


Given below are the
highlights of certain RBI Circulars.

12 A.P.
(DIR Series) Circular No. 38, dated 2-3-2010 — External Commercial Borrowings (ECB)
Policy.

Presently, infrastructure
sector is defined as (i)
power, (ii) telecommunication, (iii) railways, (iv) road including bridges, (v)
sea port and airport, (vi) industrial parks, (vii) urban infrastructure (water
supply, sanitation and sewage projects), and (viii) mining, exploration and
refining.

This Circular had enlarged
the definition of infrastructure sector to include “cold storage or cold-room
facility, including for farm-level pre-cooling, for preservation or storage of
agricultural and allied produce, marine products and meat”. As a result,
infrastructure sector will now include :


(i) power, (ii)
telecommunication,

(iii) railways,

(iv) road including
bridges,

(v) sea port and
airport,

(vi) industrial parks,

(vii) urban
infrastructure (water supply, sanitation and sewage projects),

(viii) mining,
exploration and refining, and

(ix) cold storage or
coldroom facility, including for farm-level pre-cooling, for preservation or
storage of agricultural and allied produce, marine products and meat.



levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 36, dated 24-2-2010 — Overseas Investment Application — Online Reporting of Overseas Direct Investment in Form ODI.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

Part C : RBI / FEMA


Given below are the
highlights of certain RBI Circulars.

11 A.P.
(DIR Series) Circular No. 36, dated 24-2-2010 — Overseas Investment Application
— Online Reporting of Overseas Direct Investment in Form ODI.

This Circular states that
online reporting system in respect of Overseas Direct Investment — Form ODI has
been operationalised in a phased manner from March 2, 2010. The online
application form is available on the Secured Internet Website of RBI at —
https://secweb.rbi.org.in.

Physical copy of the said
online application bearing the Unique Identification Number (UIN) will also have
to be filed with the bank.

levitra

VAT-1510/CR 47/Taxation-1, dated 10-3-2010 read with its corrigendum VAT-1510/CR 47/Taxation-1, dated 17-3-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

10
VAT-1510/CR 47/Taxation-1, dated 10-3-2010 read with its corrigendum VAT-1510/CR
47/Taxation-1, dated 17-3-2010.


By this Notification, rates
of MVAT have been increased for many items of Schedule-C from existing 4% to 5%
w.e.f. 1-4-2010.

levitra

Tax treatment of goods sent to other States — Trade Circular No. 12T of 2010, dated 22-3-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

MVAT Circulars


9 Tax
treatment of goods sent to other States — Trade Circular No. 12T of 2010, dated
22-3-2010.

It is clarified that
requirement of F-Forms in transactions in respect of job work and goods return
would be applicable prospectively from the date of Trade Circular 2T of 2010
i.e., 11th January 2010.

levitra

Increase in rate of tax Schedule-C — Clarification — Trade Circular No. 11T of 2010, dated 17-3-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

MVAT Circulars


For CST in Form-IIIE challan
portion is now deleted and a separate challan MTR-6 is now provided for
E-payments as well as manual payments under the CST Act.

8 Increase
in rate of tax Schedule-C — Clarification — Trade Circular No. 11T of 2010,
dated 17-3-2010.

It is clarified that fabrics
and sugars which were tax-free prior to issue of the Notification No.
VAT-1510/CR 47/Taxation-1, dated 10-3-2010 continue to remain as tax-free.

levitra

Optional scheme for electronic payment of VAT and CST : Trade Circular No. 10T of 2010, dated 15-3-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

MVAT Circulars


7 Optional
scheme for electronic payment of VAT and CST : Trade Circular No. 10T of 2010,
dated 15-3-2010.

A dealer who desires to make
payment of VAT, interest or penalty under the MVAT Act, 2002 electronically can
use Challan MTR-6. For manual payments Form-210 continues. Facility for
E-payment is not available for payments under the erstwhile BST Act. Procedural
modalities of E-refunds under the MVAT Act, 2002 will be notified in due course.

For CST in Form-IIIE challan
portion is now deleted and a separate challan MTR-6 is now provided for
E-payments as well as manual payments under the CST Act.

levitra

Extension of date for applying for CST declarations for the periods prior to 1-4-2008 : Trade Circular No. 9T of 2010, dated 12-3-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

MVAT Circulars

6 Extension
of date for applying for CST declarations for the periods prior to 1-4-2008 :
Trade Circular No. 9T of 2010, dated 12-3-2010.

Application for obtaining
CST declarations for all the periods prior to 1-4-2008 can be made on or before
30-4-2010. Such applications should be made manually (on CD) and not online.
Such applications shall not be accepted after 30-4-2010.

levitra

Compulsory e-payment of service tax and filing of Notification No. 01/2010 — Dated 19-2-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

5 Compulsory
e-payment of service tax and filing of Notification No. 01/2010 — Dated
19-2-2010.


By this Notification,
service tax rules have been amended w.e.f. 1-4-2010 to provide that a service
tax assessee who has in the preceding financial year, paid total service tax,
including amount paid by utilisation of CENVAT credit, of Rs.10 lakhs or more,
shall deposit service tax electronically through Internet banking and shall also
file the return electronically.

levitra

CBDT Instruction No. 3/2010, dated 23-3-2010 — Allowing losses on account of forex derivatives under the Income-tax Act, 1961 — reg — F. No. 225/143/2009-ITA.II.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

4 CBDT
Instruction No. 3/2010, dated 23-3-2010 — Allowing losses on account of forex
derivatives under the Income-tax Act, 1961 — reg — F. No. 225/143/2009-ITA.II.

Foreign exchange derivative
transactions entered into by the corporate sector in India have witnessed a
substantial growth in recent years. This combined with extreme volatility in the
foreign exchange market in the last financial year is reported to have resulted
in substantial losses to an assessee on account of trading in forex derivatives.
A large number of assessees are said to be reporting such losses on ‘marked to
market’ basis either suo motu or in compliance of the Accounting Standard or
advisory Circular issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The issue
whether such losses on account of forex derivatives can be allowed against the
taxable income of an assessee has been considered by the Board. In this
connection, I am directed to say that the Assessing Officers may follow the
guidelines given below :

‘Marked to Market Losses’ :

2. ‘Marked to Market’ is in
substance a methodology of assigning value to a position held in a financial
instrument based on its market price on the closing day of the accounting or
reporting record. Essentially, ‘Marked to Market’ is a concept under which
financial instruments are valued at market rate so as to report their actual
value on the reporting date. This is required from the point of view of
transparent accounting practices for the benefit of the shareholders of the
company and its other stakeholders. Where companies make such an adjustment
through their Trading or Profit/Loss Account, they book a corresponding loss
(i.e., the difference between the purchase price and the value as on the
valuation date) in their accounts. This loss is a notional loss as no
sale/conclusion/settlement of contract has taken place and the asset continues
to be owned by the company.

A ‘Marked to Market’ loss
may be given different accounting treatment by different assessees. Some may
reflect such loss as a balance sheet item without making any corresponding
adjustment in the Profit and Loss Account. Other may book the loss in the Profit
and Loss Account which may result in the reduction of book profit. In cases
where no sale or settlement has actually taken place and the loss on Marked to
Market basis has resulted in reduction of book profits, such a notional loss
would be contingent in nature and cannot be allowed to be set off against the
taxable income. The same should therefore be added back for the purpose of
computing the taxable income of an assessee.

3.
Treatment of loss from actual transactions in forex derivatives :

In a case where a loss on a
forex derivative transaction arises on actual settlement/conclusion of contract
and is not a notional or Marked to Market book entry, a further question will
arise as to whether such a loss is on account of a speculative transaction as
contemplated in S. 43(5) of the Income-tax Act. For determining whether loss
from a transaction in respect of a forex derivative is a speculatidn loss or
not, the Assessing Officers may refer to proviso (d) below Ss.(5) of S. 43
inserted by the Finance Act, 2005, with effect from 1-4-2006. It lays down that
any ‘eligible transaction’ in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in
clause (ac) of S. 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, that has
been carried out in a recognised stock exchange shall not be treated as a
speculative transaction. Further, an ‘eligible transaction’ for this purpose
would be one that fulfils the conditions laid down in Explanation to S.
43(5)(d). Any loss in a speculative transaction can be set off only against
profit from speculative transactions.

As the revenue implications
of such transaction are large, the Assessing Officers need to examine the
statements of accounts and the notes to accounts with a view to find out any
reference to any loss on account of forex derivatives. In some cases, these
losses may be camouflaged under the ‘financial charges’, ‘foreign exchange loss’
or some similar head which may make it difficult to detect them. In such cases,
the Assessing Officers should make a specific query asking the assessee to give
a break-up of any ‘Marked to Market’ loss on forex derivatives included in the
Profit and Loss Account and examine whether such transactions are ‘eligible
transaction’ in terms of S. 43(5)(d). An adjustment to the taxable income may
therefore be made, if necessary, keeping in view the provisions of law referred
to above.

levitra

CBDT Instruction No. 1/2010, dated 25-2-2010 — Processing of returns of A.Y. 2008-09 — Steps to clear the backlog.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

3 CBDT
Instruction No. 1/2010, dated 25-2-2010 — Processing of returns of A.Y. 2008-09
— Steps to clear the backlog.


The issue of processing of
I.T. returns for the A.Y. 2008-09 and giving credit for TDS has recently been
considered by the Board and the following decisions have been taken in order to
clear the backlog of returns pending for processing :


(i) In all the returns
filed in ITR-1 and ITR-2 for the A.Y. 2008-09, where the aggregate TDS claim
does not exceed Rs.4 lakh and where the refund computed does not exceed
Rs.25,000, the TDS claim of the taxpayer concerned should be accepted at the
time of processing of the return.

(ii) In all the returns
filed in forms other than ITR-1 and ITR-2 for the A.Y. 2008-09, where the
aggregate TDS claim does not exceed Rs.4 lakh and the refund computed does
not exceed Rs.25,000, and there is 70% matching of TDS amount claimed, the
TDS claim of the tax-payer concerned should be accepted at the time of
processing of the return.

(iii) In all remaining
cases, TDS credit shall be given after due verification.



levitra

Income-tax (First Amendment) Rules, 2010 — Notification No. 9/2010, dated 18-2-2010.

fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

2 Income-tax
(First Amendment) Rules, 2010 — Notification No. 9/2010, dated 18-2-2010.

Rules 30, 31 and 31A
providing time and mode of payment of TDS/TCS and issue of certificates of TDS/TCS,
quarterly returns of TDS/TCS are substituted. The CBDT had made certain
amendments on 25th March 2009 in respect of TDS/TCS payments and related
compliance requirements. The CBDT has now reintroduced the erstwhile Income-tax
Rules which prevailed before enacting the above said amendments, with a few
changes with effect from 1st April 2009.

levitra