The schedule, followed for several decades, is that the Budget receives Parliament’s nod of approval by the first week of May. A lot happens during the nine weeks between the presentation of the Budget on the last working day of February and its passage in the first week of May. Various parliamentary committees examine Budget provisions and present their findings to the Finance Minister. Also, members of the two Houses get an opportunity to discuss the various provisions in the Finance Bill and even make useful suggestions on the expenditure programmes of a few central ministries. There is, of course, a short recess in between. But that only allows the parliamentary committees to complete their scrutiny of the Budget and table their reports before the two Houses.
Month: April
CORRUPTION FUND OF INDIA
Though a regular reader of the BCAJ, it is ironical that only last month that I had an opportunity to look into the “Cancerous Corruption” series when the Editor contacted me regarding publishing one of my articles on Corruption Audits in the Journal. That article has since been published, but it set me thinking on a concept which grew in my find but which requires a larger forum to brain-storm. I felt that the BCAJ is the ideal forum.
Consolidated Fund of India:
Readers may be aware of the Consolidated Fund of India. All revenues received by the Government by way of taxation like income tax, central excise, custom, land revenue (tax revenues) and other receipts flowing to the Government in connection with the conduct of Government business-like receipts from railways, posts, transport, etc. (non-tax revenues) are credited into the Consolidated Fund. Similarly, all loans raised by the Government by issue of public notifications, treasury bills (internal debt) and loans obtained from foreign governments and international monetary institutions (external debt) and all moneys received by the Government in repayment of loans and interest thereon are also credited into this Fund. All expenditure incurred by the Government for the conduct of its business including repayment of internal and external debt and release of loans to the States/Union Territory Governments for various purposes is debited against this Fund.
Corruption Fund of India (CFI):
Just like the Consolidated Fund of India, we should think of creating a Corruption Fund of India (CFI). Let’s assume the population of India to be 120 crore people and give a 50% allowance for children, elders and the poor who cannot be included in the list of contributors. That gives us 60 crore persons. Lets also assume that each person is asked to contribute Rs.100 annually to the CFI, we target an amount of Rs.6000 crores. Giving a further allowance of 50% for persons who are either unable or unwilling to pay, we end up with Rs.3000 crores. This target can be met with higher contributions from willing contributors and smaller ones from the hesitant. The Government should make a matching contribution from the Consolidated Fund of India giving us a kitty of Rs.6000 crores.
Utilisation of CFI amounts: CFI funds can be used in various ways:
1. It is often felt that negligible salaries and meagre allowances trigger corruption. Increasing the salaries and allowances of a certain sect of people who are habitually corrupt could be done from these funds. A ‘top-down’ approach — starting with the people who are suspected of corruption — should be adopted here with the goal that the salaries and allowances should be liberal enough to deter indulging in corruption.
2. The funds can also be used for setting up Special Corruption Courts. It is no secret that today’s judicial system can easily be overridden and trial of the guilty can take years. The Special Corruption Courts would take immediate action against the guilty.
3. The funds can also be used to disseminate information about corruption — the methods employed, action taken against the guilty and steps to minimise them.
4. Conducting special audits in corruption-prone areas such as government tenders, etc.
5. Pre-audits of events of special significance such as international gaming events, etc.
The above list is only representative. Other avenues to utilise the funds to spread awareness can be identified as we go along.
Why should the taxpayer contribute ? This is a question that has to be and would be asked. It is a fact that corruption has become so entrenched in the system that the Government alone may not be able to do much single-handedly since many of the constituents can be guilty themselves. A mass movement is required to create an impact. Taxpayers in the past have contributed to natural calamities and other disasters. Corruption is a national calamity of epic proportions. Contributions to the fund should qualify for a 100% deduction u/s.80G of the Income-tax Act.
Other details:
The CFI should be a body that is set up with reputed people with an impeccable public record. (thankfully, they still exist !) businessmen, judges, academicians can comprise the Board who should run CFI with no interference from the Government. The accounts and other activities would be made public irrespective of the status of the entity.
Brainstorming: The author understands that the above is overly ambitious (probably impractical too) and would meet huge obstacles. It would also have staunch opponents. However, one needs to make a beginning somewhere and this forum can be used to brainstorm on this issue. Even better, BCAJ can organise an open-house on this topic.
READERS’ VIEWS
(viii) Campus Placement for Articled Assistants: Board of Studies of ICAI has introduced campus placement scheme for selection of Articled Assistants by C.A. Firms. This is in addition to the Online Placement Service already available at http://bosapp. icai.org The campus placement will be held between 15th and 30th April, 2011 in cities viz. Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune, Bangalore, Chennai, Ernakulam, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Indore, Jaipur, Kanpur, Ghaziabad, Chandigarh and New Delhi.
(Refer C.A. Students Journal for March, 2011, Page 33)
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Vision To partner in the nation building process through progressive tax policy, efficient and effective administration and improved voluntary compliance.
Mission
To formulate progressive tax policies
To make compliance easy
To enforce tax laws with fairness
To deliver quality services
To continuously upgrade skills and build a professional and motivated workforce
We Believe in
equity and transparency;
promoting taxpayer awareness towards voluntary compliance;
effective deterrence against tax evasion;
continuous research as the foundation of tax policy and administration; and
adopting technology as an enabler for im proved service deliver
This charter is issued on 24th of July 2010, revisiting the earlier charter issued in July 2007. In the preparation of this charter, consultations have been held with all stakeholders. This charter re ects the best endeavor of the Department. The Department intends to review the charter within a period of three years.
Expectations from Taxpayers
We expect our taxpayers:
• to be truthful and prompt in meeting all legal obligations;
• to pay taxes in time;
• to obtain PAN and quote it in all documents and correspondence;
• to obtain TAN for every unit and quote it in all documents and correspondence;
• to quote correct tax payment/deduction particulars in tax returns;
• to verify credits in tax credit statements;
Service Delivery Standards We aspire to provide the following key services within specied timelines:
|
Sl. No. |
Key Services |
Timelines |
|
|
|
(From the end of the month in which return/ |
|
|
|
application |
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Issue of refund along with interest u/s |
|
|
|
(a) in case of electronically led returns |
6 months |
|
|
(b) other returns |
9 |
|
2. |
Issue of refund |
|
|
|
other than section |
1 |
|
3. |
Decision on |
2 |
|
4. |
Giving effect to appellate/revision order |
1 month |
|
5. |
Acknowledgement of |
|
|
|
electronic media or |
Immediate |
|
6. |
Decision on |
|
|
|
for tax payment or for grant of installment |
1 month |
|
7. |
Issue of Tax |
Within |
|
|
of the I.T. Act |
date |
|
8. |
Decision on |
|
|
|
to provident |
3 |
|
9. |
Decision on |
12 |
|
|
or continuance |
|
|
|
(University, School, Hospital etc.) under |
|
|
|
of the I.T. Act |
|
|
10. |
Decision on |
|
|
|
under section 10(23AAA) of the I.T. Act |
3 months |
|
|
|
|
|
Sl. No. |
Key Services |
Timelines |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(From the end of the month in which return/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
application |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
11. |
|
Decision on application for registration of |
|
||
|
|
|
charitable or religious trust or institution |
4 |
||
|
12. |
|
Decision on application for approval of |
|
||
|
|
|
hospitals in respect of medical treatment of |
3 |
||
|
13. |
|
Decision on application for grant of |
|
||
|
|
|
to institution or fund under section |
4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
14. |
|
Decision on application for no deduction |
|
||
|
|
|
of tax or deduction of tax at lower rate |
1 |
||
|
15. |
|
Redressal of grievance |
2 |
||
|
16. |
|
Decision on application for transfer of case |
|
||
|
|
|
from one charge to another |
2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• to le complete & correct returns, within the due dates and in appropriate tax jurisdictions;
• to quote correctly Bank Account Number, MICR Code and
• other Bank details in the returns of income;
• to intimate change of address to the tax authorities concerned;
• to intimate any change in PAN particulars to designated agency; and
• to quote PAN of all deductees in the TDS Return We Endeavour
• to promote voluntary compliance;
• to educate tax payers and citizens about tax laws;
• to provide information, forms and other assistance
• at the facilitation counters and also on website www.incometaxindia.gov.in;
• to continuously improve service delivery;
• to induct state-of-the-art and green technology with a user friendly interface; and
• to inculcate a healthy tax culture where the taxpayers and
• the tax collectors discharge their obligations with a sense of responsibility towards nation building. Grievance Redressal
• All grievances received will be redressed within two months from the end of the month of their receipt.
• Petitions on un-redressed grievances led before next higher authority will be decided within 15 working days of receipt.
• The taxpayer can approach the Income Tax Ombudsman in case of un-redressed grievance. • The grievance redressal mechanism including contact details of Public Grievance O cers are available on the website www.incometaxindia. gov.in
IS IT FAIR TO LEVY MAT
i. Collection of revenue for the State in a manner to reduce the inequality in the distribution of wealth, and
ii. Using it as a fiscal tool for channelisation of the economy into desired sectors.
The first objective is achieved by enacting the Direct Taxes Laws and empowering the State to alter the tax rates annually while preparing the Budget for the ensuing financial year. The second objective is achieved by providing various tax incentives in the form of tax holiday (deduction or exemption), accelerated depreciation, etc. Needless to mention that various tax incentives provided by the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) have contributed to a large extent in the development of the Indian economy to bring it to its present state.
The above two objectives are conflicting with each other, in a way. Hence a proper balance has to be maintained between the two. But this is often lost sight of by the law-makers.
A typical example is levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on book profits of companies. MAT was introduced for the first time in India u/s.115J by the Finance Act, 1987 and later removed, reintroduced and amended from time to time. This article is intended to raise a basic question whether levy of MAT is at all justified in the light of the second objective stated above.
The advocates of MAT basically give the argument that corporates should not be allowed to have two faces — one for the shareholders and the other for the State. In simple words, when they have huge profits in books of account but no or lesser ‘total income’ under ‘the Act’, they should pay MAT. But then, how did the corporates have no or lesser ‘total income’ under ‘the Act’? It was only because of tax incentives given by the State. For example, a company engaged in development of infrastructure facility is allowed a 100% deduction of profits derived from such business for a period of 10 consecutive years out of a total period of 20 years. Now assuming that it is the sole business of the company, its ‘total income’ under ‘the Act’ shall be nil (subject of course to the enormous litigation on the word ‘derived from’) but will have a positive book profits, on which it has to pay MAT @ 18%. It indirectly implies that deduction allowed u/s.80IA becomes only 40%. This result could have been achieved by simply amending section 80IA and restricting the deduction to 40% (Tax on 60% of the profits @ 30% is nothing but MAT of 18% on 100% profits). The same situation can be visualised in several other tax incentives like:
i. Deduction u/s.80IB to u/s.80IE
ii. Deduction u/s.10A, u/s.10B & u/s.10AA
iii. Additional depreciation @ 20% for new machineries (for manufacturers)
iv. Allowance of capital cost u/s.35AD for eligible business (obviously in books, these exp. will be capitalised giving rise to huge difference between book profits and total income)
v. Weighted deduction of 175% or 200% for R&D
vi. LTCG u/s.10(38) [when it is said that exemption u/s.10(38) is in lien of STT, where comes the need for MAT on such LTCG for corporates, as if they don’t pay STT?]
vii. Exemption u/s.54EC or u/s.54D or u/s.54G or u/s.54GA.
viii. Subsequent deduction u/s.40(a)(ia) or u/s.43B because of late compliance.
If the above situations are to be taxed anyway, then those sections themselves can be amended or deleted. No doubt, MAT credit is allowed to be carried forward u/s.115JAA; but its utilisation in future is subject to many contingencies and restrictions and we accountants are well aware of the time value of money.
We must debate on the question whether it is justified to levy MAT on book profits especially on tax incentives like 10AA or 80IA, etc.? I believe, it is a violation of the principle of ‘Promissory Estoppel’ ! ! !
New Rules for the availability of names have been issued by the Central Government ‘Companies (Name Availability) Rules, 2011’.
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Companies_ rules_15Mar2011.pdf
The following Notifications for affecting sections 5, 6, 20, 29, 30 & 31 of Competition Act have been issued vide Notification dated 4-3-2011.
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 54 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Central Government, in public interest, hereby exempts an enterprise, whose control, shares, voting rights or assets are being acquired has assets of the value of not more than Rs.250 crores or turnover of not more than RS.750 crores from the provisions of section 5 of the said Act for a period of five years.
2. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 54 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Central Government, in public interest, hereby exempts the ‘Group’ exercising less than 50% of voting rights in other enterprise from the provisions of section 5 of the said Act for a period of five years.
3. In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 1 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st day of June, 2011 as the date on which sections 5, 6, 20, 29, 30 and section 31 of the said Act shall come into force.
4. In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 20, of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Central Government, in consultation with the Competition Commission of India, hereby enhance, on the basis of the wholesale price index, the value of assets and the value of turnover, by 50% for the purposes of section 5 of the said Act.
Please visit MCA website for complete text of the notification:
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/notification/pdf/ Notification_4mar2011(4).pdf
Simplification of DIN Rules.
1. Application for DIN will be made on eForm. No physical submission of documents shall be accepted and for this purpose. Scanned documents along with verification by the applicant will be attached with the eForm. Only online fee payment will be allowed i.e., No challan payment.
2. The application can also be submitted online by the applicant himself using his DSC.
3. DIN 1 eForm can be digitally signed by the professional who shall also confirm that he has verified the particulars of the applicant given in the application.
4. Where the DIN 1 is verified by the professional, the DIN will be approved by the system immediately online.
5. In other cases the DIN cell will examine the application and the same shall be disposed of within one or two days.
6. Companies (Directors Identification Number) Rules, 2006 are being amended on the above lines.
7. Penal action against the applicant and professional certifying the DIN application in case of false information/certification as per provisions of section 628 of the Act will be taken in addition to action for professional misconduct and revocation of DIN, allotted on false information.
8. The above procedures is expected to enable allotment of DIN on the same day.
9. The above procedures applies to filing of DIN 4 intimating changes in particulars of Directors.
A Notification to notify the aforesaid procedure is being issued. After issue of necessary Notification, the applicant/professionals/DIN cell are advised to follow the notified procedures for allotment of DIN.
Please visit MCA website for complete text of the Circular: http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ Circular_04Mar2011.pdf
Process of incorporation of companies (Form-1) and establishment of principal place of business in India by foreign companies (Form-44) — Procedure simplified.
General Circular No. 6/2011 — In order to speed up and simplify the process of incorporation of companies and establishment of principal place of business in India by foreign companies for reduction in time taken by Registrar of Companies, the belowmentioned procedure has been recommended:
1. Only Form 1 shall be approved by the ROC Office Form 18 and 32 shall be processed by the system online.
2. There shall be one more category, i.e., Incorporation Forms (Form 1A, Form 37, 39, 44 and 68) which will have the highest priority for approval.
3. Average time taken for incorporation of company should be reduced to one (1) day only.
A Notification to notify minor changes in e-forms 18 and 32 to enable them to be taken on record through STP mode for aforesaid procedure is being issued separately. Please visit MCA website for complete text of the circular: http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ Circular_6-2011_8mar2011.pdf
Payment of MCA fees — Only in electronic mode — Up to Rs.50000 w.e.f. 27-3-2011.
In the interest of stakeholders, with a view to improving service delivery time, the Ministry has decided to accept payments of value up to Rs.50,000, for MCA 21 services, only in electronic mode w.e.f. 27th March, 2011.
For the payments of value above Rs.50,000, stakeholders would have the option to either make the payment in electronic mode, or paper challan. However such payments would also be made in electronic mode w.e.f. 1st October, 2011.
Please visit MCA website for complete text of the circular: http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ Circular_9mar2011.pdf
Exemption from taking Central Government for managerial remuneration.
1% of net profit of the company if it has one or more whole-time director
3% of the net profits of the company if it does not have a managing director or whole-time director(s). Please visit MCA website for complete text of the Circular: http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ Circular_4-2011_4mar2011.pdf
Indian Accounting Standards converged with IFRS — Notified.
The MCA has notified thirty five Indian Accounting Standards (Ind-AS) converged with International Financial Reporting Standards and placed them on its website. The date of implementation of the Ind- AS will be notified by the MCA at a later date.
Revised Schedule VI
General exemption under section 211 for companies
Please visit the MCA website for the complete text of the press release:
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/press/press/Press_ Note_No.2_08feb2011.pdf
General exemption under Section 211 for public financial institutions (PFIs).
However, this exemption is subject to fulfilment of certain conditions and PFIs will need to give disclosures required in the release. Please visit MCA website for complete text of the press release:
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/press/press/Press_ Note_No.5_08feb2011.pdf
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 45, dated 15-3-2011 — Introduction of annual return on foreign liabilities and assets reporting by Indian companies and discontinuation of the Part B of Form FC-GPR.
However, from this year onwards filing of Part B is being discontinued and in its place a separate ‘Annual Return on Foreign Liabilities and Assets’ is to be submitted by 15th July of every year to the Director, Balance of Payment Statistics Division, Department of Statistics and Information Management (DSIM), Reserve Bank of India, C-9, 8th floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. This new return is to be submitted by all the Indian companies which have received FDI and/or made overseas investment (ODI) in the previous year(s) including the current year.
The new Form is given as Annex-I and the concepts and definitions is given as Annex-II to this Circular.
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 41, dated 11-2-2011 — Deferred Payment Protocols dated 30th April, 1981 and 23rd December, 1985 between Government of India and erstwhile USSR.
Point of Taxation (Amendment) Rules, 2011 and other amendments – Notification Nos. 22 / 2011 to 27/2011 – Service Tax all dated 31st March, 2011
• Amendments have been brought about in the manner of valuation and composition scheme for services in relation to sale of foreign currencies. These amendments are effective from 1st April 2011.
• Substantial changes were made in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further amendments are proposed to permit the claim of credit on the basis of invoices rather than on the basis of payments. These amendments are effective from 1st April 2011.
• Substantial changes are made in the Point of Taxation Rules. 2011. While in general, the point of taxation has been shifted to the earliest of invoicing or receipt of advance, in the following cases, the receipt basis for payment of tax is being continued: a. Services rendered by specified professionals (CAs, CWAs, CSs, Interior Decorators, Advocates, Architects, Scientific Testing, etc.) b. Services subjected to reverse charge mechanism (subject to condition of receipt of payment within specified period) c. Export of Services (subject to condition of receipt of payment in specified period)
• It is further provided that the new rules will not apply in cases where the services are rendered prior to 31.03.2011. Further, an assessee can opt to defer the applicability of the new rules to 01.07.2011. An option is granted to discharge the service tax on receipt basis upto 30. 06. 2011.
• An adjustment is provided for deficiency of service but no adjustment is provided on account of bad debts.
• CENVAT Credit on input services can be availed on the basis of supplementary invoices. This amendment is effective from 01.04.2011. For details visit: http://www.servicetax.gov.in/stnotfns- home.htm
Scrutiny norms for small taxpayers and senior citizens — Press Release dated 14-3-2011.
Changes in conditions to be fulfilled by a recognised Stock Exchange — Incometax (First Amendment) Rules, 2011 dated 4-3-2011.
United Stock Exchange of India notified as a recognised stock exchange.
I-T to make staff’s work less taxing
The number of income taxpayers in the country is about 35 million. It is expected to reach around 80 million by 2015. Considering that a substantial number of taxpayers file returns manually, managing records has become a major task for the Department.
The Department says it requires about 12,000 officials just for scrutiny cases. At present, around 4,000 officials are handling 7,00,000 scrutiny cases a year.
Curbing the lust for litigation
In more than one-third of the litigation in India’s Courts, the government is a party. In criminal cases, it cannot be avoided. According to one estimate, the government is involved in 10 million cases. No wonder, the Union Law Minister and Attorney General have described the government as a ‘compulsive’ litigant.
Some Supreme Court Judges also echoed this sentiment, in stronger terms. They criticised the government for resorting to prolonged litigation on ‘trivial’ issues, and pointed out that not only did this waste the judiciary’s time but also caused the public exchequer a ‘colossal’ loss.
While unveiling a tantalising vision statement last year, the Law Minister recognised the problem and promised to turn the government from a ‘compulsive to a responsible and reluctant litigant’. The government proposed to entrust the task of weeding out senseless litigation from the government’s docket to top law officers — the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. They now have a full-fledged office in central Delhi, assisted by 52 lawyers and 26 law researchers. Statistics on pending matters have been called from government departments including public sector undertakings.
Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati has also commented on the government’s unhealthy urge to litigate. “It cannot be denied that government has become a compulsive litigant. There are several reasons for this. The Law Commission identified various reasons why the government became an irresponsible litigant. It said that in most cases, government litigated because of the utter indifference on the part of civil servants,” he said at recent conference. “Sometimes, the government pursued litigation as a matter of prestige, with an attitude of vengeance. In several cases, the officials had an attitude of arrogance and a superiority complex in litigating. It is easy to file a case in Court and leave it to the Courts to decide. One obvious reason to do so is to avoid the necessity of taking decisions, some of which can be awkward.”
Meanwhile, a five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court last week scrapped a scheme under which state-run enterprises had to resolve their disputes through an internal mechanism. In its judgment in the case, (‘ONGC cases’) in 1995, 2004 and 2007, the government set up a committee to settle the disputes so that they did not rush to the Court.
Let’s fast-track the process of subsidy reform
India works on EU for ayurveda lifeline
Indian growth rate — The new normal
This is significant, especially as it comes from Subbarao, known to choose his words carefully. What he is trying to say is that unless the current bottlenecks in the economy are fixed, the Indian economy will have to get used to a much lower rate of growth than what it recently experienced: 9%.
In other words, this is going to be the new normal. It is more than double the low growth rate trap that India found itself in the 1970s — the so-called Hindu rate of growth — but lower than the ideal.
The writing is on the wall: reform or perish. Low growth will hit tax buoyancy and curb spending, especially for the raft of inclusive measures. But is the UPA listening?
Asked for bribe? You can appeal Babu’s acquittal
“In our view a restricted meaning cannot be given to the word victim,’’ said the judges, adding, “In a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the inaction or omission on the part of the public servant of not passing any order on an application or passing an adverse order since bribe is not given would constitute the loss or injury and therefore, even such a complainant would fall within the category of a victim.’’
The Court was hearing a petition filed by 38-yearold Kurla resident B. U. Batteli, who had dragged the state anti-corruption bureau to Court and had sought permission under the 2009 CrPC amendments to challenge the acquittal of two government officers in a corruption case that he had lodged against them. Earlier, under the CrPC only the prosecution agency could give the go-ahead to file an appeal in any criminal case.
‘Putting value to time may diminish your happiness’
The results indicate this mindset may affect our ability to enjoy leisure time, and they have implications for our ability to ‘smell the proverbial roses’, study authors Sanford DeVoe and Julian House were quoted as saying by Live Science. They pointed out that national surveys have shown that while the number of leisure hours has increased in the US over the past 50 years, there has been no accompanying increase in happiness. Instead, people report feeling more time pressure, they said.
The study also found that when participants were paid to listen to music, after being prompted to think about their time in terms of money, they derived more enjoyment from the experience.
Notified rate of interest on Special Deposit Scheme for Non-Government Provident, Superannuation and Gratuity Funds.
dated 13-3-2012.
‘PAY Later’ option for payment of ROC fees.
In principle approval required for registration of Companies/LLP’s having one of their objects as to carry on the profession of Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant, Architect, Company Secretary, etc.
Extension of time for filing PAN details for DIN (Allotment of Director’s Identification) under Companies Act, 1956.
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 95, dated 21- 3-2012 —Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2000 — Credit to Non- Resident (External) Rupee Accounts.
This Circular now permits repayment of such loans to be credited to the NRE/Foreign Currency Non- Resident (Bank) [FCNR(B)] account of the lender provided the loan was extended by way of inward remittance in foreign exchange through normal banking channels or by debit to the NRE/FCNR(B) account of the lender and the lender is eligible to open NRE/ FCNR(B) account.
Speed up the judicial system
The condition of most Courts can reduce the hardiest undertrial to tears: the buildings are dilapidated and infrastructure hasn’t been upgraded for near to a century. This has to change. The government is flush with funds, and some of that has to be used to improve physical infrastructure in Courts. Over 3,000 judicial posts are vacant, mainly in the lower Courts, and these positions must be filled quickly. Today, the job of hiring judicial officers is with state and central governments. But their track record is abysmal and the goal of having 50 Judges per million Indians, stated nearly nine years ago, still looks distant. Governments are not doing a decent job of hiring judicial officers, particularly state governments. It is time to create an Indian judicial service, on the lines of the administrative and police services. That’s an idea that has been discussed in the past, but never implemented. There is little justification for delaying the proposal any further. Justice delayed is justice denied. In India, the denial of justice has become endemic, and that must stop. Delivering justice on time is a vital instrument of inclusive growth, with the potential to check the rampant misuse of social power that works against the poor, in the absence of legal restraint.
CAs and insider trading — ‘guilty unles proven otherwise’ — deeming provisions
position of regularly being susceptible to the temptation of insider
trading. It is then not surprising that the strictest of deeming
provisions are made to ensure that they and others in similar position
are presumed guilty in many ways unless they can rebut the charge.
CAs
are often not just close to the Company, but they are close to and
involved with the accounts and finance of the Company where most
pricesensitive information arises first. They are thus close whether as
auditors, working in finance or accounts, advising as merchant bankers,
etc. Furthermore, the financial and analytical skills of CAs make them
more capable in visualising the implications of such information on the
market price than other insiders.
The Securities Appellate Tribunal in Shri E. Sudhir Reddy v. SEBI (decided on 16-12-2011) had observed:
“.
. . . The directors of the company or for that matter even
professionals like CAs and Advocates advising the company on its
business-related activities are privy to the performance of the company
and come in possession of information which is not in public domain.
Knowledge of such unpublished price-sensitive information in the hands
of persons connected to the company puts them in an advantageous
position over the ordinary shareholders and the general public. Such
information can be used to make gains by buying shares anticipating rise
in the price of the scrip or it can also be used to protect themselves
against losses by selling the shares before the price falls. Such
trading by the insider is not based on level playing field and is
detrimental to the interest of the ordinary shareholders of the company
and general public. It is with a view to curb such practices that
section 12A of the SEBI Act makes provisions for prohibiting insider
trading and the Board also framed the Insider Trading Regulations to
curb such practice . . . .”
Oscar Wilde has light-heartedly said
that “The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it”, but
yielding to it is what CAs need to strongly resist.
However, the
focus of this article is to highlight that, over a period of time, the
framework of law relating to insider trading has become so strict as to
become even stifling so much so that it may be advisable for CAs
connected with the Company in any manner to simply not carry out any
trades in the shares of that Company. This may be better than facing a
presumptive charge of insider trading and then having to find evidence
to prove it otherwise.
Let us try to understand some aspects of
the law relating to insider trading to understand the difficulties that
the regulator faces in controlling it, the deeming provisions — perhaps
these are regulatory ‘short-cuts’ — adopted by it and the implications
that insiders particularly CAs face.
Insider trading, loosely
and conceptually understood, is misuse of price-sensitive information by
insiders to trade and profit from it. A simple example is, say, the
Company receives a huge profitable contract. When this information is
published, the price of the shares would go up. But the insiders may buy
the shares of the Company before the information is published and,
after publishing the information when the price goes up, they may sell
the shares at the higher price.
While this is easily understood
conceptually, there are difficulties in proving in law whether there was
insider trading and whether a particular insider was guilty of such
offence. Consider some aspects the law will have to provide for
objectively.
(a) What is insider trading? How to define it? Whom
to cover? What type of transactions to cover? Whether and how to cover
sharing of information?
(b) Whether a particular person an insider? Is he in a position to have access to unpublished pricesensitive information?
(c) Whether particular information price-sensitive? Would it affect the market price if it were published?
(d) Was such price-sensitive information published?
(e)
Did the insider deal in the shares directly or indirectly? Did the
insider communicate the unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI)?
(f) Were the dealings of the insider on the basis of such UPSI? And so on.
It
can be seen even by a cursory glance at such hurdles as also shown by
experience, that they can be difficult to cross and thus insider trading
may be difficult to prohibit and punish. The SEBI characteristically
has used a series of ‘deeming’ provisions whereby a certain state of
affairs is assumed to be true. Consider some examples of this:
(1) Several groups of persons are deemed to be insiders.
(2) Several types of information is deemed to be price-sensitive.
(3)
Information is deemed to be duly published only if it is published in a
particular manner. Even if widely known to the market otherwise, it is
not deemed to be published.
(4) Certain periods before an important
event are assumed to be such where UPSI exists. In effect, as we will
see later, trades during this period are assumed to be insider trading
at least in effect.
(5) Certain transactions of purchase/sale by
specified insiders are deemed to be insider trading and unlike other
deeming provisions such transactions are straight away banned.
(6)
Certain insiders in possession of inside information are deemed to have
acted on the basis of such insider information in carrying out their
trades and thus held guilty of insider trading unless they prove
otherwise.
And so on.
Some of the above
assumptions/deeming provisions are rebuttable in the sense that the
person concerned can demonstrate that, in reality, what is deemed is not
really so. In other cases, the deeming is absolute and non-rebuttable.
The
point being made is that there are numerous provisions whereby a trade
by a person would be deemed to be insider trading and this would be
absolutely held to be so or the person will have to demonstrate that
this is not so. To put it in different words, a person associated with a
listed company may often be held to be guilty unless he proves
otherwise.
It is worth elaborating some of the points made above.
An
insider is defined, in Regulation 2(e) of the SEBI (Prohibition of
Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (‘the Regulations’), to begin with,
to include a ‘connected person’. A connected person includes a director.
Thus an Independent Director is an insider. Further, a person holding a
position involving a professional relationship with the Company is a
connected person and thus auditors and lawyers would be connected
persons and thus insiders.
Then there are persons who are deemed to be connected persons. An example is of a merchant banker.
However,
the additional requirement for the offence of insider trading to happen
is that the connected person should reasonably be expected to have an
access to unpublished price-sensitive information. This is to be
determined obviously by evidence.
A transaction is insider trading if it is carried out when in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (‘UPSI’). While UPSI is defined as information which if published is likely to materially affect the prices of securities of the company, several items of information are deemed to be UPSI. Examples are periodical financial results, any major expansion or execution of new projects, dividends, etc. For such deemed UPSI, the test whether it will materially affect the price of the company is not required to be fulfilled. This may sound strange for financial results where there are no significant changes, where the dividends more or less are as per the past record, etc. A trading on knowledge of such deemed UPSI is insider trading.
If the price-sensitive information is ‘published’, then of course it is no more UPSI. However, information is deemed to be published only if it is published by the Company and is specific in nature. It has been held that the fact that the information may be known to the markets is not generally a valid defence that it is published.
The deeming of certain transactions has been carried to an extreme whereby certain transactions by specified persons in certain situation are straightaway banned clearly on the presumption that these are transactions of insider trading or too near to them.
For example, the concept of trading window is introduced which can be open or closed. It is generally closed in anticipation of certain price-sensitive information being compiled or announced. When it is closed, the employees/directors of the Company are not permitted to trade in the securities of the Company. In this sense, the closed window period is again a period during which it is deemed that transactions that may take place would be insider trading and thus straightaway banned. One cannot carry out a transaction during such period and any attempt to rebut the charge would be virtually impossible.
Further, if an opposite transaction is carried out by directors/officers/designated employees within six months of the earlier transaction, it is effectively deemed to be insider trading and thus absolutely prohibited. Such a transaction too has no rebuttal.
There is a controversy as to whether for a transaction to amount to insider trading, the insider has to merely possess price-sensitive information or the transaction should be on the basis of such price-sensitive informa-tion. The crucial difference is that in the latter case, the onus on SEBI is more as it has to prove a mental element to the transaction. This controversy mainly arises because of mismatch in drafting between the Act and the Regulations. Regulation 3(i) of the Regulations provides that a transaction would be insider trading if an insider carries out while in possession of UPSI. Section 15G of the Act, which levies penalty for insider trading, however, levies penalty if the transaction is carried out on the basis of UPSI. The SAT has held recently in the case of Chandrakala v. SEBI (Appeal No. 209 of 2011 dated 31st January 2012) that once an insider trades while in possession of UPSI, it will be a presumption, albeit rebuttable, that it is ‘on the basis of’ UPSI. It will be up to the insider to prove that it is not so. The SAT observed,:
“The prohibition contained in Regulation 3 of the regulations apply only when an insider trades or deals in securities on the basis of any unpublished price-sensitive information and not otherwise. It means that the trades executed should be motivated by the information in the possession of the insider. If an insider trades or deals in securities of a listed company, it may be presumed that he/she traded on the basis of unpublished price-sensitive information in his/her possession, unless contrary to the same is established. The burden of proving a situation contrary to the presumption mentioned above lies on the insider. If an insider shows that he/she did not trade on the basis of unpublished price-sensitive information and that he/she traded on some other basis, he/she cannot be said to have violated the provisions of Regulation 3 of the regulations.”
The implications of the above decisions are not far to see. Most CAs associated with a company are likely to be insiders or deemed insiders and would have access to UPSI. Their trading would thus be deemed insider trading as a presumption and it would be up to him to prove otherwise.
To conclude, CAs who are associated with listed companies professionally or in employment or in other manner as consultants, etc. may find many of the deeming provisions acting against him. He is likely to be deemed as an insider and his trades deemed to be insider trading. The onus would be on him to prove otherwise and even such opportunity to rebut is not always available. CAs would thus consider whether they should, as a prudent policy, refrain altogether from trading in the shares of such company or ensure that they fall within the clear exceptions, on facts or otherwise.
A transaction is insider trading if it is carried out when in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (‘UPSI’). While UPSI is defined as information which if published is likely to materially affect the prices of securities of the company, several items of information are deemed to be UPSI. Examples are periodical financial results, any major expansion or execution of new projects, dividends, etc. For such deemed UPSI, the test whether it will materially affect the price of the company is not required to be fulfilled. This may sound strange for financial results where there are no significant changes, where the dividends more or less are as per the past record, etc. A trading on knowledge of such deemed UPSI is insider trading.
If the price-sensitive information is ‘published’, then of course it is no more UPSI. However, information is deemed to be published only if it is published by the Company and is specific in nature. It has been held that the fact that the information may be known to the markets is not generally a valid defence that it is published.
The deeming of certain transactions has been carried to an extreme whereby certain transactions by specified persons in certain situation are straightaway banned clearly on the presumption that these are transactions of insider trading or too near to them.
For example, the concept of trading window is introduced which can be open or closed. It is generally closed in anticipation of certain price-sensitive information being compiled or announced. When it is closed, the employees/directors of the Company are not permitted to trade in the securities of the Company. In this sense, the closed window period is again a period during which it is deemed that transactions that may take place would be insider trading and thus straightaway banned. One cannot carry out a transaction during such period and any attempt to rebut the charge would be virtually impossible.
Further, if an opposite transaction is carried out by directors/officers/designated employees within six months of the earlier transaction, it is effectively deemed to be insider trading and thus absolutely prohibited. Such a transaction too has no rebuttal.
There is a controversy as to whether for a transaction to amount to insider trading, the insider has to merely possess price-sensitive information or the transaction should be on the basis of such price-sensitive informa-tion. The crucial difference is that in the latter case, the onus on SEBI is more as it has to prove a mental element to the transaction. This controversy mainly arises because of mismatch in drafting between the Act and the Regulations. Regulation 3(i) of the Regulations provides that a transaction would be insider trading if an insider carries out while in possession of UPSI. Section 15G of the Act, which levies penalty for insider trading, however, levies penalty if the transaction is carried out on the basis of UPSI. The SAT has held recently in the case of Chandrakala v. SEBI (Appeal No. 209 of 2011 dated 31st January 2012) that once an insider trades while in possession of UPSI, it will be a presumption, albeit rebuttable, that it is ‘on the basis of’ UPSI. It will be up to the insider to prove that it is not so. The SAT observed,:
“The prohibition contained in Regulation 3 of the regulations apply only when an insider trades or deals in securities on the basis of any unpublished price-sensitive information and not otherwise. It means that the trades executed should be motivated by the information in the possession of the insider. If an insider trades or deals in securities of a listed company, it may be presumed that he/she traded on the basis of unpublished price-sensitive information in his/her possession, unless contrary to the same is established. The burden of proving a situation contrary to the presumption mentioned above lies on the insider. If an insider shows that he/she did not trade on the basis of unpublished price-sensitive information and that he/she traded on some other basis, he/she cannot be said to have violated the provisions of Regulation 3 of the regulations.”
The implications of the above decisions are not far to see. Most CAs associated with a company are likely to be insiders or deemed insiders and would have access to UPSI. Their trading would thus be deemed insider trading as a presumption and it would be up to him to prove otherwise.
To conclude, CAs who are associated with listed companies professionally or in employment or in other manner as consultants, etc. may find many of the deeming provisions acting against him. He is likely to be deemed as an insider and his trades deemed to be insider trading. The onus would be on him to prove otherwise and even such opportunity to rebut is not always available. CAs would thus consider whether they should, as a prudent policy, refrain altogether from trading in the shares of such company or ensure that they fall within the clear exceptions, on facts or otherwise.
PUNISHING INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS AND AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The requirements of corporate governance has resulted in tens of thousands of persons — most of them highly educated and experienced — being appointed as independent directors of listed companies. By definition, they are generally nonexecutive, since being a paid executive director would mean loss of independence. However, while such an army of independent directors has been created under this requirement, the law governing them remains age-old. Only the nomenclature of Independent Director is new. The role, powers and duties of independent directors are not provided for in the requirements relating to corporate governance framed by the SEBI and placed in the listing agreement as Clause 49. No extra powers or authority is given to the independent directors (though some functions and authority are given to the Audit Committee). Thus, for understanding the powers and duties of an individual independent directors, one has to look at the pre-existing law as contained in the Companies Act, 1956. While this law too does not lay down a specific and detailed framework for non-executive directors, the settled law is that individual non-executive directors are required to be diligent and exercise a level of care than a prudent person may ordinarily exhibit. Further, even these requirements relating to corporate governance have been, curiously, placed not in the SEBI Act or even in any notified regulations or rules, but in the listing agreement between the Company and the stock exchange. This gives these requirements, at best, a semi-statutory cognizance. The violation of these requirements generally results in action against the Company and not against the independent directors.
Expectedly, the other peculiar result is that there are no specific provisions providing for punitive or other adverse consequences for violating the requirements relating to corporate governance. As we will see later, this is perhaps the reason that the SEBI has used its omnibus powers to take action against the independent directors who were allegedly negligent and who even allegedly abetted the fraud.
The preceding paragraphs are not intended to provide for any excuse or leeway for the negligence of any independent directors, particularly a person who is a member of the Audit Committee. It is only to highlight the fairly inadequate manner in which the law has been framed. When a situation has arisen when such law was tested, the SEBI, instead of accepting this inadequate framework and taking corrective action in this regard, resorted to omnibus provisions to take punitive action which most Independent Directors could not even have visualised. Of course, it has to be noted that the facts of the case, if one goes by the SEBI Order, are fairly serious. Let us now consider the details of this case as provided in the SEBI Order.
It has been alleged by the SEBI that Pyramid, the listed company of which the specified persons were independent directors and members of its Audit Committee, overstated its revenues and thus its profits by manipulation of its accounts. The company which is engaged in the business of managing theatres and exhibition of films claimed to have entered into agreements with more than 800 theatres from which revenues flowed into the company. The SEBI recorded a finding that in reality barely about 250 such agreements could be proved and the rest of the agreements did not exist. Hence, it was alleged that the revenues based on such sham agreements were non-existent and through false book entries such revenues were recorded. The accounts based on such overstated revenues and profits were published for the benefit of the public.
SEBI made a finding that the accounts were thus misstated and the question then was, what role did the independent directors play and whether they did not perform their duties as expected of them. This was particularly so, since such Directors were also members of the Audit Committee.
It is worth noting the relevant extracts what SEBI says in its dealing with what it believes to be the role of the Board in general, of independent directors and of members of the Audit Committee :
“5. A company acts through its board of directors. It is the duty and responsibility of the directors to ensure that proper systems and controls are in place for financial reporting and to monitor the efficacy of such systems and controls. While the extent of responsibility of an independent director may differ from that of an executive director, an independent director has the duty of care. This duty calls for exercise of independent judgment with reasonable care, diligence and skill which should be reasonably exercised by a prudent person with the knowledge, skill and experience which may reasonably be expected of a director in his position and any additional knowledge, skill and experience which he has. The audit committee exercises oversight of the company’s financial reporting process and the disclosure of its financial information to ensure that the financial statement is correct, sufficient and credible. It reviews the adequacy of internal control system and management discussion and analysis of financial condition and result of operations. The institutions of independent directors and audit committee have been established to promote corporate governance and enhance the protection of interests of investors. These have a critical role to play in the regulation and development of the securities markets and protection of interests of investors in securities.
6. I note that Mr. K. S. Kasiraman and Mr. K. Natarahjan were independent directors and members of the audit committee at the relevant time. It has been submitted that Mr. G. Ramakrishnan was not an independent director and a member of the audit committee for the entire period. I find that he was an independent director and also a member of the audit committee when quarterly reports of the last two quarters of the year were considered by the Board as well as the audit committee. Further, the quarterly reports of succeeding quarters, when he continued as an independent director and as a member of the audit committee, have indication about the unreliability of the financial statements of the previous quarters.
7. I find that the noticees overlooked numerous red flags in the trend in revenues, profits, receivables, advances, etc. which could not escape the attention of an independent director, who is also a member of the audit committee. For example, profits tripled in the quarter ending June 2007 over the preceding quarter. It doubled in the quarter ending December 2007 over the preceding quarter. The quarter ending March 2008 reported a loss of Rs.3.11 crore compared to a profit of Rs. 29.87 crore in the preceding quarter. Similarly, though the number of screens in theatres increased from 487 as on September 30, 2007 to 655 as on December 31, 2007, security deposits with theatres during the same period increased disproportionately from Rs.36.05 crore to Rs.170.38 crore. Such aberrations in financial figures would alert any person of ordinary prudence. The appropriate questions at the right time from the noticees would have unravelled the fraud being played by the company on the innocent investors. By failing to ask the right questions at the right point of time, I find that the noticees have failed in their duty of care as an independent director. They failed to review, as members of the audit committee, the internal control systems, which generated misleading financial statements. I find that the noticees were either too negligent to notice the aberrations in performance of the company and the fraud behind such aberrations or acted as shadow directors of the board/ members of the audit committee. In either case, they facilitated the company to make false and misleading disclosures and thereby created artificial prices and volumes in the securities of PSTL in the market, to the detriment of innocent investors. I, therefore, conclude that the charge of disclosure of false and misleading statements, as alleged in the SCN against the noticees, is established. Thus, the noticees are guilty of violating Section 12A of SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(f), 4(2)(k), 4(2)(r) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003.
8. Such conduct on the part of the noticees is disgrace to the institutions of independent directors and the audit committee of a listed company. This cannot be viewed lightly and warrants regulatory intervention. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me u/s. 19 read with Sections 11, 11B and 11(4) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and Regulation 11 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, I hereby restrain Mr. K. S. Kasiraman (Permanent Account Number: AFPPK3572B), Mr. K. Natarahjan (Permanent Account Number: ACJPN0418I), and Mr. G. Ramakrishnan (Permanent Account Number: AAEPR2014F) from being an independent director or a member of audit committee of any listed company for a period of two years from the date of this Order.”
This case is obviously an extreme one where, in a sense, like the Satyam case, serious allegations and findings of fraud were made and expectedly, the question would be how could such serious alleged frauds have escaped the attention of such directors. Or, worse, whether they actively abetted such frauds. This is more so, when they were also on the Audit Committee. However, such an extreme case cannot make and define the law for other cases particularly if there are lesser violations or for areas the facts are less clear.
It is also seen that the SEBI does not have any direct and specific powers to deal with non-performance of duties by the independent directors or for their being negligent. In fact, the SEBI has used its omnibus and comprehensive powers u/s. 11, 11B, etc. to take action against such Independent Directors. The issue is whether it is appropriate to use such powers in this manner creating an impression that the SEBI can act against anyone for anything that it perceives to be wrong or irregular without either defining what is right and wrong conduct and specifying clearly the consequences therefor.
Curiously, the SEBI has held that the Independent Directors are guilty of several provisions of the SEBI FUTP Regulations relating to fraud, price manipulation, etc. The Order, however, does not deal with each such clause separately and establish how it was violated. It is one thing to hold Independent Directors responsible for being negligent or passively not performing their duties and it is totally another thing that they were active participators or abettors of the fraud, etc.
It may be recollected that in an earlier case of an alleged massive fraud, the SEBI had made a similar order debarring the independent directors in that case. However, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Appeal No. 347/2004, dated 8th December 2005) reduced the period of debarment and found that the SEBI had neither alleged nor established any aiding/abetting by the independent directors to the alleged fraud. It also noted that the independent directors were passive and had no active role in perpetrating the alleged fraud.
Of course, this is not to question the power of SEBI to take such action. As discussed in an earlier article in this column (December 2010 issue of BCAJ), the Bombay High Court in Price Waterhouse & Co. v. SEBI, [(2010) 103 SCL 96 (Bom.)] upheld the power of SEBI to take similar action against auditors and the ratio of that decision should apply directly in facts of the present case. Having said that, recently, questions have been raised (a subject that merits a separate discussion) whether the SEBI indeed has power to ‘punish’ persons under such general and omnibus powers.
To reiterate, a precedent against errant independent directors was needed and this Order does provide one. Having said so, one cannot help observing that the system is skewed against the independent directors. On one hand, by misplacing the requirements of corporate governance in the listing agreement and by not giving any specific right to individual independent director or even to them as a whole, the SEBI has not given them any teeth to really do their jobs well. On the other hand, their obligations, formal and otherwise, are significant. It could thus create difficulties for conscientious Independent Directors in their functions. And since independent directors are really the essential core of good corporate governance, the absence of a proper legal framework for their role, powers and duties is a serious vacuum that, if not filled, will make the requirements of corporate governance ineffective.
Housing project: Deduction u/s.80IB(10) of Income-tax Act, 1961: A.Y. 2003-04: Deduction allowable on whole of the income of the project which is approved as a ‘housing project’ by the local authority: Clause (d) inserted to section 80IB(10) w.e.f. 1-4-2005 is prospective and not retrospective.
In this case, the following questions of law were raised before the Bombay High Court:
“(i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the deduction u/s. 80IB(10), as applicable prior to 1-4-2005 is admissible to a ‘Housing project’ comprising residential housing units and commercial establishments?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that a project having commercial area up to 10% of the project is eligible for deduction on the entire profits of the project u/s. 80IB(10) up to 1-4-2005?
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the projects wherein the commercial area is more than 10% of the project and the profits from the residential dwelling units in that project can be worked out separately, then subject to fulfilling other conditions, deduction on the profits relatable to the residential part of the project would be eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10)?
(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the limit on commercial use of built-up area as prescribed by clause (d) of section 80IB(10) has no retrospective application and it applies only w.e.f. the A.Y. 2005-06?”
The Bombay High Court answered the questions as under:
“(i) Up to 31-3-2005 (subject to fulfilling other conditions), deduction u/s.80IB(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under the DC Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority.
(ii) In such a case, where the commercial user permitted by the local authority is within the limits prescribed under the DC Rules/ Regulations, the deduction u/s.80IB(10) up to 31-3-2005 would be allowable irrespective of the fact that the project is approved as ‘housing project’ or ‘residential plus commercial’.
(iii) In the absence of the provisions under the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that up to 31-3-2005 deduction u/s.80IB(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user up to 10% of the total built-up area of the plot.
(iv) Since deductions u/s.80IB(10) is on the profits derived from the housing projects approved by the local authority as a whole, the Tribunal was not justified in restricting section 80IB(10) deduction only to a part of the project. However, in the present case, since the assessee has accepted the decision of the Tribunal in allowing section 80IB(10) deduction to a part of the project, we do not disturb the findings of the Tribunal in that behalf.
(e) Clause (d) inserted to section 80IB(10) w.e.f. 1-4-2005 is prospective and not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for the period prior to 1-4-2005.”
The mechanism set up by Supreme Court requiring clearance of the Committee on Disputes in litigation between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings between themselves and also in disputes involving the State Governments and their instrumentalities recalled.
By Order dated 11-9-1991, reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432 (ONGC and Anr. v. CCE), the Supreme Court noted that “Public sector undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court”. Consequently, the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India was “called upon to handle the matter personally”. This was followed by the order dated 11-10-1991 in 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541 (ONGC v. CCE) where the Supreme Court directed the Government of India “to set up a Committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, Bureau of Public Enterprises and Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings between themselves, to ensure that no litigation came to a Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation”. Thereafter, in 2004 (6) SCC 437 (ONGC v. CCE) dated 7-1-1994, the Supreme Court directed that in the absence of clearance from the ‘Committee of Secretaries’ (CoS), any legal proceeding will not be proceeded with. This was subject to the rider that appeals and petitions filed without such clearance could be filed to save limitation. It was, however, directed that the needful should be done within one month from such filing, failing which the matter would not be proceeded with. By another order dated 20-7-2007, 2007 (7) SCC 39 (ONGC v. City & Industrial Development Corpn.) the Supreme Court extended the concept of Dispute Resolution by High-Powered Committee to amicably resolve the disputes involving the State Governments and their instrumentalities. The idea behind setting up of this Committee, initially, called a ‘High-Powered Committee’ (HPC), later on called as ‘Committee of Secretaries’ (CoS) and finally termed as ‘Committee on Disputes’ (CoD) was to ensure that resources of the State are not frittered away in inter se litigations between entities of the State, which could be best resolved by an empowered CoD. The machinery contemplated was only to ensure that no litigation came to Court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before an in-house committee.
In CCE v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the working of the COD had failed and that the time had come to revisit the law. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration.
The matter came up before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of five Judges, which noted that :
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (‘assessee’ for short), is a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking (‘PSU’) under the control of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. A dispute had been raised by the Central Government (Ministry of Finance) by issuing show-cause notices to the assessee alleging that the Corporation was not entitled to avail/utilise Modvat/Cenvat credit in respect of inputs whose values stood written off. Accordingly it was proposed in the show-cause notices that the credit taken on inputs was liable to be reversed. Thus, the short point which arose for determination was whether the Central Government was right in insisting on reversal of credit taken by the assessee on inputs whose values stood written off. The Adjudicating Authority held that there was no substance in the contention of the assessee that the writeoff was made in terms of AS-2. The case of the assessee before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudicating Authority) was that it was a financial requirement as prescribed in AS-2; that an inventory more than three years old had to be written off/ derated in value; that such derating in value did not mean that the inputs were unfunctionable; that the inputs were still lying in the factory and they were useful for production and therefore they were entitled to Modvat/Cenvat credit. As stated above, this argument was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the demand against the assessee stood confirmed. Against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee decided to challenge the same by filing an appeal before the CESTAT. Accordingly, the assessee applied before the Committee on Disputes (CoD). However, the CoD vide its decision dated 2-11-2006 refused to grant clearance, though in an identical case the CoD granted clearance to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (‘BHEL’). Accordingly, the assessee filed a writ petition No. 26573 of 2008 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The writ petition filed by the assessee stood dismissed. Against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court the assessee moved the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.
In a conjunct matter, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (‘assessee’ for short) cleared the goods for sale at the outlets owned and operated by themselves known as company-owned and company-operated outlets. The assessee cleared the goods for sale at such outlets by determining the value of the goods cleared during the period February, 2000 to November, 2001 on the basis of the price at which such goods were sold from their warehouses to independent dealers, instead of determining it on the basis of the normal price and normal transaction value as per section 4(4) (b)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (‘1944 Act’ for short) read with Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. In short, the price adopted by the assessee which is a PSU in terms of Administered Pricing Mechanism (‘APM’) formulated by Government of India stood rejected. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the APM adopted by the assessee was in terms of the price fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; that it was not possible for the assessee to adopt the price in terms of section 4(1)(a) of the 1944 Act; and that it was not possible to arrive at the transaction value in terms of the said section. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, CCE went to the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 1903 of 2008 in which the assessee preferred I.A. No. 4 of 2009 requesting the Court to dismiss the above Civil Appeal No. 1903 of 2008 filed by the Department on the ground that CoD had declined permission to the Department to pursue the said appeal.
The Supreme Court observed that the above two instances showed that the mechanism set up by the Supreme Court in its orders reported in (i) 1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 541 (ONGC v. CCE) dated 11-10- 1991; (ii) 2004 (6) SCC 437 (ONGC v. CCE) dated 7-1-1994; and (iii) 2007 (7) SCC 39 (ONGC v. City & Industrial Development Corpn.) dated 20-7-2007, needed reconsideration.
The Supreme Court held that whilst the principle and the object behind the aforestated orders was unexceptionable and laudatory, experience had shown that despite best efforts of the CoD, the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and had in fact led to delays in litigation. The two examples given hereinabove indicated that on the same set of facts, clearance was given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to institute a SLP in the Supreme Court on the ground of discrimination. The mechanism had led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. For example, in many cases of exemptions, the Industry Department gave exemption, while the same was denied by the Revenue Department. Similarly, with the enactment of regulatory laws in several cases there was overlapping of jurisdictions between authorities, such as SEBI and insurance regulator. Civil appeals lied to the Supreme Court. Stakes in such cases were huge. One could not possibly expect timely clearance by CoD. In such cases, grant of clearance to one and not to the other may result in generation of more and more litigation. The mechanism had outlived its utility. In the changed scenario indicated above, the Supreme Court was of the view that time had come under the above circumstances to recall the directions of this Court in its various Orders reported as (i) 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541, dated 11-10-1991, (ii) (2004) 6 SCC 437, dated 7-1-1994 and (iii) (2007) 7 SCC 39, dated 20-7-2007. In the circumstances, the said orders were recalled.
FINALITY OF PROCEEDINGS
assessment can be cured by the Assessing Officer by resorting to the
rectification or reassessment proceedings depending upon the nature of
the lapse. The remedy available to the Assessing Officer permits him to
proceed u/s.147 or u/s.154 for repairing the damage caused in assessing
the total income.
The existence of the information for the
belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is the sine
qua non for reopening the assessment u/s.147 and discovery of an error
apparent on the record is the sine qua non for rectification u/s.154 of
the Act. These provisions are to be invoked in different circumstances,
but there can be situations where they overlap, and the AO can have
recourse to one or the other.
It is common to come across cases
where an Assessing Officer, faced with the dilemma of choosing between
the two remedies, decides to prefer one over the other and later on
drops the first and proceeds under the second. For example, an Assessing
Officer, dropping the proceedings u/s.154 initiated for curing the
lapse, later on initiates fresh proceedings u/s.147 for curing the same
lapse.
The question that arises in such circumstances is about
the validity of the second proceedings, having once exercised the option
available under the law and thereafter choosing to proceed under the
second option.
The Madras High Court has held that an option
once exercised attains finality and the Assessing Officer is barred from
availing the second remedy. However, The Kerala High Court recently has
held that there is no prohibition on an Assessing Officer proceeding
under the second remedy after dropping the first.
E.I.D. Parry
Limited’s case: The issue arose before the Madras High Court in the case
of CIT v. E.I.D. Parry Ltd., 216 ITR 489. In that case, the assessee, a
company, submitted its income-tax returns for the years 1968-69 and
1969- 70, which were, after enquiry, accepted by the AO and it was
accordingly assessed and subjected to tax. The AO reopened the
proceedings u/s.147(b) of the IT Act by issuing a notice u/s.148 and
substantially changed the assessments, resulting in a demand for tax, on
the basis of the finding that substantial income had escaped
assessment. Pending the adjudication of the appeal by the assessee, the
AO, not satisfied with the reopening u/s.147 and notwithstanding the
pendency of the appeal, took recourse to proceedings for rectification
of mistake u/s.154 of the Act, allegedly for rectification of mistake
apparent from the record.
The High Court observed that the
provisions for rectification of an error apparent from the record and
that for bringing to tax an escaped income were common features in the
tax laws, and they were to be invoked in different circumstances; that
the AO could have recourse to one or the other, but he must have
recourse to the appropriate provision having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case; that in cases where the two appear to
overlap, the AO must choose one in preference to the other and proceed;
that the AO should not take one as the appropriate proceeding and give
it up at a later stage to have recourse to the other, since such
proceedings were quasi judicial and were intended for the same purpose.
The
Court held that in a case of overlapping remedies, constructive res
judicata and not the statutory inhibition, should make the AO desist
from using one proceeding after the other, instead of using one of the
two with due care and caution. Accordingly, the proceedings for
rectification u/s.154, initiated subsequent to reassessment proceedings
u/s.147, were held to be invalid and not sustainable in law.
India
Sea Foods’ case: The issue again came up for consideration of the
Kerala High Court recently, in ITA No. 128 of 2010 in the case of the
CIT v. India Sea Foods and was adjudged by the High Court vide its order
dated 17th January, 2011. In that case, the question raised in the
appeal filed by the Revenue was whether the AO could give up
rectification proceedings initiated u/s.154 and then proceed u/s.147 of
the Income-tax Act for the same assessment year on the ground that
income had escaped assessment.
In that case the return filed by
the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) and the deduction claimed on
export profit u/s.80HHC was allowed in terms of the claim. The AO later
noticed that excessive relief was granted while computing deduction
u/s.80HHC and, to repair the damage, he initiated the rectification
proceedings u/s.154 for withdrawal of the excess relief by issue of a
notice to the assessee u/s.154(3) of the Act. The AO did not proceed
with the rectification proceedings on receipt of the objections from the
assessee challenging the maintainability of the proceedings u/s.154,
inter alia, on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from the
record. The AO however, later on issued a notice u/s.148 proposing to
bring to tax the escaped income on account of the excess relief granted
u/s.80HHC of the Act.
In the course of the reassessment
proceedings initiated u/s.147, the assessee raised various objections,
including about the maintainability of the reopening u/s.147, by relying
on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. E.I.D. Parry Ltd.
(supra). The AO overruled the objections and withdrew the excess relief
in the order of reassessment, against which the assessee filed an
appeal. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal against which Revenue filed
appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, by
upholding the finding of CIT (Appeals) based on the decision of the
Madras High Court to the effect that, after initiation of rectification
proceedings u/s.154, the AO did not have the jurisdiction to proceed to
reassess the escaped income u/s.147 of the Act. The Revenue preferred an
appeal before the Kerala High Court against the order of the Tribunal.
The
Court noted that there was no dispute that the notice u/s.148 was
issued within time and the reassessment also was completed u/s.147
within the statutory period. The question to be considered was whether
the initiation of proceedings u/s.154 and the dropping of the same
affected the validity of re-assessment u/s.147.
The Kerala High
Court expressed its inability to uphold the principle of constructive
res judicata invoked by the Madras High Court in income tax proceedings
for invalidating the subsequent proceedings initiated by the AO
successively. The Court held that the fact that the AO initiated
rectification proceedings u/s.154 did not mean that he should stick to
the same only, and proceed to issue orders as proposed; that the very
purpose of issuing a notice to the assessee was to give him an
opportunity to raise objection against the proceeding which included the
assessee’s right to question the maintainability of the rectification
proceedings. If the assessee convinced the Officer that rectification
was not permissible, the AO was absolutely free to give up the same and
see whether there was any other recourse open to him to achieve the
purpose i.e., to bring to tax the escaped income.
The Kerala High Court was unable to uphold the findings of the first Appellate Authority or the order of the Tribunal on the issue before it, as, in its view, if an assessment happened to be an under-assessment or a mistaken order, the course open to the AO was either to rectify the assessment if it was a mistake falling u/s.154 or to resort to section 147 for bringing to tax an income that had escaped assessment. The Court held that both these provisions were self-contained provisions, wherein conditions for invoking the powers, the procedure to be followed and the time limit within which orders were to be passed, were specified.
The Court allowed the appeal of the Revenue by vacating the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first Appellate Authority and restoring the order of reassessment passed by the AO.
Observations:
The Income-tax Act contains many instances wherein an aggrieved party is provided with alternative remedies, not all of which are mutually exclusive, for redressing the grievance. Depending upon the circumstances, the party has to select the most appropriate remedy. Each of the remedies, by and large, is self-contained and provides for the circumstances and the mechanism for availing the recourse thereunder. Most of them do not contain any overriding provision or a non-obstante clause, eliminating the possibility of the alternative course of action. All of them, without exception, however contain the circumstances in which the recourse under the particular provision is made available, and a failure to satisfy the terms of the provision disentitles the person from availing the benefit of the said provision.
The existence of the information for the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is the sine qua non for reopening an assessment u/s.147 and the discovery of a mistake apparent from the record is the sine qua non for a rectification u/s.154 of the Act. Usually, these provisions are to be invoked in different circumstances, but there can be situations where they overlap and the AO has the option to take recourse to one or the other. In choosing a particular remedy under the circumstances, the AO is expected to make an intelligent choice as an authority vested with the important power of assessing the total income of an assessee. The choice should be based on an application of mind and should be made after giving due weightage to the facts and circumstances of the case. The option should not be exercised in a routine manner.
In cases where recourse is open to the Assessing Officer to bring to tax escaped income, either by rectification or by way of reassessing the income that has escaped assessment, it is for the officer to choose between one of the two and proceed to pass one order. The AO cannot issue two proceedings, one u/s.154 and the other u/s.147.
The objective of the AO should be to avoid burdening an assessee with multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that no undue harassment is caused to the assessee; first, on account of the failure to frame a proper order of assessment, followed by another failure to choose the right remedy under the law for repairing the damage caused by the first failure. It is this series of failures that has led the Courts to invoke the principle of constructive res judicata in favour of the assessee, to ensure a kind of disciplined approach, found routinely wanting, in the persons administering the provisions of the Income-tax Act.
There is a judicial acceptance of the principle that the proceedings for assessment of total income cannot be allowed to continue endlessly, and all litigation has to be brought to an end at the earliest possible time, and cannot be allowed to be pursued by resorting to the different provisions, otherwise made available, in succession of each other. Such a witch -hunt is found to be undesirable by the Courts. By resorting to the principle of constructive res judicata, the Courts have tried to bring some semblance of discipline in to the administration of the law.
Having said that, the principle of res judicata is not applicable to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, warranting an application of constructive res judicata demands presence of such extraneous circumstances as leave the Court with no option but to invoke constructive res judicata to bring to an end the multiplicity of the proceedings caused by the non-application of mind.
Ind-AS impact on retail industry and summary of the carve-outs
The adoption of Ind-AS will have an impact on financial reporting of many entities, some of which are sector-specific, while some may be entityspecific. This article attempts to analyse some of the key impact areas on transition to Ind-AS for the retail industry and summarises the carve-outs vis-à-vis the IFRS.
Revenue recognition:
Principal v. Agent: Many a time, the retailer permits another entity to operate from its retail outlet. Under such cases, the retailer should closely evaluate its risks emanating from the arrangement to determine whether the retailer is ultimately selling the goods to the customer in his own capacity or the retailer is only facilitating the sale of goods in his capacity as an agent.
Under the current practice, a retailer invariably recognises the gross value of sales proceeds as revenue in the absence of clear guidance in distinguishing a principal from an agent.
Ind-AS provides more elaborate guidance on classification between a principal and an agent. It clarifies that if the retailer carries significant risks (such as inventory risk and price risk) and determines the price of goods, it is considered a principal, or else an agent. If the retailer is acting as the agent, then only the commission earned should be booked as revenues.
Customer loyalty programmes: Most retailers use consumer promotional schemes to increase business opportunities. These promotions typically include offers such as award credits or points through a loyalty scheme or the provision of a future discount through vouchers or coupons. Award credits may be linked to individual purchases or group of purchases. The customer may redeem the award credits for free or discounted goods or services.
Under current practice, there is no specific guidance on accounting for customer loyalty programmes. Certain entities recognise the cost of discounted/ free goods along with cost of sales, while certain entities present such costs as sales promotion expense. Further certain entities recognise the cost upfront based on estimates, while certain entities recognise the cost on incurrence.
Under Ind-AS, the revenue transactions under customer loyalty programmes are considered to have multiple elements, where the revenue attributable to the sale of goods either free of cost or at discounted price in future is recognised separately from the current sale transaction. The principles of recognition of customer loyalty programmes are as under:
An entity recognises the award credits as a separately identifiable component of revenue and defers the recognition of revenue related to the award credits until its utilisation.
The revenue attributed to the award credits takes into account the expected level of redemption.
The consideration received or receivable from the customer is allocated between the current sales transaction and the award credits by reference to their fair values.
The fair value is determined based on relative fair value method (where the benefit under the award is charged proportionately to each component).
The above guidance shall lead to initial deferral of revenue attributable to the award credits.
Product warranties: In the retail industry, the retailers often provide warranty on sale of products of its own brand. Currently such warranty obligations are accounted for through full recognition of revenue and an accrual of estimated costs, irrespective of the duration of the warranty period. Under Ind-AS, where the normal warranty offered by entities is for a duration of more than a year, the warranty provision would be recognised at its discounted value. The provisions would accrete over the expected term of the provision leading to an interest expense.
Thus the warranty costs to the extent of time value of money would be recognised as interest cost.
Leases:
Often the lease arrangements involve an initial fit-out period before commencement of the retail store’s operation, during which the retailer may be offered a rent-free right to use the leased premise. The rent would commence on the commencement of the operations. In the absence of elaborate guidance on such arrangements, currently the lease rent is usually recognised based on the commencement of the lease payments.
The Ind-ASs provide specific guidance on treatment of such lease incentives as part of the net consideration agreed for the use of the leased asset, irrespective of the incentive’s nature or form or timing of payments. As such, the retailer (lessee) shall recognise the incentives as a reduction of rental expense over the lease term on a straightline basis, unless another systematic basis is representative of the time pattern of the lessee’s benefit from the use of the leased asset.
Thus, the lease rent shall be recognised even for the period when there were no lease rentals payable, leading to a higher lease rental during the initial rent-free period. However, the subsequent lease rental charge would decline on account of the lease incentives being recognised as a reduction of lease rent expense over the lease term.
Interest-free lease deposits: The retail outlets are invariably taken on a noncancellable operating lease with an interest-free lease deposit. Under the current practice, the interest-free deposits are recognised as such at their transaction values.
Under the Ind-ASs, such interest-free deposits are classified as financial assets, which are required to be recognised at its fair value on initial recognition and at its amortised cost subsequently. These interest-free deposits are recognised at their discounted values and the difference between the contractual amount and discounted values represent the prepaid lease rent. The lease deposits would accrete over the lease term to match the undiscounted amount, leading to interest income, while the prepaid lease rent would be amortised as lease rent over the lease term on a straight-line basis.
As such, the accounting treatment under Ind- AS would lead to grossing up of lease rent and interest income. However, as the lease rents would be charged on straight-line basis and the interest income on effective interest rate basis, the higher lease rents may not exactly offset the interest income for the intervening reporting periods, though they would exactly offset when the entire lease term is considered together.
Asset retirement obligations: The retailers that acquire their stores on lease invariably are obligated to return the leased premises to the lessor on completion of the lease term on an ‘as-is’ basis. The retailer is obligated to remove its fixed assets, especially the leasehold improvements, on completion of the lease term.
Ind-ASs, in line with the current practice, require the creation of a provision for asset retirement obligations when there is an obligation for outflow of economic resources that is probable and can is reliably measurable. However, it is not common to find entities, other than exploration companies, that recognise the asset retirement obligations under the current practice on account of lack of elaborate guidance under the current GAAP.
Ind-AS requires a provision (and a corresponding asset) to be created at the initial stage by discounting the eventual estimated liability to its present value. The discount is unwound by way of recognising an interest expense over the life of the asset. Further, the provision is required to be re-estimated every reporting date. Apart from re-estimating the amount and timing of the outflow of economic resources, even the discounting factor is also re-estimated at each reporting period and is accounted as a change of estimates.
Application of Ind-AS will lead to an increase in the depreciation charge related to the cost capitalised and higher finance costs on account of unwinding the discount over the life of the asset.
Key carve-outs:
The final Ind AS includes several ‘carve-outs’ (deviations) from IFRS as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The Indian standard-setters have examined individual IFRS and modified the requirements where deemed necessary to suit Indian conditions. ‘Carve-outs’ are generally perceived as non-desirable, since they would dilute the key purpose of converging with IFRS (i.e., to have a common set of accounting standards across countries; provide seamless access to international capital markets; provide comfort to investors).
An analysis of the Ind AS carve-outs reveal that while some of the carve-outs are mandatory and represent clear deviations from IFRS, several of the carve-outs represent removal of policy choices under IFRS in certain areas or conversely provide alternate policy choices under Ind AS for certain other areas.
Let us start with the first category of carve-outs (mandatory deviations). The significant mandatory deviations from IFRS that an Indian company cannot avoid are a handful. These include revenue recognition for real estate sales on the basis of percentage completion method (IFRS requires revenue recognition when the final possession is given to the customer) and accounting for the equity conversion option of a foreign currency convertible bond (FCCB) as an equity component (IFRS requires the equity conversion option to be periodically marked-to-market). Our experience indicates that these carve-outs are not expected to impact a wide cross-section of companies. There are some other, less substantive, mandatory deviations (for example, use of a government bond rate for discounting employee benefit obligations as opposed to corporate bond rates required by IFRS or excluding own credit risk in fair valuation of certain financial liabilities).
Let us now examine the second category of carve-outs (removal of policy choices). There are several areas where IFRS offers multiple policy choices, while Ind AS prescribes one of these policy choices. Such carve-outs include (1) Single statement presentation of the income statement (IFRS permits the statement of comprehensive income to be presented separately) (2) Classification of expenses in the profit and loss account by their nature (IFRS permits classification by function) (3) Classification of interest and dividend as financing/ investing cash flows (IFRS permits operating classification) (4) No choice to carry investment property at fair value (IFRS permits this) (5) Recognition of actuarial gains and losses directly in reserves (IFRS permits alternatives including recognition in the profit and loss account) and Recomputation of borrowing costs capitalisable (IFRS permits prospective application).
This category of carve -outs does not result in deviations from IFRS, as they represent permitted policy choices. These could pose a challenge for Indian companies, if global peers follow other alternative policies; if such companies are a part of a global group that follows other alternative policies; or if the Indian company has previously followed other alternative policies for IFRS reporting to overseas stakeholders.
The third category of carve-outs (additional policy choices) represent an area where a company can either elect to follow policies aligned to IFRS, or alternate policies that diverge from IFRS. Such carve-outs include (1) Choice to defer exchange differences on long-term foreign currency assets and liabilities, and recognise such differences over the period of the underlying asset/liability (IFRS requires all such differences to be immediately charged to the profit and loss account) (2) Choice to consider Indian GAAP carrying values as ‘deemed cost’ for fixed assets acquired prior to transition date (IFRS offers no such choice on transition — retrospective IFRS values or ‘fair values’ are the two choices on transition; Ind-AS offers a third choice). This category of carve-outs represents an area where each individual company needs to apply careful thought and consideration. While assessing these policy choices, companies need to evaluate not just their current environment, but future plans (for example, plans for a future overseas listing).
The notified converged standards have also deferred the applicability of guidance on accounting for embedded leases and service concession arrangements.
These carve-outs could have been avoided, but the Government has adopted a practical approach to implement a significant and complex change in the accounting framework. It is now up to each company to choose whether they want to fully converge with IFRS (subject to the mandatory deviations discussed above) or take a simpler way out to manage the transition.
Ind-AS financial statements for subsequent periods can be made compliant with IFRS if a company chooses optimal accounting policies and does not adopt the prescribed alternatives available under Ind AS (other than those impacted by mandatory deviations).
Tata Motors Ltd. (31-3-2010)
From Notes to Accounts: Other provisions include [Schedule 12(e), page 72]:
Siemens Ltd. (30-9-2010)
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)
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 |
|
Year |
|
|
2009-10 |
2008-09 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aircraft |
|
Amount |
Aircraft |
Amount |
|
|
|
|
|
(Rs. in lakhs) |
|
(Rs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
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.
(2011) 21 STR 294 (Tri – Chennai) – Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. vs. CCEx., Trichy
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.
(2011) 21 STR 283 (Tri – Bang) – CCEx., Visakhapatnam vs. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.
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.
(2011) 21 STR 421 (Tri – Chennai) – JMC educational Charitable Trust vs. CCEx., Trichy –
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.
(2011) 21 STR 303 (Tri – Bang) SAP India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCEx., Bangalore III
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.
(2011) 21 STR 398 (Tri – Mumbai) – Makjai Laboratories vs. CCEx., Kolhapur
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.
(2011) 21 STR 241 (Tri – Ahmd.) – Globe Enviro Care Ltd. vs. CCEx., Surat
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.
(2011) 21 STR 224 (Kar) – CCEx., Mangalore vs. K. Vijaya C. Rai
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.
(2011) 21 STR 210 (P & H) – CCEx. vs. Haryana Industrial Security Services
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.
Revised Schedule VI — An Analysis
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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.
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:
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 . . . ?
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.
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<
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’.”
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.
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.
[2014] 151 ITD 642 (Mum) ITO vs. Gope M. Rochlani AY 2008-09 Order dated – 24th May, 2013
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.
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 –
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.”
Exemption from late fee u/s. 20(6) of the MVAT Act Trade Circular 8T of 2014 dated. 11-03-2014.
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.
Exemption w.r.t. rice
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.
[2014] 42 taxmann.com 51 (Allahabad) – CCE vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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’.
S. 28(i) — Letting out of property used to run business centre — Whether rent income or business income.
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.
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
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.
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
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 31-12-20083. 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.
S. 244A – Interest is payable even on refund arising out of self-assessment tax paid from the date of payment of self-assessment tax.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Debitum in Presenti
‘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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Reduction in Service Tax rate to 10% plus education cess. Notification No. 08/2009-Service Tax, dated 24-2-2009
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.
Export of Services Rules, 2005 applicable when benefits accrue outside India Circular No. 111/2009, dated 24-2-2009
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.
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
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.)
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 :
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.
Service Tax on movie theatres.
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.
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).
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)
The Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2009 — Notification No. 24/2009, dated 12-3-2009.
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.
Insertion of Rules 37BA and 37I — Income-tax (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2009, — Notification No. 28/2009, dated 16-3-2009.
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
-
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.
CBDT has started issuing Annual Tax Statement to assessees
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.
Press Note No. 6 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. —FDI Policy for mining of titanium bearing minerals and ores.
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.
Press Note No. 5 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — Rationalisation of FDI Policy for the Petroleum & Natural Gas Sector.
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.
Press Note No. 4 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — FDI Policy for the Civil Aviation Sector.
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.
Press Note No. 3 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Credit Industrial Parks.
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.
Press Note No. 2 (2008), dated 12-3-2008 — Guidelines for foreign Investment in Commodity Exchanges.
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.
Press Note No. 1 (2008), dated 12-3-2008. — Guidelines for Foreign Investment in Credit Information Companies.
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.
Non-filing of VAT returns : Trade Cir. No. 7T of 2008, dated 5-3-2008.
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.
E-returns under MVAT : Trade Cir. No. 8T of 2008 No. VAT/AMD-1007/1B/Adm-6 Mumbai, dated 19-3-2008.
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.
Service Tax (Publication of Names) Rules, 2008 : Notification No. 15/2008-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2008.
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.
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,
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.
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
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.