Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Time for elections.

fiogf49gjkf0d
A dismal year has ended appropriately — with a fiasco in Parliament; the only reform measure of the year stuck in limbo; the stock market down 24 per cent; the business mood at its lowest ebb in years; the weak rupee signalling the gathering storm clouds of external vulnerability; and key economic indicators spelling Trouble with a capital T. If 2010 was the year of scams (or the unearthing of scams), the compensation was that the economic news was better than in the two previous years. Now you can scan the horizon and spot just one piece of good news — food prices.

Two more years of this is more than the country should be asked to take. So — even though it would be considered politically premature by both the Congress and the BJP — it may be best to think in terms of fresh elections. The lengthening list of pending Bills makes it clear that the government is unable to get legislation through Parliament. The Congress’ allies in the ruling coalition are simply not pulling in the same direction. And, for all their assertions of Parliament’s exclusive right to legislate, the present lot of parliamentarians is not interested in any kind of Lok Pal. It is easy to guess why. So much, then, for tackling corruption as the issue of the year. Anna Hazare might find takers again if he echoes Shakespeare and says “a plague on both your houses”.

As for the Prime Minister, he brought with him two reputational assets: a blemishless record of probity, and his historic role in salvaging the economy in the 1990s and setting it on the path to rapid growth. Both assets have depreciated sharply. The aam aadmi would be justified in wondering what use it is to have an honest Prime Minister if he cannot rein in rogue colleagues. As for economic reform and macroeconomic management, there has been little of the first and latterly a poor record on the second. The result is that the liabilities now hold attention — the lack of political weight, and the inability to pull the Congress behind him on key issues. Rather, Manmohan Singh has been forced to pilot the Congress leadership’s big ideas on entitlement even though his past record suggests that he must have little faith in their efficacy. In his frustration, Dr. Singh has taken to blaming the messengers — the media, businessmen — for his manifest inability to deal with the situation. It is symptomatic of the malaise that he can’t (or won’t) sort out the clash between those running the unique identity programme and the National Population Register.

levitra

Accounting for foreign exchange loans.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Instead of allowing firms to avoid marking foreign- exchange losses to market, regulators must increase clarity.

The National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards or NACAS has advised allowing Indian companies to keep any losses or gains caused by exchange-rate fluctuation out of the main profit and loss accounts for the time being. This recommendation from NACAS, which is the technical advisory committee to the corporate affairs ministry, follows a period in which the rupee has suffered a sustained loss of value against the dollar, around 20% since August alone. Naturally, this has hurt those Indian companies that have a preponderance of imports in their input mix, or which have dollar-denominated debt. A large number of smaller companies will find it even harder to keep their margins or to roll over their foreign debt. NACAS’ recommendation will work to insulate these companies from some of the consequences of their exposure to currency risk.

At a time when India’s banking sector is under stress, and the sense is beginning to gain ground that non-performing assets (NPAs) in the financial system are not being properly accounted for, moving away from marking to market is a particularly bad idea. Those responsible for regulating accounting procedures should not have to be reminded that their job is not to make it more difficult for people to scrutinise a company’s profit and loss figures, but to make it easier. Keeping foreign exchange losses off the accounts will have major negative consequences systemically. First, it will not encourage responsible behaviour, which should include hedging of excessive currency risk. Second, it will conceal which companies are under stress, and add to the confusion about NPAs in the market, which will only heighten the fear of impending crisis. Third, it is reminiscent of some of the worst excesses of the global financial system three years ago, when brick-and-mortar companies would keep their losses from financial speculation off their balance sheets, and marking to market sometimes seemed optional. It also raises the question of regulatory confusion, as at the same time the main accounting regulator, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), is suggesting that every private-sector bank branch should be audited only by Reserve Bank-approved auditors, purportedly to examine NPAs at the branch level. (The ICAI is, however, believed to be in favour of keeping marked-to-market exchange-rate losses off the main accounts, too.)

India’s investors need a uniform and clear approach to accounting requirements for companies. Regulation should strive towards making stresses or poor performance more visible. Instead, postponing the introduction of exchange-rate losses reduces clarity. Regulators should not take a call in order to protect those whom they are regulating. They should take decisions on the basis of what increases systemic strength and robustness. Marked-to-market values are the clearest indication of systemic health, and should be encouraged at the earliest.

levitra

Tracking money hidden abroad

fiogf49gjkf0d
Several questions arise from the UBS affair — involving also Barclays Bank and Société Générale, in London and Mauritius — regarding the reported attempt by Anil Ambani to use funds raised overseas for two of his group’s companies to invest illegally in India, in the shares of a third group company. Some of the questions relate to the role of foreign banks in facilitating illegal transactions abroad by resident Indians, a matter that has come into focus in recent weeks because of yet another foreign bank, HSBC. An ex-employee of HSBC allegedly stole bank data from its Geneva branch, which became available to the authorities — so it has been revealed that this one Swiss branch of one bank had the accounts of no fewer than 700 Indians. Other details are also with the Government, on money stashed away in places like Liechtenstein.

Banks usually pin the blame for wrong transactions on rogue employees. But some of the employees charged with illegal activity have argued in their defence that their employers encourage a culture of undertaking dodgy transactions, which returns the spotlight to the organisations. Is illegal activity being facilitated by foreign banks operating in India — or by ‘briefcase bankers’, based in tax havens across Asia, that come to India looking for people desirous of conducting illegal transactions overseas? And, if so, what pressure is the Government and the Reserve Bank of India putting on these banks and bankers? India is an increasingly attractive banking market, and virtually all the leading international banks are eager to expand their presence here. Surely it should be possible to demand their strict compliance with Indian laws not just here, but globally, and to officially disfavour those organisations that don’t play ball when global compliance is sought. The United States has successfully arm-twisted the same UBS into handing over the names of 4,450 clients for whom it had offered to conceal funds from the eyes of US tax inspectors; why should it be difficult for India to attempt something similar?

Questions have to be posed to Indian regulators as well. The Anil Ambani-related matter was investigated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), and settled last January through a consent order that involved payment of Rs. 50 crore. This is said to be the largest consent fee in Indian history; even if true, it is little more than a flea-bite for a large corporate house. It, therefore, raises questions about the correctness of such consent orders, almost always agreed to without admission of guilt. Such arrangements are usually made in an opaque manner, independent of the public scrutiny that would arise in a case tried in open court. Such questions are current in New York too, where a district court recently rejected a settlement with Citibank by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court order has been contested subsequently, but perhaps someone in India should test Sebi on such matters.

levitra

Food insecurity?

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Food Security Bill cleared by the Cabinet is likely to hurt the poor more than it helps them. India already has 54.7 million tonnes of rice and wheat lying as stocks with the Centre and the states, 29.7 million tonnes of grain in excess of the buffer stocking norm. Offtake of rice in the current fiscal year has been 74% of the allotment, and that of wheat, 64%. The residual will keep adding to the grain mountain with the Government, which will rot, due to poor storage, be eaten by rats and be pilfered. By cornering huge volumes of grain, the Govt. reduces the supply in the open market, putting upward pressure on prices.

By banning exports every now and then, it depresses prices. This irrationality is set to be replicated on a much bigger scale, if the proposed Food Security Bill becomes law. This is not to say that the goal of ensuring food security for the people is either unworthy or undoable. It is neither. Rather, the Govt. is going about it in the most inefficient, unintelligent fashion possible. The world demand for food is set to climb, thanks to steady growth in the poorer regions of the world and increasing diversion of corn to biofuel.

The right way to guarantee every Indian food security is to act to make India a major source of the additional food the world demands, to invest in agricultural growth: in harnessing water for scientific irrigation, in extension of know-how as well as in R&D, in rural roads that provide vital physical linkage to markets, in electronic spot exchanges, in scientific storage and efficient transport logistics, in developing as close a link as possible between the farmer and the first stage of food processing and in providing proper regulation of financial markets in agricultural commodities, futures, derivatives and insurance.

levitra

Little hope for 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
As India marks two decades of reform, the year just past, 2011, may well go down as the one year in these decades in which the macro management of India’s economy showed the greatest signs of strain. All the major indicators are in the red. Consider, first, the fiscal deficit. The Budget declared it would be at 4.6% of gross domestic product (GDP), which was hailed at the time as a sign that the Finance Ministry wished to strike a blow for fiscal prudence. Yet it appears, now, that the Budget estimates were a worrying underestimation. It is not just that they did not take into account basic facts like that the 3G auctions, which bailed the fisc out last financial year, would not be an option this year. It is also that, over the months since the Budget was presented, there appears to have been no reasonable attempt made to control expenditure. The deficit is likely, thus, to be at least 100 basis points more than the Budgeted level, suggesting, that fiscal responsibility has gone for a complete toss. The Government has shown itself unable to contain its borrowing, which has seen an unprecedented 25% increase over the Budgeted level.

The rupee, meanwhile, saw a steep fall in its value vis-à-vis the US dollar. It was previously overvalued, judging by real effective exchange rate calculations — but it is nevertheless the case that a 20% depreciation over just four months has delivered serious shocks to the system. Meanwhile, as global markets slow, it is far from certain that the usual beneficiaries of a weaker rupee — India’s exporters — will be able to gain. Imports, however, will become more expensive, thinning corporate margins and making inflation harder to control. Another headline number that reveals poor macro-economic management is the current account deficit (CAD). At the time of the 1991 crisis, India’s CAD was 3% of GDP. That figure looks modest in comparison to the 3.6% of GDP the economy posted for the first half of the current year. Slowing export growth as seen in the last couple of months means keeping CAD at last year’s level of 2.6% appears difficult this year. Then, of course, there is inflation, which continues to hover around 9%.

The macro-economic mismanagement these numbers reveal is reflective of poor management all through. The coal sector has been hit hard by political troubles, environmental red tape and land acquisition norms. Only 9 km of roads are built a day — as opposed to a target of 20 km. Every kind of major legislation has been on hold: pension reform and the companies Bill. Even foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail, which did not require Parliament’s approval, has been shelved.

levitra

IRS offshore programs produce $ 4.4 billion to date for nation’s taxpayers; offshore voluntary disclosure program reopens.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Internal Revenue Service reopened the offshore voluntary disclosure program to help people hiding offshore accounts get current with their taxes and announced the collection of more than $ 4.4 billion so far from the two previous international programs. The IRS reopened the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) following continued strong interest from taxpayers and tax practitioners after the closure of the 2011 and 2009 programs. The third offshore program comes as the IRS continues working on a wide range of international tax issues and follows ongoing efforts with the Justice Department to pursue criminal prosecution of international tax evasion. This program will be open for an indefinite period until otherwise announced.

The third offshore effort comes as the IRS has collected $ 3.4 billion so far from people who participated in the 2009 offshore program, reflecting closures of about 95% of the cases from the 2009 program. On top of that, the IRS has collected an additional $ 1 billion from upfront payments required under the 2011 program. That number will grow as the IRS processes the 2011 cases.

In all, the IRS has seen 33,000 voluntary disclosures from the 2009 and 2011 offshore initiatives. Since the 2011 program closed last September, hundreds of taxpayers have come forward to make voluntary disclosures. Those who have come in since the 2011 program closed last year will be able to be treated under the provisions of the new OVDP program. The overall penalty structure for the new program is the same for 2011, except for taxpayers in the highest penalty category.

For the new program, the penalty framework requires individuals to pay a penalty of 27.5% of the highest aggregate balance in foreign bank accounts/ entities or value of foreign assets during the eight full tax years prior to the disclosure. That is up from 25% in the 2011 program. Some taxpayers will be eligible for 5 or 12.5% penalties; these remain the same in the new program as in 2011.

levitra

Starbucks, Amazon and Google to face MPs over Tax

fiogf49gjkf0d
MPs will quiz executives of Starbucks, Google and Amazon about how they have managed to pay only small amounts of tax in Britain while racking up billions of dollars worth of sales here.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which is charged with monitoring government financial affairs, has invited the companies to give evidence amid mounting public and political concern about tax avoidance by big international companies.

Britain and Germany announced plans to push the Group of 20 economic powers to make multinational companies pay their “fair share” of taxes following reports of large firms exploiting loopholes to avoid taxes.

Starbucks had paid no corporation or income tax in the UK in the past three years.

The world’s biggest coffee chain paid only £8.6 million in total UK tax over 13 years during which it recorded sales of £3.1 billion.

(Source: The Economic Times dated 13-11-2012)

                                                        (Comment: Do we want a similar situation in our country?)
levitra

Comprehensive Commentaries on FCRA 2010

fiogf49gjkf0d
Title : Comprehensive Commentaries on FCRA 2010

Author : Manoj Fogla

Pages : 444

Price : Rs.895

Foreign Contribution Regulation Act is a complex piece of legislation, often not fully understood by trustees as well as practising Chartered Accountants. There is very little literature available on this subject and there is hardly any book that deals with the subject in depth. Therefore, this book fills a void and is a welcome attempt to provide information and interpretation on FCRA for the benefit of all persons affected by this Act and in particular, voluntary organisations receiving foreign funding and contribution.

The book seeks to address the need, particularly of grassroot level organisations, which are doing yeoman work but struggle to understand the nuances of this legislation where the consequences of non-compliance can be severe. The book also discusses applicability of FCRA to unregistered ‘Self-help Groups’ and ‘Communitybased Organisations’.
The first chapter of the book is appropriately ‘Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on FCRA’. The book is comprehensive in its coverage and is divided into 46 chapters. Though the book does not have an index it has detailed contents, facilitating the search for the relevant information.
The book covers all the controversies under FCRA ranging from opening of multiple bank accounts, deposits from commercial transactions, applicability of the law to liaison offices, operation of revolving funds, anonymous donations, admission of foreigners on the Governing Board, etc. It also covers various procedural aspects, including procedure for obtaining and renewal of registration, prior permission for accepting foreign contribution, change in bank account, etc. It also has a chapter on online filing of application for registration giving a step-by-step process to be followed along with the screen shots at every stage.
It has 30 Annexures, including a useful Annexure tabulating the relevant provisions under the old FCRA, 1976 and under the current FCRA, 2010. An interesting Annexure reproduces the Charter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs providing guidelines for Chartered Accountants auditing organisations covered by FCRA.
Though, the book is comprehensive in its coverage, the analysis and commentary is very often of a basic skeleton nature. One would have hoped for a more indepth analysis and discussion on topics, (and there are several of those in FCRA) where there could be more than one interpretation.
Perhaps that is done intentionally in favour of simplicity and to provide in an easy-to-read language all relevant information to persons covered by this enactment.
The book is published jointly by Financial Management Service Foundation (fmsf) and Voluntary Action Network India (VANI). The author and the publishers need to be complimented for spreading awareness on this opaque subject and fulfilling a crying need.
levitra

Marwari Businesses at Crossroads

fiogf49gjkf0d
A leading Gujarati industrialist recently asked me the reason for the drop in the pecking order of Marwaris in India’s top business groups. We tried to name a few potential next generation leaders from the community. Except for Kumar Birla, Prashant Ruia, Rajiv Bajaj, all now above 40 years, none else came to mind.

Rewind to early 20th century. The Marwaris exemplified a feisty and formidable spirit— traders who escaped the barren business landscape of their homes and created trading outposts in remote areas. Many of them had settled in Kolkata, which emerged as a commercial hub and offered manifold trading opportunities. Over time, they tried their hand at manufacturing which, after Independence, was clearly the future. But, as long as the manufacturing activity involved commodities and the economy was protected, it was fine. The moment there was a shift in the ruling industry paradigm, the pre-dominant Marwari business construct seems to have got challenged.

The community is currently exercised by an unavoidable question: Has the spirit of Marwari enterprise started flagging? The provocation for such introspection stems from the rise of a new entrepreneurial class in India which comprises very few Marwaris and consists of primarily Gujaratis, Punjabis and South Indian industrial groups. Over the past few years, the leaders in emerging industry categories— infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, information technology, telecom—have been markedly non-Marwaris.

(Source: Times of India dated 14-11-2012)
levitra

ITO v. People Interactive (P) Ltd. TS 129 ITAT 2012 (Mum.) Sections 9(1)(vii), 195 of Income-tax Act, Articles 5, 7, 12 of India-US DTAA Dated: 29-2-2012 Present for the appellant: R. S. Samria Present for the respondent: Piyush Sankar

fiogf49gjkf0d
Website hosting charges paid to American company is not royalty either u/s.9(1)(vi) or under India-US DTAA as the payer had no physical access or right to operate equipment, which was situated outside India.

Once an amount is not taxable as royalty, the same would be taxable as business income but in the absence of PE, such income will not be liable to tax in India.

Facts:
The taxpayer, an Indian company (ICO), was owner of a matrimonial website where individuals can register and exchange relevant information for matrimonial alliance on payment of appropriate subscription amount. This facility was available to residents as well as nonresidents.

ICO availed an ‘advanced dedicated hosting solution services’ from a US-based company (FCO) to host and run its matrimonial site more effectively across the globe.

FCO provided dedicated servers and services of support team, bandwidth and connectivity, high level of security for the data stored on the servers including backups, restorations, firewalls, etc. Fees for such services were charged monthly by FCO depending on the type of server (low-end/ top-end) opted for by ICO.

CO made payment to FCO without deducting tax at source on the ground that remittance was towards business income of FCO which in absence of PE in India, was not taxable.

The Tax Department contended that the payment made for hosting of website and use of servers would be taxable as ‘royalty’ as it amounts to use of industrial, commercial and scientific equipment.

Held:
Payments were made for providing web hosting services with backup, security, maintenance and uninterrupted services. All equipments and machines relating to services provided to ICO were under control of FCO and situated outside India. ICO could not operate or even have physical access to the equipments system providing service. Hence, ICO did not ‘use’ the equipments but only availed services from FCO.

Reliance was placed on the Delhi HC ruling in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd.4 to contend that when equipments were not operated, used or under the control of ICO, payments made for availing services of FCO could not be termed as ‘Royalty’. When payments are not in the nature of royalty as per Income-tax Act or DTAA, if the non-resident recipient has no PE in India, he is not liable to tax in India. Consequently, no tax is required to be deducted at source u/s.195 of the Income-tax Act.

levitra

Recent Controversies in Cross Border Taxation

fiogf49gjkf0d
Subject : Recent Controversies in Cross Border Taxation

Speaker : Pinakin Desai, Chartered Accountant

Date : 11-7-2012

Venue : Indian Merchant Chambers, Mumbai

 The first Lecture Meeting of BCAS for the year 2012- 13 was addressed by Pinakin Desai on the topic ‘Issues in Cross-Border Taxation’ on 11th July 2012. Deepak Shah, Society’s newly elected President, welcomed everyone on behalf of BCAS. He shared with the august gathering the focus areas of BCAS for the upcoming year — to expand and enrich membership experience, to enhance and strengthen relationships and to provide mentorship — and invited whole-hearted involvement and participation of all BCAS members.

After an overwhelming introduction by the President, Mr. Desai took the stage to do full justice to it. Given the recent upheaval in the tax world, many new controversies have added themselves to an already long list. Mr. Desai, in his talk, discussed some of the most controversial ones. These are briefly discussed below:

1. Overview of General Anti-Avoidance Rules (‘GAAR’)

As per the current GAAR provisions, an arrangement would be termed as ‘impermissible avoidance agreement’ if its main purpose is obtaining tax benefit and it satisfies any of the four conditions specified in section 96(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The speaker opined that the condition that the main purpose be obtaining tax benefit was necessary to be provided and is provided by most countries globally. However, presently, the term tax benefit is very loosely worded and could lead to unreasonable conclusions.

Section 96(2) provides that while the objective of an arrangement as a whole may not be to obtain tax benefit, if a step in or a part of the arrangement has been inserted only to obtain tax benefit, the entire arrangement shall be presumed to obtain tax benefit.

GAAR can be used in addition to or in conjunction with other specified anti-avoidance rules already forming part of the Act. Benefit of the tax treaties would be subject to GAAR applicability.

2. Consequences of GAAR

Consequences of invoking GAAR have been laid down in section 98. Draft guidelines on GAAR have been released on 28th June 2012 giving examples of cases where GAAR is invoked. The speaker opined that there appeared to be no co-relation between the transactions and the consequences that followed. There were no principles laid down in the draft guidelines for reading the transactions and applying the appropriate consequence to it.

Further, the consequences per section 98 are not exhaustive; the Assessing Officers have been given wide powers to take appropriate actions where GAAR gets invoked. This is a dangerous tool in the hands of the officers as there is no saying as to how it will be used.
Lastly, it is not clear as to who will GAAR apply to — would it be limited to the parties carrying out the impermissible arrangement or could it be extended to a person who may be only liable to deduct tax at source?

3. Draft GAAR Guidelines:

 Examples The draft guidelines on GAAR have been released for public consultation. The speaker urged all present to actively contribute to the same.

The guidelines would have the same force as the statute to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the statute. The guidelines lay down monetary thresholds for invoking GAAR. GAAR is made effective to income accruing or arising on or after 1st April 2013, which is in sync with international practices. However, there are no grandfathering provisions for existing structures/transactions which may result in income accruing or arising post GAAR becoming applicable.
Key take-away of guidelines:
  •  GAAR provisions codify substance over form doctrine.
  •  Onus of proof is on tax authority.
  •  Special Anti-Avoidance Rules (‘SAAR’) usually override GAAR; exception being abusive behaviour that defeats a SAAR.
  •  If arrangement is only partly impermissible, GAAR is applicable to the part, not the whole.
The speaker, thereafter, briefly dealt with examples in the guidelines which seek to clarify the applicability of GAAR.
He observed that while the guidelines explained tax evasion and tax planning, they failed to bring out the distinction between tax evasion and tax mitigation, thereby leaving ambiguity for borderline cases. Thus, the guidelines still leave ambiguity on what qualifies as tax avoidance. Further, the examples are not exhaustive in any case and do not address the various peculiar transactions.
With respect to FIIs, the guidelines clarify that GAAR will not be applicable to FIIs if the FII opts not to claim treaty benefits. GAAR would also not extend to non-resident investors in FIIs. However, presently, there is no legal provision for this, but only the guidelines.
While SAAR overrides GAAR, one of the questions left open by the guidelines was whether the limitation of benefit clause in a double tax avoidance treaty would qualify as SAAR? Likewise, while guidelines gave examples demonstrating that treaty shopping is impermissible if without commercial substance, they also opened a Pandora’s Box of unaddressed challenges. Some of these issues were discussed by the learned speaker.
The guidelines have recognised the ‘choice principle’ in some examples, i.e., if a person undertakes a transaction purely as a matter of commercial choice, without the motive of tax evasion, GAAR would not apply. However, the speaker opined, that a number of other examples in the guidelines are inconsistent with this principle.
The guidelines should further clarify the following:
  •  GAAR is not a revenue earning measure; GAAR deals with abuse. l Respect business decisions and choice principle.
  •  Notional taxation is not permitted. l Claim of expenses to be evaluated on tax provisions. GAAR covers only artificial claims; not real expenditure.
  •  Co-relative adjustment: a natural hedge to protect reasonable business choice?
  •  Citing of a counterfactual (alternative/nonabusive) arrangement by the tax officer should be required.


4. Indirect transfer of assets in India — Section 9

Transfer outside India of shares of a company set up outside India by a non-resident of India to another non-resident have been made taxable in India of the company whose shares are being transferred derives its value substantially from Indian assets.

Meaning of the term ‘deriving value substantially’ used in the statute is not clear. This has thrown up a variety of issues. For example, say, A holds shares of Company X listed on the New York Stock Exchange (‘NYSE’). Company X holds Company Y which is located outside India and has operations in India and China. In this case, would sale of shares of Company X by A on the NYSE attract capital gains tax in India?
Some of the effects, perhaps intended, of these provisions are:
  • Merger of a foreign company having operations in India with its sister concern located outside India could now lead to capital gains tax in India for the holding company of the merging entities. Such transactions were till date outside the scope of Indian tax laws.
  •  Issues with respect to what would be the cost of acquisition and what would be the period of holding of the ‘deemed Indian assets’ in some situations are as yet unanswered.
  •  Indirect transfers may get treaty protection if the actual asset being transferred is located in a beneficial treaty country.
Reassessment of income for foreign assets
Whether the extended time limit of 16 years for assessees having undisclosed foreign assets would apply to cases of indirect transfer of Indian assets? Likewise, the time limit for reassessment of representative assessees has been extended to 6 years. While ideally, these limits should not apply to indirect transfers; it is difficult to be confident of this under the reigns of the Indian Tax Department.

5.    Other provisions

(i)    Software payments: The purpose of amendment to section 9(1)(vi) appears to bring into tax net ‘shrinkwrapped software’. However, there is no change in treaty position and hence, if treaty provisions made a transaction non-taxable, it will continue to be not taxable. The amendment will, however, apply to non-treaty and domestic transactions.

(ii)    Domestic transfer pricing: While international transfer pricing applies to foreign company holding more than 26% shares of Indian company, domestic transfer pricing may apply to foreign company holding more than 20% shares of Indian company. Disconnect in domestic transfer pricing provision could capture director’s fees, managerial remuneration allocated to Indian PE of a foreign company and paid by the foreign company.

(iii)    Taxation of foreign dividends at concessional rate (section 115BBD): This section does not cover deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e). Further, section 115BBD does not allow deduction of expenses incurred. In many cases, the expenditure incurred, which is disallowed by section 115BBD, may be higher than the benefit offered by the concessional tax rate of section 115BBD. Further, MAT provisions still apply to this income.

(iv)    Foreign currency borrowings (section 115A r.w.s. 194LC): If loan agreement is executed prior to 1st July 2012 but monies are actually borrowed after that date, section 115A benefits would apply. While section 115A requires approval of Central Government, External Commercial Borrowing (‘ECB’) is permitted under general FEMA approval and does not require a specific Central Government approval. Clarifications/instructions clarifying this issue may be expected.

(v)    Issues arising out of amendments to section 195(7), concessional tax rate on LTCG from sale of unlisted securities by non-residents, requirement of tax residency certificate, section 90(3), annual statement requirement in respect of Liaison Offices were also lightly touched upon.

SC Draws Medias Laxman Rekha, Lauds Crucial Role

fiogf49gjkf0d
The SC on Tuesday gave its nod for an accused to seek the postponement of media reporting of a trial if it interferes with the administration of justice.The bench of Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia and Justices D. K. Jain, S. S. Nijjar, R. P. Desai and J. S. Khehar said they (orders of postponement ) should be passed only when necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial, if reasonable alternative methods or measures such as change of venue or postponement of trial will not prevent the said risk and when the salutary effects of such orders outweigh the deleterious effects to the free expression of those (media) affected by the prior restraint order. But the SC said the media had a right to appeal against postponement orders. Such orders of postponement should be for a limited duration and without disturbing the content of the publication. The order of postponement will only be appropriate in cases where the balancing test otherwise favours nonpublication for a limited period, Justice Kapadia, who authored the 56-page judgment on behalf of the bench,said.

Importantly, the SC said constitutional courts could temporarily prohibit media statements if they had the potential to prejudice or obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice. The bench said the doctrine of postponement was for the benefit of journalists, who otherwise would be on the wrong side of contempt of court law. The doctrine of postponement will serve as a Laxman Rekha for journalists and warn them not to cross it, the CJI said.

(Source: Times of India dated 12-09-2012)
levitra

M/s. UPS SCS (Asia) Limited v. ADIT (2012) TII 23 ITAT-Mum. Section 9(1), 9(1)(vii) of Income-tax Act Dated: 22-2-2012 Present for the appellant: Sunil Lala Present for the respondent: Mahesh Kumar

fiogf49gjkf0d
International freight forwarding and logistic services carried out by non-resident taxpayer outside India were neither managerial, nor technical nor consultancy in nature and hence would not be taxable as FTS under Income-tax Act.

Services which are rendered outside India by nonresident will not fall within the scope of section 9(1) (i) of Income-tax Act.

Facts:
Taxpayer, a non-resident Hongkong company (FCO), was engaged in the business of provision of supply chain management, including provision of freight, forwarding and logistic services.

FCO entered into a regional transportation and service agreement (agreement) with an Indian company (ICO) for providing freight and logistics services to each other.

In terms of the agreement, ICO undertook to perform destination services (such as, local unloading and loading, custom clearance, ground documentation and local transportation) within India while FCO undertook to perform destination services outside India.

FCO earned international transportation fees from ICO towards services rendered by it outside India on export consignments and claimed that such fees were not taxable in India u/s.5 r.w.s. 9 of Income-tax Act as the income arose from services rendered outside India and that no operations were carried on in India.

The Tax Department contended that services rendered by FCO were in the nature of freight and logistics services, which would be FTS u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.

Also, FCO’s business of providing timebound service, coupled with continuous real-time transmission of information, also ‘made available’ its technology in the form of sophisticated equipments, software, etc. Thus, fees constituted FTS u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Incometax Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Blue Dart Express Limited3.

Held:
International freight forwarding and logistic services performed by FCO outside India were neither managerial, nor technical nor consultancy services. Hence, they would not be taxable as FTS u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. Further, since the services were rendered outside India, they would not fall within the scope of section 9(1)(i) of the Act.

Managerial services:

The nature of services rendered by FCO could not fall under managerial services as managerial services contemplate not only execution but also planning and strategising. If the overall planning aspect is missing, and one has to follow a direction from the other for executing particular job, it cannot be said that the former is managing that affair.

The role of FCO in the entire transaction was to perform only customs clearance and transportation to the ultimate customer outside India. Accordingly, such restricted services cannot be characterised as managerial services.

Consultancy services:
The nature of services (i.e., freight and logistics services in the form of transport, procurement, customs clearance, delivery, warehousing and picking up) cannot be considered as consultancy services.

Technical services:

Just as ‘managerial services’ and ‘consultancy services’ pre-suppose some sort of direct human involvement, technical services also cover those which have direct human involvement. While technical services may be rendered with or without any equipment, the human involvement is inevitable.

Even if the view of the Tax Department that computer was used in tracing the movement of the goods is accepted, such use of computer cannot bring the services within the purview of ‘technical services’.

Business connection
Under Explanation 1(a) to section 9 of the Income-tax Act, only that part of income from business operations can be said to be accruing or arising in India, as is relatable to the carrying on of operations in India. If a non-resident earns any income from India by means of operations carried on outside India, the same will not fall within the scope of section 9(1)(i) of the Incometax Act.

Also, as FCO rendered ‘International services’ outside India, income cannot be taxed u/s.9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

levitra

Indian Economy – The Vital Signs

fiogf49gjkf0d
To the long record of government leaders promising jam tomorrow, we must add the prime minister’s forecast on Independence Day that GDP growth this year will be better than last year’s 6.5 %. Now, three months later, the finance minister has lowered expectations to the 5.5 % – 6.0 %t range, but he expects growth next year to be back upto 7 %. In other words, “jam tomorrow” once again. If you keep predicting this till kingdom come, it will eventually turn out to be true. But will it be next year, or the year after, or still later? And has the economy bottomed out, as Montek Singh Ahluwalia says, although the latest monthly industrial production, trade and inflation figures are as depressing as any? Could we, instead, be heading for more bad, indeed worse, news? The pointers to the future are the macroeconomic numbers – the fiscal deficit, the trade deficit, and the level of inflation – which you could say are the equivalent of the system’s pulse rate, blood pressure and temperature. All of them are higher than normal, or what is desirable; indeed they are higher than what is being recorded by most other economies. And all three readings have stayed stubbornly high despite the government’s ministrations. In short, India’s economy has been and continues to be off balance. The more accurate metaphor would be “over-heated”, except that it is odd to say so when growth is slower than it has been in a decade. Still, the logical conclusion would be that the system needs to slow down some more, so that its vital signs get closer to normalcy, before structural adjustment measures (ie., real reforms) prepare the ground once again for faster growth. In short, not jam tomorrow but more pain before (at some point) the good times return.

(Source: Weekend Ruminations by T.N. Ninan in Business Standard dated 17-11-2012).
levitra

London risks losing its status as world’s top financial centre.

fiogf49gjkf0d

London risks losing its status as the world’s top financial centre as the INRNaN-trillion interest-rate fixing probe follows a series of market abuses by banks that eroded trust in a city already shrinking faster than rivals. JPMorgan Chase & Co’s trading loss of at least INRNaN billion, the alleged INRNaN billion fraud at UBS and the investigation of at least a dozen banks including Barclays for rigging global interest rates all happened in London in the last year. The effect is taking a toll on the capital of a country enduring its first double-dip recession since the 1970s, which fired more financial-services workers than any other country in 2011 and again this year.

“My heart sinks every time there is a scandal and the perpetrators are in London, even if it is not always the UK’s responsibility, it is under our noses,”

Sharon Bowles, chairwoman of the European Parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee, said in an interview.

“There is an effect on the UK’s reputation, and it reinforces the view that even after all the apologies there is much to do.”

London, ranked as the world’s number one financial centre by research firm Z/Yen Group, was where American International Group and Lehman Brothers Holdings booked transactions that helped lead to their downfall. This week saw Bank of England and UK government officials tied to the interest-rate fixing scandal that cost Robert Diamond, London’s best-known banker, his job at Barclays. With the European debt crisis on its doorstep, London now faces calls to cull its bonus culture, rein in risk-taking and beef up a light-touch regulatory system that fuelled a decade long boom.

The danger for London is that Europe is preparing to set up its own regulator for banks, which may exclude the UK or disadvantage firms based in the city. Domestically, the industry is losing longstanding political support from both Conservative and Labour parties — as well as the public. Home to about 250 foreign banks, London is the world’s biggest centre for foreign-exchange trading and cross-border bank lending and trades INRNaN trillion of interest derivatives daily, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

levitra

Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. v. DCIT ITA No. 5868/Mum./2010 Article 11(3) of India Sweden DTAA, Section 40(a)(i), 195 of Income-tax Act Dated: 12-1-2012 Present for the assessee: S. Venkataraman Present for the Department: V. V. Shastri

fiogf49gjkf0d
Payment by ICO to FCO for transponder hire charges is not ‘royalty’ under provisions of Income-tax Act.

Obligation to withhold tax at source only arises when income is chargeable to tax in India.

Facts:
The
taxpayer, Indian company (ICO), was engaged in the business of
broadcasting and operating TV channel. ICO videographed events by using
up-linking facilities, and sent signals to satellite hovering in space.
The signals sent to the satellite were decoded and downlinked over the
area covered by the satellite. The satellite, also known as a
transponder, was owned by Intelsat and was taken for the purpose of
beaming the events.

ICO entered into an agreement with US-based
Company (FCO) for using the transponder capacity, to make the signals
available to cable operators.

The Tax Department relied on Delhi
ITAT’s Special Bench (SB) ruling in the case of New Skies Satellites
N.V1 to hold that payment made for use of transponder falls within the
definition of ‘Royalty’ and is liable to tax in the hands of the
recipient.

Held:
ITAT rejected contentions of the Tax
Department and held that payment for transponder hire charges is not
‘royalty’ for the following reasons:

The SB decision in the case
of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd. relied by the Tax
Department has been reversed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Asia
Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd.2.:

In terms of the Delhi High Court decision:
FCO
was the operator of satellites and was in control of the satellite. FCO
had not leased out equipment to customers. FCO had merely given access
to a broadband width available in a transponder which was utilised by
ICO for the purpose of transmitting signals to customers.

A
satellite is not a mere carrier, nor is the transponder something which
is distinct and separable from the satellite. The transponder in fact
cannot function without the continuous support of various systems and
components of the satellite. Consequently, it is entirely wrong to
assume that a transponder is a self-contained operating unit, the
control and constructive possession of which can be handed over by the
satellite operator to its customers.

There was no use of
‘process’ by the television channels. Moreover, no such purported use
had taken place in India. The telecast companies/ customers were
situated outside India. The agreements under which the services were
provided by ICO to its customers were executed abroad. Mere existence of
its footprint on various continents would not mean that the process had
taken place in India.

Also, there can be no business taxation
u/s.9(1) (i) as no operations are carried out in India. The expressions
‘operations’ and ‘carried out in India’ occurring under Explanation 1(a)
to section 9(1)(i) of Income-tax Act signify that it is necessary to
establish that taxpayer’s operations are carried out in India. This test
is not met in case where the process of amplifying and relaying the
programs was performed in the satellite which was not situated in Indian
airspace.

levitra

Liebor? — Determination of the LIBOR must be above suspicion.

fiogf49gjkf0d

The scandal involving the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) — which serves as a benchmark for determining the rate of interest on a great many financial transactions — has already cost Barclays, the UK’s third-biggest bank, dear. It has been fined nearly half-a-billion dollars and lost three powerful men at the top, including CEO Bob Diamond. But the damage to date may be only the tip of the iceberg. If a 2008 internal memo published by Barclays is to be believed, manipulation and subterfuge are not the exclusive preserve of banks. The rot goes much deeper. Barclays, so it would seem, was only taking its cue from the Bank of England and the government. Both wanted to keep interest rates low to stimulate economic activity in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis.

What better way to do that than have friendly banks deliberately under-report the actual rate of interest in order to depress Libor, the market benchmark used to price financial contracts, globally? If true, the implications are much more serious and go well beyond the UK. Allegations of Libor rigging are not new.

For now, Barclays’ claim that it had official sanction to manipulate the rate and report it lower during the crisis has not found many takers. But there is no denying that after the collapse of Lehman Brothers when banks’ borrowing costs increased dramatically, managers and governments were keen to shore up confidence, tempting banks to present a rosier-than-actual picture by reporting lower-than-actual interest rates. There is also no denying the nexus between Western governments and banks.

Most US Treasury Secretaries have cut their teeth on Wall Street. But the Barclays scandal shows the nexus could potentially be wider and far more damaging than suspected so far. Libor determines the interest rate on transactions to the tune of close to INRNaN trillion globally. Like Caesar’s wife, it must be above suspicion.

levitra

Sections 194I, 199 — Tax is not deductible at source on payment received as an obligation and not as an income — If the amount is paid by the payer to the payee, not directly but indirectly, through the medium of some other person, then such other person receives the amount as an obligation and not as income — Payment received as an obligation is not taxable as income and credit for TDS was allowable u/s.199 in the year in which the amount was received by such other person after deduction of ta<

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2012) 21 taxmann.com 131 (Mumbai-Trib)
arvind Murjani Brands (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y.: 2007-08. Dated: 2-5-2012

Sections 194i, 199 — Tax is not deductible at source on payment received as an obligation and not as an income — if the amount is paid by the payer to the payee, not directly but indirectly, through the medium of some other person, then such other person receives the amount as an obligation and not as income — Payment received as an obligation is not taxable as income and credit for TDS was allowable u/s.199 in the year in which the amount was received by such other person after deduction of tax at source.

Facts:

 M/s. Guys & Gals, franchisees of the assessee, desired to take premises on rent. Since the landlords were not willing to let out their premises to M/s. Guys & Gals, the sister concern of the assessee took the premises on rent from the landlords, Sibals.

M/s. Guys & Gals paid to the assessee the amount of rent after deduction of tax at source u/s.194I. The assessee paid the gross amount of rent to its sister concern. The sister concern of the assessee paid the amount of rent to the landlords after deduction of tax at source. Thus, there was TDS on two occasions — first at the time of payment by Guys & Gals to the assessee and second at the time of payment by the sister concern of the assessee to the landlord.

Since the amount received by the assessee from Guys & Gals was for onward payment to its sister concern, it did not reflect any rental income in its accounts. However, the assessee claimed credit for TDS by Guys & Gals.

While assessing the total income of the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) denied credit of TDS amounting to Rs.8,77,881 on the ground that the corresponding income has not been offered for tax. The AO, however, after considering the explanation of the assessee did not include the amount of rent as income of the assessee.

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

Held:

The Tribunal considered the provisions of TDS contained in Chapter VII of the Act and held that the common thread running through these provisions is the chargeability of the amount as income. If the amount received by the payee is not in the nature of any income or does not contain some element of income, there cannot be any question of deduction of tax at source. In order to attract the provisions for withholding of tax, the amount must be received by the recipient in the nature of income and not as an obligation. When the amount of income is directly paid by the payer to the payee, such amount is liable for deduction of tax at source if it is of the nature as specified in the relevant provisions concerning with deduction of tax at source. If however the amount is paid by the payer to the payee not directly but indirectly, that is, through the medium of some other person, then such other person receives the amount as an obligation and not as income in his hands. Neither the amount received by such middleman can be considered as income in his hands, nor can there be any requirement under law fastening some sort of tax liability on him towards such transaction. The said middleman does not earn any income from the payer, nor incurs any expenditure by mediating in the transaction between the payer and receiver of income.

Section 199 only deals with allowing of the credit for tax deducted at source and not with the disallowing of such credit. It does not encompass within its purview the question for determination as to whether the credit for tax deducted at source should at all be allowed or disallowed. This enabling 298 (2012) 44-A BCAJ provision cannot be employed to disable the allowing of credit for tax deducted at source from the payment made to the assessee in the nature of income. The amount of tax deducted at source has to be necessarily allowed credit somewhere. It cannot be a case that the amount of such tax deducted and paid to the exchequer is not to be refunded, if the tax due on the amount of income received is either lower than the amount of tax deducted or there does not exist any liability to tax in respect of amount received.

The amount of tax deducted at source needs to be adjusted against some tax liability of the payee and in case there is no such liability, it has to be refunded to the payee because of the very mandate of section 199 as per which such amount is ‘treated as payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made’ that is the payee.

As the amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all chargeable to tax, then the command of section 199 will have to be harmoniously and pragmatically read as providing for allowing credit for the tax deducted at source in the year of receipt of the amount, on which such tax was deducted at source.

Since the assessee received the amount after deduction of tax at source from Guys & Gals and such amount was admittedly not chargeable to tax in its hands, the Tribunal held that the credit for tax deducted at source should be allowed in the instant year.

levitra

Section 40(a)(i) r.w.s 195 — Whether no tax is deductible u/s.195 on the commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India — Held, Yes.

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2011) 131 ITD 271 (Hyd.)
CIT v. Divi’s Laboratories Ltd.
A.Ys.: 2001-02 to 2004-05. Dated: 25-3-2011

Section 40(a)(i) r.w.s 195 — Whether no tax is deductible u/s.195 on the commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside india — Held, Yes.

Therefore such payments made to overseas agents without deducting of TDS are not liable to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(i) — Held, Yes.


Facts:

The assessee had paid commission to foreign agents for services rendered outside India. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same u/s.40(a)(i) on the ground that the tax was not deducted at source. The assessee contended that the payment was made through appropriate banking channels as per the RBI guidelines and regulations and hence was not liable to TDS. On assessee’s appeal with the CIT(A), the Commissioner allowed certain relief to the assessee. On the Department’s appeal, it was held:

Held:

Section 195 clearly states that the obligation to deduct tax is only on the income taxable in India. On the basis of section 9, the income is liable to be taxed only when it arises, accrues by virtue of its control or management being situated in India. In this case the overseas agents of Indian exporters operate in their own countries and therefore the income received by them is not liable to be taxed in India and hence do not attract TDS provisions. Also the Assessing Officer had not been able to prove the specific instruction of payee to receive the same payment in India. Hence he had erred in disallowing such agency fees u/s.40(a)(i) and thus the CIT(A)’s order ought to be upheld.

levitra

Section 263 — Without examining detailed records submitted by assessee and in absence of finding of any factual mistake or any legal error or any instance which could have shown as to how the order of AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue, the proceedings initiated by Commissioner u/s.263 were not justified.

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2011) 131 ITD 58 (Jp.)
Rajiv Arora v. CIT-iii
A.Y.: 2007-08. Dated: 9-7-2010

Section 263 — Without examining detailed records submitted by assessee and in absence of finding of any factual mistake or any legal error or any instance which could have shown as to how the order of  ao was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, the proceedings initiated by Commissioner u/s.263 were not justified.


Facts:

The assessee was an individual deriving income from manufacturing and export of gems and jewellery. Order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) u/s.143(3). Taking into consideration the past history of the assessee, the deduction u/s.10B was allowed. Thereafter, the successor AO sent a proposal u/s.263 to the Additional Commissioner. Notice u/s.263(1) was thus issued to the assessee. The assessee filed detailed replies to notice. The Commissioner, in exercise of his power u/s.263, set aside the assessment order passed by the AO mainly on ground that while completing assessment, the AO had not raised any queries and details, which were suo moto filed by assessee, were not examined by the AO and no investigation was made. Accordingly, order of the AO was held erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the Revenue and hence was set aside. The assessee appealed before the Tribunal.

Held:

While completing the assessment, the AO though he had not discussed the issue in detail but had clearly mentioned that the case was discussed and various details filed by the assessee were test-checked and were found correct. Taking into consideration the past history, deduction u/s.10B was also allowed. It is not necessary that the AO should write a lengthy order discussing all the details but the necessity is that he should have applied his mind. In reply to the notice issued by the Commissioner, the assessee explained each and every query through detailed reply. However, the Commissioner didn’t comment as to how these explanations and details were not acceptable. The Commissioner set aside the order of the AO to make de novo assessment. The approach of the Commissioner was not legally well-founded. The order of the Commissioner could not be sustained as it could not point out as to how the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the Revenue or it could not point out any specific defect in the details filed before the AO and again before the Commissioner or how any addition can be sustained. Without pointing out any defect, mere setting aside the order of the AO, just to make fresh investigation in a manner suggested by the Commissioner is not permissible under law. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The error envisaged by section 263 is not one which depends on possibility or guesswork, but it should be actually an error either of fact or law. The phrase ‘prejudicial to interests of Revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO.

levitra

Section 11 r.w.s 12A — Whether the accumulated funds along with all the assets and liabilities transferred to a new institution or section 25 company formed shall be taxable as deemed income u/s.11(3)(d). Held, No.

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2011) 130 ITD 157 (Luck.)
aCiT v. U.P. Cricket association
Dated: 24-9-2010

Section 11 r.w.s 12A — Whether the accumulated funds along with all the assets and liabilities transferred to a new institution or section 25 company formed shall be taxable as deemed income u/s.11(3)(d). Held, No.


Facts:

The assessee a sports association working for the promotion of sports was granted a registration u/s.12A. In the year 2005, the assessee passed a resolution to create a new company u/s.25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and to thus dissolve the existing society by transferring all the assets and liabilities. As on the date of transfer the society had accumulated funds of Rs.5.48 crore which were also transferred. These funds were deemed to be the income u/s.11(3)(d). The CIT(A) held that the funds transferred by the assessee were not covered by section 11(3A) because the new company had invested the accumulated balance in accordance with the provisions. The Department preferred a second appeal.

Held:

The scope of transfer has been extended to by section 11(3A) to not only societies but also to institutions. The new company being a charitable institution registered u/s.12A had taken over the functions of the society as also the assets and liabilities as per its Memorandum of Association. The Revenue had also not placed any material to prove it otherwise, hence the order of the CIT(A) was restored.

levitra

Loss on account of valuation of interest rate swap as on the balance sheet date is deductible.

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2012) 69 DTR (Mum.) (Trib.) 161
aBN amro Securities india (P) Ltd. v. ITO
A.Y.: 2003-04. Dated: 26-8-2011

Loss on account of valuation of interest rate swap as on the balance sheet date is deductible.


Facts:

Interest rate swap is a financial contract between two parties exchanging a stream of interest payments for a notional principal amount, on multiple occasions, during the contract period. These contracts generally involve exchange of fixed rate of interest, with floating rate of interest, and vice versa. On each payment date, the interest is notionally paid on the agreed fixed or floating rate by one party to the other, by settling for the difference payments. The assessee had three ongoing interest rate swap contracts, for a notional principal amount of Rs.185 crore, under which the assessee was to pay a fixed rate of interest and receive the floating rate of interest. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.10,10,92,000 on account of unrealised loss on the basis of valuation of interest rate swap. This valuation, was arrived at by working out future extrapolation of the yield curve, considering past history of available rates and current market rate. This provision was made in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI, and the method of valuation consistently followed all along. The AO disallowed this loss considering it as unascertained liability and it was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Held:

It is important to bear in mind the fact that whatever is claimed as a loss at this stage, is eventually reduced from the overall loss or added to overall profit taken into account, for tax purposes, in the subsequent year in which the settlement date falls. It is not really, therefore, the question as to whether the deduction is to be allowed or not, but only the assessment year in which deduction is to be allowed. Viewed in the long-term perspective, thus, it is wholly tax neutral, but for the timing of deduction. One of the mandatory Accounting Standards, notified vide Notification No. 9949, dated 25th Jan., 1996, provides that “provisions should be made for all known liabilities and losses even though the amount cannot be determined with certainty and represents only a best estimate in the light of available information”. There is no enabling provision which permits the AO to tinker with the profits computed in accordance with the method of accounting so employed u/s.145 and as long as the mandatory accounting standards are duly followed. It is not even the AO’s case that the mandatory accounting standards have not been followed.

Loss having been incurred is a reality, its recoupment or aggravation is contingent. It is contingent upon future happenings i.e., whether or not loss the assessee will be able to recoup the losses till settlement date, and such recoupment or aggravation of loss will fall in period beyond the end of the relevant previous year. Viewed thus, and bearing in mind the fact that the real issue in this appeal is not the deductibility but only the timing of the deduction, the loss computed vis-à-vis the variation as on the end of the relevant previous year, the loss is deductible in the relevant previous year.

levitra

Exemption u/s.54EC — Granted even in respect of bonds purchased in wife’s name where repayment was to be received by the assessee.

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2012) 69 DTR (Mum.) (Trib.) 19
aCiT v. Vijay S. Shirodkar
A.Y.: 2007-08. Dated: 30-8-2011

exemption u/s.54eC — Granted even in respect of bonds purchased in wife’s name where repayment was to be received by the assessee.


Facts:

Against the long-term capital gain on surrender of tenancy rights the assessee claimed exemption u/s.54EC on the ground that he invested a total sum of Rs.46 lakh in REC bonds. There were two certificates of REC bonds of Rs.23 lakh each. In the first certificate the assessee was mentioned as the main holder of the bonds, whereas wife and daughter of the assessee were shown as the joint holders. In respect of other certificate, Smt. Sabita Shirodkar, wife of the assessee, was the main holder of the certificate and the assessee along with his son were only the nominees of the first beneficial owner.

The AO allowed exemption in respect of first certificate of Rs.23 lakh in the light of the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v. ITO, 27 DTR (Mum.) (Trib.) 271 though wife and daughter were co-holders. But he disallowed the exemption in respect of another certificate of Rs.23 lakh since the assessee was not the main-holder.

Held:

In respect of the assessee’s investment in REC Bonds the CIT(A) observed that the primary requirement for claiming deduction u/s.54EC of the Act was fulfilled in the instant case by virtue of the fact that the funds invested emanated from the sum received from the transfer of long-term capital asset and that it was invested within a specified time. In his opinion payment of the maturity proceeds to any one of the bond holders is not a material factor for deciding the ownership of the bonds. In the statement of facts before the CIT(A) the assessee stated that though rules were framed for ease of operation and not for determining ownership and/or succession rights, the fact remains that the assessee’s wife had instructed REC to remit the maturity proceeds directly to the account of the assessee and REC had agreed to the change readily without asking for any documentation for the reason that they are not concerned with the question as to who among the joint applicants are the true owners of the bonds. It was stated that the REC had confirmed the change vide their letter dated 27th July, 2009.

Having regard to the factual matrix, the CIT(A) observed that the payment of the maturity deposit to any one of the bond-holders is not a material factor so long as investment was made out of the sale proceeds and the assessee’s name also figures as one of the investors, more particularly when REC changed the name of recipient in its records. Thus, the CIT(A) held that the assessee had invested in REC Bonds.

ITAT primarily relied upon the decision of Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v. ITO, 27 DTR (Mum.) (Trib.) 271 and confirmed the above findings of CIT(A).

levitra

2012 (28) STR 73 (Commr. Appl.) In Re: Sri Venkateswara Engg. Corporation

fiogf49gjkf0d
Construction of residential quarters for Central Government employees/police department/Pondicherry University not chargeable to service tax in view of exclusion clause under construction of complex services.

Facts:
The department contended that the activity of constructing residential quarters for Central Government employees/police department/Pondicherry University carried out by the appellants was leviable to service tax under construction of complex services. Further, the activity of construction of tower foundation for BSNL was leviable to service tax under construction of commercial or industrial construction services or works contract services. The appellants contested that they provided construction services to income tax and police departments for their own use and not for sale and therefore, service tax was not leviable.

Held:
It was an undisputed fact that the apartments/ houses were constructed for Pondicherry University and police department, which were used by them and were not sold by them. The Tribunal observed that since the complexes were meant for personal use, according to the exclusion clause, the services were not taxable. Further, since the lower adjudicating authority had accepted the stand of the appellants that the activity of construction of tower for BSNL was leviable to service tax under “works contract services” for the period from 01-06-2007 to 19-12-2009, the said activity cannot be taxed under commercial or industrial construction services for the period from January, 2006 to May, 2007.

levitra

Exemption of Services provided by TBI/ STEP — Notification No. 32/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Services provided by Technology Business Incubator (TBI) or Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Park (STEP) recognised by the National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Development Board (NSTEDB) of the Department of Science and Technology, were exempted from whole of service tax vide Notification No. 9/2007-ST w.e.f. 1-4-2007.

Further the services provided by an entrepreneur located within the premises of so recognised TBI/ STEP were also exempted vide Notification No. 10/2007-ST. In the new service tax regime, the benefits of exemption given to entrepreneurs under Notification No. 10/2007-ST is totally rescinded but TBI/STEP are provided with similar benefits as they were enjoying before, vide this Notification No. 32/2012-ST. The new Notification also contains revised formats for information to be furnished in this regard.

levitra

2012 (28) STR 46 (Tri.-Del.) Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vs. Raj Wines

fiogf49gjkf0d
Carrying out business promotion activities along with commission agent – deprived from benefit of Notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20-06-2003.

Valuation issue – Reimbursement of expenses necessary to provide services are liable to Service tax. However, expenses which are not necessary for provision of services but expended when reimbursed, can be excluded from the value of services.

Facts:
The respondents had entered into agreements with M/s. Skol Beverages Ltd. for promotion and marketing of Indian manufactured Foreign Liquor/Beer products. The respondents were required to take initiatives to maximise brand visibility, to monitor, report competitor’s activities, to provide infrastructure facilities to the staff of M/s. Skol Beverages Ltd., to submit periodic sales report, etc. It had received service charges under the following heads:

• Primary claim/Retailer scheme:
It included discounts offered by the liquor manufacturer to the retailer. Further, to increase sales, rebate was paid to the retailers by the respondents on submission of certain proofs. The said amounts were thereafter claimed from the manufacturer by the respondents without adding any margins.

• Commission claim:
It included payments for the marketing services provided by the respondents to the manufacturers and also the return on investments made by the respondents such as payment to retailers, excise duty, etc.

• Merchandiser expenses:
The salary and other expenses expended by the respondents to carry out sales promotion activity were reimbursed by the manufacturer.

• Fixed office/other expenses:
The respondents arranged transportation, loading – unloading etc. for which they got reimbursements from the manufacturer. The respondents paid service tax on commission income and did not pay service tax on reimbursements and the said position was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Aggrieved by the same, the department filed an appeal contesting that the respondents were also engaged in business promotion activities along with being a commission agent and therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20-06-2003. Further, it was not proved that the reimbursements were actual expenses and therefore, were included in the value of taxable services and that the respondents had malafide intentions to suppress the value of taxable services and therefore, penalty u/s. 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also leviable.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that the commission was not merely based on volume of sales and there were reimbursements of salary of salaried personnel and therefore, the said arrangement cannot be termed to be covered within the definition of “commission agent” as provided under Notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20-06-2003. Further, the discounts given to customers i.e. the primary claim/ retailer scheme cannot be included in the “gross amount charged” for the taxable services. However, following the Larger Bench decision in the case of Shri Bhagavathy Traders vs. CCE 2011 (24) STR 290 (Tri.-LB), merchandise, fixed office and other expenses forms integral part of the value of services and therefore, were includible in the value of taxable services, since it was necessary for the respondents to have manpower to provide agreed services. With respect to misc. expenses such as registration fees for label or brand, transportation, etc., since the expenses were not for providing services, the same may be excluded from the value of services, provided the respondents provided proof regarding such expenditure and reimbursements thereof. The respondents gave their own interpretation to the Notification and they arranged to claim reimbursements of staff expenses and therefore, section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) could not be invoked and the adjudicating authority may provide an option to the respondents to pay penalty @25% of the service tax dues within 30 days from the receipt of the order. However, penalty u/s. 76 of the Act need not be imposed, since penalty was imposed u/s. 78 of the Act.

levitra

Exemption to specified services received by exporter of goods — Notification No. 31/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
By this Notification, benefit for promotion of exports has been given which includes exemption of certain specified taxable services received by an exporter of goods and used for export of good, from the whole of service tax. As per the said notification, the exporter shall register himself u/s.69 of the Act, should be holding Import Export Code Number, should be registered with the export promotion council sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textile as the case may be and shall comply with procedural aspects specified in this Notification.

levitra

Partial reverse charge mechanism — Notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012 widens the coverage of situations wherein service tax is payable under reverse charge mechanism by including following additional services/situations:

In respect of services specified at Sl. No. 7, 8 & 9, this reverse charge mechanism shall be applicable only where service provider is a non-corporate entity and the service recipient is a corporate entity.

levitra

2012 (28) STR 39 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Glory Digital Photo Station vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Surat-I

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit balance can be utilised to pay service tax demand arising out of adjudication order in view of the self assessment system under service tax laws.

Facts:
Short payment of service tax along with interest and penalty was confirmed against the appellants. The appellants did not dispute the short levy, and hence, utilised the CENVAT credit availed in the service tax return to make good the short levy. This was not considered by the department while computing the said short payment to make part payment of the demand under adjudication order. However, the original adjudicating authority rejected the utilisation of CENVAT credit, since there was no evidence of admissibility of CENVAT credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that due to self-assessment system under service tax laws, the role of adjudicating authority is limited to scrutiny and issuing SCNs and hence, there is no question of obtaining any approval for availment and utilisation of CENVAT credit. Further, the admissibility or inadmissibility of the credit cannot be the subject matter of the proceedings.

Held:
Noting the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was decided in favour of the appellants and the reversal of CENVAT credit was taken to mean payment of service tax payable as a consequence of adjudication proceedings.

levitra

Exemption on property tax paid on immovable property — Notification No. 29/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This Notification exempts taxable service of renting of an immovable property, from so much of service tax leviable thereon, as is in excess of service tax calculated on a value which is equivalent to the gross amount charged for renting of such immovable property less taxes on such property, namely, property tax levied and collected by local bodies. It is further clarified that any amount of interest or penalty paid to the local authority on account of delayed payment of property tax shall not be treated as property tax for the purpose of deduction from the gross amount charged.

levitra

Place of provision of Services Rules, 2012 — Notification No. 28/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Central Government has notified Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 which specifies the manner to determine the taxing jurisdiction for a service. Rules are provided in relation to:

(1) Place of provisions of services generally;

(2) Place of provision of performance based services;

(3) Place of provision of services relating to immovable property;

(4) Place of provisions of services relating to events;

(5) Place of provision of services provided at more than one location;

(6) Place of provision of services where provider and recipient are located in taxable territory;

(7) Place of provision of specific services;

(8) Place of provision of goods transportation services;

(9) Place of provision of passenger transportation services;

(10) Place of provision of services provided on board a conveyance.

levitra

2012 (28) STR 13 (Tri.-Del.) R. N. Singh. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

fiogf49gjkf0d
Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is granted since it meant acceptance of presence of bonafide intentions by the original authority.

Facts:
The SCN was issued on 01-10-2010 for the period 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2010. The appellants pleaded that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the present case since the Joint Commissioner did not impose any penalty by invoking section 80 on the ground of reasonable cause. Therefore, it can be conceded that there was no suppression or misstatement with an intent of evasion. Further, there were various Tribunal decisions laying down that in case of nonimposition of penalty with the finding that there was no intention to evade taxes, the analogy must be drawn with respect to extended period of limitation also.

Held:
Following various precedents, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of limitation by observing as under:

Service tax was not deposited due to unawareness and there was also findings of the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax regarding reasonable cause to extend the benefit of section 80.

Harmonised reading of section 73 and section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, leads to conclusion that the appellants should be bonafide to take the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, once such benefit was extended to the appellants, it was not open for the adjudicating authority to invoke extended period of limitation. As such, the matter was remanded back to the original authority to quantify the service tax demand for the normal period of limitation.

levitra

Campus Placement Programme for Chartered Accountants

fiogf49gjkf0d

ICAI organised campus placement programmes in various cities during the months of February- March, 2012. Report in respect of this programme is on page 1749 of CA Journal for May, 2012. Highlights of the programmes are as under.

(i) The number of participants and jobs offered

Feb-Mar, 2012

Number of candidates registered

9717

Number of interview teams

12

Number of organisations

76

Number of jobs offered

874

Percentage of jobs offered
vis-à-vis registered candidates

9.00%

(ii) Highest salary offered

(a) For Domestic Posting r 14 lac P.A.

(b) For International Posting r 25 lac P.A.

(c) Minimum salary for Domestic Posting r 4 lac P.A.

(iii) Recruitments from some major cities

levitra

Rate of interest on Senior Citizens Savings Scheme 2004 increased.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Rate of interest on Senior Citizens Savings Scheme 2004 has been increased from 9% to 9.3% p.a. and on PPF it is increased from 8.6% to 8.8% p.a. with effect from 1st April 2012 — Circular DGBA.CDD. No. H-6506/15.02.001/2011-12, dated 3rd April 2012.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 128, dated 16-5-2012 — Exchange Earner’s Foreign Currency (EEFC) Account.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This Circular clarifies that conversion of the EEFC balances into Rupee balances will only be applicable to available balances in the EEFC account which may be arrived at by netting off earmarked amounts on account of outstanding forward/option contracts booked before May 10, 2012.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 127, dated 15-5-2012 — Foreign investment in NBFC Sector under the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Scheme — Clarification.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This Circular clarifies that the activity ‘leasing and finance’, which is one among the eighteen NBFC activities wherein FDI up to 100% is permitted under the Automatic Route covers only ‘financial leases’ and not ‘operating leases’, insofar as the NBFC sector is concerned.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 124, dated 10-5-2012 — Exchange Earner’s Foreign Currency (EEFC) Account.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Presently, all foreign exchange earners are permitted to retain 100% of their foreign exchange earnings in their EEFC account. This Circular has modified the position as under, for holding of foreign exchange in EEFC account, Resident Foreign Currency (RFC) Account or Diamond Dollar Account (DDA):

(a) 50% of the balances in these accounts must be converted within 15 days from the date of this Circular into Rupee balances and credited to the Rupee accounts as per the directions of the account holder.

(b) In respect of all future foreign exchange earnings, an exchange earner is eligible to retain 50% (as against the previous limit of 100%) in non-interest bearing foreign currency accounts. The balance 50% shall be surrendered for conversion to Rupee balances.

(c) EEFC account holders henceforth will be permitted to access the foreign exchange market for purchasing foreign exchange only after utilising fully the available balances in the EEFC accounts.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 618 (Tri.-Mumbai.) — Amalner Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provided services taxable under banking and financial services — Amount of taxable service provided below Rs.4 lakh — Registration certificate surrendered taking benefit of the Notification 6/2005 — Department had duty to verify whether assessee rightly surrendered their registration certificate within a period of one year — Failure to take any action within prescribed time limit — Appellant cannot be questioned subsequently.

Facts:

The appellant provided banking and other financial services and were holding service tax registration certificate under the said category. However, taking into account the benefit under Notification 6/2005, the appellant surrendered the registration certificate to the Department, as their taxable service provided was below Rs.4 lakh. The Department alleged that the assessee wrongly availed the benefit under the said Notification and was liable to pay service tax along with penalty as there was willful suppression of facts.

Held:

Time limit prescribed under law for any action to be taken by the Department is one year from the date of surrendering the registration certificate — Department cannot question the same subsequently. The matter sent back to adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand pertaining to the normal period. Appeal disposed of by reducing the penalty from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,000.
levitra

(2012) 65 DTR (Ahd.) (Trib.) 342 ITO v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah A.Y.: 2005-06. Dated: 30-6-2011

fiogf49gjkf0d
Interest for delayed payment of purchase price to principal — Since such interest is compensatory in nature and not related to any deposit or loan or borrowings, no TDS required to be deducted u/s.194A and hence no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia).

Facts:
The assessee had claimed interest expenses of Rs.12.47 lakh. Out of the total interest claimed, an amount of Rs.7.83 lakh was towards interest of FAG Bearing (India) Ltd. On the said amount of interest no tax was deducted at source. The assessee, having dealership of FAG Bearing (India) Ltd. as per terms of payment was allowed interest-free credit period for 60 days. In case of overdue payment the cost of purchase includes with a liability to pay a compensatory sum which was termed as interest. As per the assessee since it was not in the nature of interest in strict terms, hence there was no liability to deduct the tax at source. The AO denied such claim and stated that as per section 2(28A) interest means interest payable in any manner in respect of any money borrowed or debited. Hence as per the AO, for such payment section 194A was applicable and hence he disallowed such interest u/s.40(a)(ia). The learned CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee. The Department went into further appeal.

Held:
Section 2(28A) has defined the term ‘interest’, but the definition appears to be wide to cover interest payable in any manner in respect of loans, debts, deposits, claims and other similar rights or obligations. But it is also worth noting that the said definition is not wide enough to include other payments. There ought to be a distinction between the payments not connected with any debt, and a payment having connection with the borrowings. A payment having no nexus with a deposit, loan or borrowing is out of the ambit of the definition of interest as per section 2(28A). A decision of Respected National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was relied upon, where in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dr. N. K. Gupta, (2002) 258 ITR 337 (NCDRC), it was held that if the nature of payment is to compensate an allottee, then the provisions of section 194A not to be applied as far as the question of deduction of TDS on interest is concerned.

Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. (2006) 283 ITR 402, wherein the interest received from trade debtors was allowed as deduction u/s.80HH and 80-I, the source being trade activity. The Courts in their judgments have considered the immediate source of interest received. If the immediate source is a loan, deposit, etc., then the payment is in the nature of ‘interest’, but if the immediate source of payment is trade activity, then the nature of receipt is not ‘interest payment’, but in the nature of payment of compensation. Hence, interest for delayed payment of purchase price to principal was held as beyond the ambit of section 194A and hence not liable to TDS.

levitra

Search and seizure: Section 132 and section 153A of Income-tax Act, 1961: A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2009-10: Warrant of authorisation: Satisfaction must be based on information coming into possession of Department: Absence of new material with authorities: Search and consequent notice unsustainable.

fiogf49gjkf0d
[Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. v. DGIT, 340 ITR 393 (Bom.)]

Search operations u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of the petitionercompany and its two directors. The petitioner filed writ petition and challenged the validity of the search action and the consequent notice u/s.153A of the Act. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition and held as under:

“(i) When the satisfaction recorded is justiciable, the documents pertaining to such satisfaction may not be immune and if appropriate prayer is made, inspection of such documents may be required to be allowed.

(ii) The mode and the manner in which all the satisfaction notes were prepared showed the absence of any relevant material with the authorities which would have enabled them to have ‘reason to believe’ that action u/s.132 was essential. No new material as such had been disclosed anywhere. No document or report of alleged discreet inquiry formed part of these notes. The entire exercise had been undertaken only because of the high growth noted by the authorities.

(iii) The material like high growth, high profit margins, the contention in respect of or doubt about international brand and details thereof was available with the authorities. It was not their case that they had obtained any other information which was suppressed by the petitioners.

(iv) The effort, therefore, was to find out some material to support the doubt entertained by the Department. The exercise had not been undertaken as required by section 132(1) in transparent mode. The satisfaction note contemplated therein must be based upon contemporaneous material, information becoming available to the competent authorities prescribed in that section. Its availability and the nature and also the time factor must also be ascertainable from relevant records containing such satisfaction note.

(v) Loose satisfaction notes placed by the authorities before each other could not meet the requirements and the provision. The necessary live link and availability of relevant material for considering it had not been brought before the Court. Therefore, the authorisation issued u/s.132(1) was bad and unsustainable. Consequently, the exercise of search undertaken in consequence thereof was illegal. Notice action u/s.153A was also bad in law. The same were accordingly stand quashed and set aside.”

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 635 (Tri.-Del.) — Peoples Automobiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provider of business auxiliary service — Appellant claimed benefit under exemption Notification 6/2005 — Claim denied by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the said services were provided under brand name — Tribunal held this contention as invalid and matter remanded for re-adjudication.

Facts:
The appellant, a direct selling agent for banks and non-financial corporation was held taxable under Business Auxiliary services. However the appellant claimed benefit under the exemption provided to small service providers by exemption Notification 6/2005, which was denied by the adjudicating authority stating that the direct selling agent used the brand name of the bank it served.

Held:
The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible to claim exemption under the said Notification, as the banks were mere recipient of the services and the appellant did not provide any service by using recipient’s brand name. Also, the Notification did not put restriction with reference to the brand name of the service recipient, however, debarred the benefit to the service provider, if and only if the brand name of another person was being used for rendition of services. On this ground, the confirmation of the demand of the duty was set aside and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.

levitra

2012 (27) STR 508 (Tri.-Mumbai) Synergic India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune-III

fiogf49gjkf0d
Erection, commissioning or installation services- When installation charges not separately collected, whether the activity would be covered under the scope of this service? Only the service element needed to be taxed, the matter was remanded for considering relevant records.

Facts:
The appellant, manufacturer of solar water heater system, sold these goods to dealers and customers on site. The appellant did not charge separately for installation of such system, but the dealers were charging installation charges. The department issued SCNs that the appellant was required to pay service tax on the activity of installation @ 33% on the total value, considering the abatement under notification no. 15/2004. The appellant provided the cost sheet of manufacturing solar system and the service component included therein. However, the adjudicating authority did not consider the same and confirmed the demand on the grounds that the appellant failed to provide the service component separately in the invoices. The appellant relied on the decision of Kaushal Solar Equipments Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 561 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein on identical facts, the matter was remanded back for quantification of service component.

Held:
The activity of installation was covered under erection, commissioning or installation services even when the same was not separately shown on invoices. The matter was remanded back to work out the service component from the data provided by the appellant in view of the Hon’ble Tribunal’s decision in case of Kaushal Solar (supra).

levitra

2012 (27) STR 479 (Tri.-Ahmd.) GAIL (INDIA) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara

fiogf49gjkf0d
Wrong availment of excess CENVAT Credit – In view of accounting mistake, the appellant being a public sector unit and having regard to the size and operations of the Company and the fact that the appellant had excess CENVAT Credit during the relevant period, section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked and penalty was set aside. Wrong availment of excess CENVAT Credit – Interest payable in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in case of Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (265) ELT 2 (SC).

Facts:
The appellants availed CENVAT credit in excess on those services which were not covered under Rule 6(5) but once the department indicated the same, the appellants immediately reversed such CENVAT credit wrongly availed, but did not pay the interest under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 r.w.s. 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant did not pay interest, in view of the interpretation of law prevailing during the relevant time wherein there were several decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court taking a view that interest was not payable if CENVAT credit was taken but not utilised. It was a fact that the excess CENVAT could not have been so utilised, as the appellant did not utilise credit more than the disputed amount during the said period.

The appellants prayed for waiver of penalty in view of section 80 as the mistake was bonafide.

Held:
Interest was payable on wrong availment of CENVAT credit in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in case of Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. (supra)

The appellants were a public sector unit and having regard to the size and operations of the appellants and the peculiar situation that there was an accounting error and that there was excess CENVAT credit with the appellants during the relevant period, penalty was set aside.

levitra

Notification No. 27/2012-ST, dated 20-6- 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Vide this Notification exemption from whole of service tax is granted for services rendered to Foreign Diplomatic Mission or Consular posted in India for official purpose or for the personal use or use of their family members subject to the conditions mentioned in the said notification.

levitra

Abatement of Service tax — Notification No. 26/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This Notification has been issued in supersession of Notification No. 13/2012-ST, dated 17-3-2012 which provides for abatement in Service Tax in respect of following specified services at the prescribed rates, subject to conditions enumerated against each service:

The Notification will be effective from 1st July, 2012.

The Notification will be effective from 1st July, 2012.

levitra

Mega Exemption Notification — Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This single consolidated Mega Exemption Notification has been issued in super session of Notification No. 12/2012-ST, dated 17-3-2012 which lists out 39 services which will be exempted from whole of service tax under the new service tax regime. The Notification has also defined the terms used therein at various places for the purpose of smooth interpretation. The Notification will be effective from 1st July 2012.

levitra

Central Sales Tax — Provision for first charge on properties of the dealer for payment of tax — Under local Sales Tax Act — Applicable to recovery of CST — Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and section 50 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The petitioner being a financial institution raised question of law by filing writ petition before the Delhi High Court arising out of order of DRAT holding that Rajasthan Sales Tax Department has priority on the properties of the dealer for recovery of payment of tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Held

U/s.50 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the State is having first charge on properties of the dealer for recovery of dues under the Act. Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for assessment, reassessment, collection and enforcement of payment of tax including interest or penalty payable under the CST Act to be as if a tax, interest or penalty is payable under the general sales tax law of the State. Thus, for all ends and purposes, the mode of mechanism provided under the State Sales Tax Act would equally apply to the central sales tax to be collected under the CST Act. Thus, priority given u/s.50 of the RST Act to the recovery of local sales tax will apply with equal force to the recovery of central sales tax. The High Court accordingly, dismissed writ petition filed by the financial institution.

levitra

Revision — Jurisdiction — Assessment approved by Assistant Commissioner — Cannot be revised by another Assistant Commissioner — Section 67 of The Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Facts

The dealer applied for grant of permission to pay composition in lieu of sales tax and the assessment was completed by accepting composition on the basis of xerox copy of the application for composition as the original application for composition was not available with the Department. The sales tax officer, following policy of the Department, sought approval of the Assistant Commissioner to pass the order and thereafter passed the assessment order. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice for revision of assessment order passed by the sales tax officer to pay tax as per schedule rate as the dealer was not granted permission to pay composition as required under the Act. The dealer filed writ petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging impugned notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise the order of assessment passed by the sales tax officer with the approval of the Assistant Commissioner.

Held

The Assessing Officer based on composition order framed assessment order with the approval of the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Assistant Commissioner, while approving the impugned assessment order, did not raise any objection to passing of composition order. Thus it can be assumed that indirectly, he approved the composition order passed by the Assessing Officer. Once an order is passed with approval of the Assistant Commissioner, another Assistant Commissioner cannot sit in revision over such order. The High Court on merits further held that once the fact of filing of application is not challenged at the time of passing order of composition, subsequently the Department cannot seek to lay the fault at the door of dealer and state that as the application was not found on the record, the composition order could not have been passed. The Department is estopped from contending so. The High Court accordingly, allowed writ petition filed by the dealer and quashed the notice issued by the Department to revise the order. 12

levitra

Settlement of cases: Sections 245C, 245D, 245F & 245-I of Income-tax Act, 1961: A.Ys. 2000-01 to 2006-07. Order of Settlement Commission is final: AO has no power to make any addition other than the addition sustained by the Settlement Commission.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Search and seizure operations u/s.132 of the Incometax Act, 1961 were carried out at the premises of the assessee. The assessee moved application before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission passed order u/s.245D(4) whereby the undisclosed income of the assessee was settled for the relevant assessment years. The order of the Settlement Commission observed that the CIT/AO may take such appropriate action in respect of the matter not before the Commission as per provision of section 245F(4) of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice and made additions over and above the additions sustained by the Settlement Commission. The additions were deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).

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

“(i) After passing the order by the Settlement Commission, no power vests in the Assessing Officer or any other authority to issue the notice in respect of the period and income covered by the order of the Settlement Commission. Except in the case of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, the order passed by the Settlement Commission is final and conclusive and binding on all parties. The Assessing Officer, therefore, has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice for making further enquiry in the matter in view of sections 245D(6) and 245I.

(ii) There cannot possibly be piecemeal determination of the income of an assessee for relevant period, one by the Settlement Commission and another by the Assessing Officer. Otherwise the very purpose of filing application before the Settlement Commission would be frustrated.

(iii)  In the absence of any right conferred by the Act, mere observation of the Settlement Commission will not empower the assessing or Appellate Authority to reassess on any ground, whatsoever, for the same financial year with regard to which the Settlement Commission had exercised jurisdiction and given a finding.”
levitra

Revision: Limitation: Two years: Section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961: A.Y. 1994-95: Limitation period to be counted from the original assessment order to be revised and not from the order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A).

fiogf49gjkf0d
For the A.Y. 1994-95, the original assessment order was passed on 27-2-1997 and the order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) was passed on 31-3-1999. The CIT passed an order of revision u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 20-2-2001. It was the claim of the Revenue that the order of revision was within the period of limitation taking into account the assessment order dated 31-3-1999 giving effect to the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of the original assessment order dated 27-2-1997 and accordingly that the order of revision dated 20-2-2001 is beyond the period of limitation and hence is invalid.

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

“The order passed by the CIT in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction beyond two years of the assessment order was clearly barred by limitation and hence rightly set aside.”

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 123, dated 10-5-2012 — Risk Management and Inter-Bank Dealings.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This Circular provides that the intra-day open position/ daylight limit of authorised dealers will be five times the Net Overnight Open Position Limit available to them or the existing intra-day open position limit as approved by RBI, whichever is higher, for positions involving Rupee as one of the currencies.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 122, dated 9-5-2012 — Risk Management and Inter-Bank Dealings.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Presently, banks are permitted to deploy foreign currency funds for granting loans to their resident customers for meeting their foreign exchange requirements or for their rupee working capital/capital expenditure needs, subject to the prudential/interestrate norms, credit discipline and credit monitoring guidelines in force.

This Circular has modified the said policy and banks can now, subject to the prudential/interestrate norms, credit discipline and credit monitoring guidelines in force, use funds in FCNR(B) accounts with them for making loans to resident customers for meeting:

(i) their foreign exchange requirements or

(ii) for the Rupee working capital/capital expenditure needs of exporters/corporates who have a natural hedge or a risk management policy for managing the exchange risk.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 611 (Tri.-Del.) — Intertoll India Consultants (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant entered into agreement with NTBCL to collect fees from the users of the bridge and also carry out various other related activities — Department alleged that the services be taxed under the head BAS — Appellant contended to classify their services under ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property Services’ — Held that person liable to collect toll is liable to pay service tax under ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property services’.

Facts:
The appellant was sub-contracted by M/s. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. (NTBCL) for specified functions relating to operations of Delhi-Noida bridge. It was contended by the authority that the agreement entered with the appellant clearly pointed out various services to be provided by them taxable under the category of Business Auxiliary services.

Appellant argued that toll levied by municipal corporation is a duty and tax levied by the Government is exempt from service tax liability under Notification No. 13/2004- S.T.

Further, the appellant contended that they were not providing any Business Auxilary services (BAS). The said services if at all taxable are in the nature of ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property service’.

The appellant submitted that the customer care services envisaged under BAS were not applicable to the facts of this case as there is no third party involved.

Held:
It was held that the persons who are using the bridge cannot be called customers of either the appellant or NTBCL as the same would not fit into the definition of customers as defined in advanced Black Law Lexicon. Also, the appellant cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary services as it was very clearly evident that NTBCL was not the client of the appellant as the appellant was not promoting any services of NTBCL. The services were in the nature of ‘Management, Maintenance and Repair of Immovable Property services’ as correctly contended by appellant.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 579 (Tri.-Del.) — O. P. Khinchi v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provided different services relating to cleaning, gardening, maintenance, repairs, job work in PVC plant — Raised invoices giving details activity-wise — Show-cause notice and the adjudication order considered all services as composite — Appellant contended that impugned order is vague as detailed information relating to job orders were provided but not considered — Order held invalid.

Facts:
The figures depicted in the show-cause notice as well as adjudication order did not throw light as to what was the consideration received for different activities to bring them under the fold of law.

The appellant contended that since show-cause notice being basic foundation of any legal proceedings. For it to be valid it should have the substance of allegation and should be clear in all aspects.

Held:
Adjudicating authorities failed to pass a well-reasoned order. Neither did they speak on incidence of tax on each activity separately, nor did they test the activities of the appellant in detail to bring them under the tax net correctly. Appeal was allowed.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 121, dated 8-5-2012 — Foreign investment in Commodity Exchanges and NBFC Sector — Amendment to the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Scheme.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Presently, foreign investment in commodity exchanges is permitted subject to a composite ceiling of 49% with FDI limit of 26% and FII limit of 23% under Portfolio Investment Scheme (PIS).

This Circular clarifies that:

(a) With respect to foreign investment in commodity exchanges, the FDI component of 26% will be under the Approval Route whereas FII investment of 23% under PIS will be under the Automatic Route.

(b) 100% FDI under the Automatic Route is permitted only in case of ‘financial leases’ (financial leasing activity) and the Automatic Route is not available in case of ’operating leases’ (operating leasing activity).

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 120, dated 8-5-2012 — Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in India — Issue of equity shares under the FDI scheme allowed under the Government Route.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Presently, under the Approval Route, equity shares/ preference shares can be issued against import of second-hand machinery. This Circular provides that now onwards equity shares/preference shares cannot be issued against import of second-hand machinery.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 553 (Tri.-Mumbai.) — Texport Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai-IV.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Exporter of goods — Claimed refund of service tax paid on the technical testing and analysis service used in export of goods — No written agreement between parties — Exemption denied — Challenged by the appellant — Held that liberal view has to be taken for interpretation to reduce the cost of the goods exported — Taxes cannot be exported.

Facts:
The appellant filed a refund claim of service tax paid on the technical testing and analysis service, essentially used for export of goods claiming benefits under Notification No. 41/2007 as amended.

The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the condition mentioned in the Notification that there should be a written agreement with the buyer was not satisfied. However, the appellant contended that the letter of credit submitted by them can be issued by the bank only on the instructions of the customer.

Ratio in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Convergys India P. Ltd., (2009) 16 STR 198 was relied upon by the appellant, wherein it was held that a liberal view should be taken in similar cases pertaining to exports.

Held:
It was held that the refund claim cannot be rejected only on the grounds that the exporter had no written agreement for the mentioned input service with the buyer. Non-fulfilment of the procedure cannot lead to denial of the benefits under the beneficial legislation provided for exports. It is settled law that taxes cannot be exported, hence the appeal was allowed.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 119, dated 7-5-2012 — External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy — Utilisation of ECB proceeds for Rupee expenditure.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Presently, ECB proceeds can be utilised for permissible foreign currency expenditure as well as Rupee expenditure.

This Circular requires borrowers to provide bifurcation of the utilisation of the ECB proceeds towards foreign currency and Rupee expenditure in Form-83 at the time of availing Loan Registration Number (LRN). Borrowers must repatriate to India, immediately after drawn down, for credit to their Rupee accounts proceeds meant for Rupee expenditure in India. Any contravention will be viewed seriously and will invite penal action under FEMA.

levitra

(2011) TIOL 1508 (CESTAT-Del.) — Microsoft Corporation (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi.

fiogf49gjkf0d
In terms of a Market Development Agreement, a company of Singapore, i.e., MO, appointed appellant to provide various technical support services including marketing of products in India and to identify services to be provided by the appellant — Both MO and appellant were wholly-owned subsidiaries of Microsoft Corporation — Appellant claimed that services provided by it fell under export of services, for which it was not liable to pay service tax — Difference of opinion over this issue between Member judicial and Member judicial (technical) — The matter referred to the Larger Bench.

Facts:
The appellant was a subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, Washington and provided product support services, consulting services, did marketing of Microsoft products, and other inter-company services.

The appellant claimed that the said services provided by them fell in the category of export of services for which it was not liable to pay service tax. It also claimed that the income earned on account of maintenance and repair of software was not chargeable to service tax in its hands.

The Revenue argued that no service was provided outside the defined territory, and hence there was no export of service at all made by the appellant.

Held:
The adjudicating authority held that as per the agreement, business support was provided by the appellant to the Singapore concern; and that such services were provided in India and were never provided outside India and therefore there was no export of service. According to the Member judicial, the principle of equivalence applied for sale of goods outside India should also be applied to services provided outside India. Therefore, in present case appellant’s services will not qualify to be export of services.

On the other hand, the Member judicial (technical) was of the opinion that while interpreting rules on such ambiguous subject it is necessary that an interpretation that is consistent to deliver the intention of the law-makers should be adopted. Accordingly, the business auxiliary services provided to promote sale for products of Microsoft operations in Indian market should be considered to be delivered outside India. According to the Member, the theory of equivalence did not exactly apply between taxation of export of goods and services. The above difference of opinion led to the matter being referred to the Larger Bench.

levitra

(2011) 24 STR 525 (Del.) — Shiva Taxfabs Ltd. v. Union of India.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Ambiguity on classification of polyester staple fibre manufactured out of PET scrap and waste as to whether it be considered as textile material or as an article of plastic. The Board put forward that the decisions in GPL Polyfils case shall not be a binding precedent in other matters — The said paragraph struck down by the High Court — Held that Circulars can be referred for guidance, but not as binding mandate — In case of adverse decision, no coercive action as to demand until stay application decided by CESTAT.

Facts:
Polyester staple fibre was manufactured out of PET scrap and waste bottles since the classification of the item involved technical aspect the writ petition by the High Court could not solve the issue.

The CBEC issued a Circular as to classification of polyester staple fibre manufactured out of PET scrap and waste bottles and it was contrary to the Tribunal decision in the case of GPL Polyfils, on the same issue. The Circular specifically instructed its officers that the Tribunal decision in GPL Polyfils was not a binding precedent.

Held:
As regards the classification issue it was held that according to paragraph 8 of the Circular, it is to be classified as textile material and not as a plastic article. With reference to paragraph 10 of the impugned Circular, the same was struck down by the High Court stating that the Circular shall not be binding. Further, it stated that the adjudicating officers must take into consideration the Tribunal decision in GPL Polyfils and applicability of the same should be looked into.

levitra

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 118, dated 7-5-2012 — Release of foreign exchange for miscellaneous remittances.

fiogf49gjkf0d

Presently, up to INR307,284 or its equivalent can be remitted abroad for all permissible transactions on the basis of a simple letter from the applicant containing the basic information, viz., names and the addresses of the applicant and the beneficiary, amount to be remitted and the purpose of remittance.

This Circular has increased this limit from INR307,284 or its equivalent to INR1,536,419 or its equivalent. No documents, including Form A-2, except a simple letter containing basic information as stated above is required provided the conditions mentioned below are fulfilled:

 (a) Foreign exchange is being purchased for a permitted current account transaction.

(b) Amount does not exceed INR1,536,419 or its equivalent.

(c) Payment is made by a cheque drawn on the applicant’s bank account or by a Demand Draft.

levitra

Third industrial revolution calls for radical changes in our thought and action.

fiogf49gjkf0d
There is a paradigm shift underway in manufacturing, points out The Economist. New technologies in computing, materials and processes such as three-dimensional printing are making fundamental changes in the way things are made, where 651 (2012) 44-A BCAJ they are made and by whom, whether workers or smart robots.

Three dimensional printing, in which a computeraided printing machine deposits successive layers of different materials to produce solid designs and objects, is a key exemplar of this third industrial revolution. The knowledge and service content of the final value of a manufactured product would go up, and the labour cost would go down. Mass customisation would be in and locating manufacture to low-wage countries would be out. Boston Consulting Group foresees a resurgence of manufacture in a country like the US at the expense of a China, or an India. Several policy ramifications follow.

One, India will find it well-nigh impossible to take the route to prosperity that Asia’s miracle economies, including South Korea and China, followed, of outsourced manufacture to feed demand in developed economies.

Ten years from now, much of the manufacture to meet demand in the US and Germany could well take place in those countries themselves. Two, low wages would only be a drag for attracting investments, whereas smart labour and a huge home market would be a big draw. Three, knowledge would drive the entire economy: not the rote-driven mastery of yesterday’s verities but a ceaseless quest to challenge established wisdom and produce new knowledge. Universities have to not just train manpower but create new knowledge, serving as hubs of new production ideas. Our school and education systems would have to undergo a fundamental change in terms of organisational structure and culture. The way ahead is to universalise not just secondary education but also tertiary education, with extensive modular course offerings.

Four, the financial ecosystem must evolve to mediate funds towards knowledge acquisition, knowledge creation and conversion of knowledge into production. Finally, high-speed broadband must become ubiquitous and cheap, to enable all this.

levitra

(2011) 130 ITD 11/19 taxmann.com 138 (Cochin) Prasad Mathew v. DCIT A.Y.: 2005-06. Dated: 30-7-2010

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 2(14) — Definition of Capital Asset.

Facts:
The assessee received certain amount from the sale of rubber and coconut trees standing on his land. The assessee explained that the trees had been sold along with the roots and hence there was no scope to re-grow the trees and as such they were a capital asset and, thus, sale proceeds thereof would represent a capital receipt. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s claim and brought the above amount to tax under the head income from other sources. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On second appeal it was held that

Held:
The trees which stood cut and sold were from a spontaneous growth and were neither nurtured, nor cultivated by the assessee. Also they were in no manner used by the assessee for any activity. The controversy between the assessee and the Revenue was with respect to whether the trees were sold along with the roots or not and whether the receipts from sale of these trees was of capital nature. It was held that the trees whether sold with roots or without the roots was an immaterial question given the fact that the trees stood uprooted. The material question would be the purpose for which the trees were cut and sold. If the trees were cut and sold by the assessee for planting fresh ones the sale proceeds would stand to be assessed under income from other sources. Further trees rooted to the land, by definition, are a part of the land. Thus, what stood sold and transferred by the assessee was a part of land itself and thus would be categorised as capital asset and the receipt from their sale would be assessed as capital receipt and eligible to capital gains tax under the act.

levitra

(2012) 65 DTR (Mum.) (Trib.) 39 DCIT v. Eversmile Construction Co. (P) Ltd. A.Y.: 2001-02. Dated: 30-8-2011

fiogf49gjkf0d
Assessment u/s.153A — Total income for each assessment year has to be done afresh without any reference to what was done in the original assessment and hence assessee is entitled to seek any relief on any addition made in the original assessment.

Facts:
In the original assessment u/s.143(3), the AO disallowed interest of Rs.58.86 lakh. The assessee-company did not agitate the disallowance of interest before the Appellate Authority. While filing return in response to notice u/s.153A, the assessee voluntarily disallowed the interest disallowance made in the original assessment, subject to reservation of right for contesting the allowability of entire interest during the course of assessment proceedings. When the matter came before the CIT(A), the assessee put forth details to support the deduction of interest. The learned CIT(A) forwarded the same to the AO and as per the remand report, the learned CIT(A) directed the AO to disallow interest of Rs.10.81 lakhs and ordered deletion of the remaining disallowance.

The viewpoint of the Department was that the assessee was not entitled to seek relief on any matters which had attained finality in the original assessment, as section 153A does not permit assessment at income lower than the one finally assessed in the original assessment.

Held:
U/s.153A the AO is required to make assessment afresh and compute ‘total income’ in respect of each of relevant six assessment years. As there is no specific restriction on jurisdiction of the AO in not including any new income to such fresh total income pursuant to search which was not added during the original assessment, in the like manner, there is no restriction on the assessee to claim any deduction which was not allowed in the original assessment. As it is a fresh exercise of framing assessment or reassessment, the assessee can argue about merits of the case qua addition made in the original assessment.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (198 ITR 297) was distinguished since in that case the Apex Court was considering provisions of section 147. Conditions for taking action u/s.147 vis-à-vis u/s.153A are different.

Also provisions of search assessment u/s.153A, etc. have been inserted by the Finance Act 2003 w.e.f. 1st June 2003. These provisions are successor of special procedure for assessment of search cases under Chapter XIV-B starting with section 158B. Whereas Chapter XIV-B required assessment of ‘undisclosed income’ as a result of search, which has been defined in section 158(b), section 153A dealing with assessment in case of search w.e.f. 1st June 2003 requires the AO to determine ‘total income’ and not ‘undisclosed income’.

Regarding the view that the income in assessment u/s.153A should not be reduced than original assessment, it needs to be noted that total income is not reduced simply on basis of making claim. The AO is fully empowered to consider the question of deductibility. Hence, assessment u/s.153A needs to be done afresh without any reference to the original assessment.

levitra

(2012) 75 DTR (Mum)(SB)193 Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT A.Y.: 2003-04 Dated: 10-8-2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 74(1) – Amendment with effect from A.Y. 2003-04 restricting set off of long-term capital loss only against long-term capital gain applies only in respect of losses for the A.Y. 2003-04 & onwards and not to losses of prior assessment years.

Facts:
The assessee filed its return of income wherein the brought forward long-term capital loss of A.Y. 2001- 02 was set off against the short-term capital gain arising during the present assessment year (i.e. A.Y. 2003-04). According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee was entitled to set off the brought forward long-term capital loss only against long-term capital gain and not against short-term capital gain by virtue of the provisions of section 74(1) as amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. He held that since the said provisions were amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, they were applicable to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2003-04. The action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the assessee’s claim for such set off was upheld by the learned CIT(A).

Held:
In the case of Komaf Financial Services Ltd. vs. ITO [132 TTJ (Mumbai) 359], the Mumbai Bench had taken a view that amended provisions of section 74(1) will apply to the losses under the head capital gains for any assessment year and not only to the losses relating to the A.Y. 2003-04 onwards. A contrary view, however, was taken by another Division Bench at Mumbai in the case of Geetanjali Trading Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No. 5428/Mum/2007], wherein it was held that the amended provisions of section 74(1) will apply only in respect of losses for A.Y. 2003-04 and onwards. Therefore, the Special Bench was constituted to decide this question of law.

In the provisions of section 74(1) as substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 present tense has been used, which refers to the long-term capital loss of the current year. The said provisions thus are applicable to the long-term capital loss of A.Y. 2003-04 onwards and not to the long-term capital loss relating to the period prior to A.Y. 2003-04. Therefore, the provisions of section 74(1) as substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 are not applicable to the long-term capital loss relating to the period prior to A.Y. 2003- 04 and set off of such loss is therefore governed by the provisions of section 74(1) as stood prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st April, 2003.

The right accrued to the assessee by virtue of section 74(1) as it stood prior to the amendment made w.e.f 1st April, 2003 thus has not been taken away either expressly by the provisions of section 74(1) as amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 or even by implication. The golden rule of construction is that, in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the Act was passed. The right accrued to the assessee by virtue of section 74(1) as it stood prior to the amendment made w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 to set off brought forward long-term capital loss relating to the period prior to A.Y. 2003-04 against short-term capital gain of subsequent year/s has not been taken away by the provisions of section 74(1) substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. The provisions of section 74 which deal with carry forward and set off of losses under the head “Capital gains” as amended by Finance Act, 2002, will apply only to the unabsorbed capital loss for the A.Y. 2003-04 and onwards and will not apply to the unabsorbed capital losses relating to the assessment years prior to the A.Y. 2003-04.

levitra

Tax Accounting Standards: A New Framework for Computing Taxable Income

fiogf49gjkf0d
Background

The provisions of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) presently govern the computation of
taxable profits; however, the Act does not comprehensively specify the
accounting principles to be followed for this purpose. In this context,
the Central Government, empowered u/s. 145(2) of the Act, notified only
two accounting standards, on ‘Disclosure of Accounting Policies’ and
‘Disclosure of Prior Period Items and Extraordinary Items and Changes in
Accounting Policies’.

Litigation pertaining to various
accounting related matters continues between the tax authorities and
companies that seek to follow the guidance in Accounting Standards (AS)
issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). There is consequential
uncertainty. With the impending convergence with International Financial
Reporting Standards in India (Ind AS), this issue assumes greater
importance. In this context, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
constituted the Accounting Standard Committee (the Committee) in
December 2010, with the following terms of reference:

1 To study
the harmonisation of Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI with
regard to the direct tax laws in India, and suggest Accounting Standards
which need to be adopted u/s. 145 (2) of the Act, along with relevant
modifications;

2 To suggest a method for determination of tax
base (book profit) for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) in
case of companies migrating to IFRS (Ind AS) in the initial year of
adoption and thereafter; and

3 To suggest appropriate amendments to the Act in view of transition to Ind AS regime.

The
Ministry of Finance subsequently issued a Discussion Paper on Tax
Accounting Standards on 17th October, 2011 with draft recommendations by
the Committee and draft Tax Accounting Standards (TAS) on ‘Construction
Contracts’ and ‘Government Grants’. Key matters are discussed below.

Approach for Formulation of Tax Accounting Standards

On
deliberation by the Committee on whether all the standards issued by
ICAI should be considered for harmonisation, it observed that some
standards were not relevant from the perspective of computing taxable
income, because the Act contains specific requirements for matters
covered by these standards or these standards mainly relate to
disclosures in financial statements. Also accounting standards
pertaining to consolidated financial statements i.e. AS 21, 23 and 27
were not relevant, since consolidated financial statements are not
relevant under the Act.

Further, accounting standards such as AS
30, 31 and 32 relating to financial instruments, have not been notified
under the Companies Act, 1956 and are therefore not currently mandatory
in nature, were also not considered for harmonisation. Other reasons
for not evaluating these standards were the uncertain status of these
standards and their limited application to the area of derivatives and
hedge accounting. The accounting issues related to derivatives are
partly covered by the TAS on Accounting Policies.

The Committee
also recommended TAS for the areas where currently no accounting
standards have been issued by ICAI and guidance for computation of
taxable income is required. Consequently, TAS may be issued in the
future for areas such as: i) Share based payment ii) Revenue recognition
by real estate developers iii) Service concession arrangements iv)
Exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources.

Following are various other considerations and recommendations by the Committee:

  •  TAS to be applicable only to those taxpayers that follow the mercantile system for tax purposes; 1

  •  Return of income and Form 3CD to be modified to determine whether the
    taxable income is computed in accordance with TAS. This could be
    achieved by requiring reconciliation between the income as per the
    statutory financial statements and the income as computed per TAS;

  •  Disclosure requirements prescribed in individual TAS and their inclusion in the return of income;

  •  Transitional provisions, wherever required, to be notified along with
    TAS to avoid situations wherein income arising from a particular
    transactions is taxed neither in the pre-TAS period nor in the post-TAS
    period or may be taxable in both the periods. For example, if the
    assessee has claimed lease rentals as a deduction in the pre-TAS period
    for assets obtained on finance lease, basis for claiming deduction of
    depreciation and interest cost in the post-TAS period will need to be
    clarified by the transition guidance.


Final recommendations

The
final recommendations of the Committee are included in a report that
was issued for public comment on 26th October, 2012 which also contains
drafts of 14 individual TAS (including TAS on Construction Contracts and
Government Grants that were initially issued in October 2011).

The Committee recommended that:

  •  TAS needs to be in harmony with the provisions of the Act;

  •  TAS needs to lay down specific rules to enable computation of taxable income with certainty and clarity;

  •  TAS to remove alternatives, to the extent possible;

  •  AS issued by ICAI could not be notified under the Act without modification and hence, the TAS to modify AS;

  •  TAS should be applicable only to computation of taxable income and
    taxpayers will not be required to maintain separate books of accounts on
    the basis of TAS;

  •  TAS to apply to all taxpayers without
    specifying any thresholds relating to turnover/income in order to bring
    uniformity in computation of taxable income;

  •  In case of a conflict between the Act and TAS, the provisions of the Act will prevail;

  •  Transition provisions to be notified with each TAS as relevant, in order to prevent any tax leakage or any double taxation;

  •  Appropriate modifications be made to the return of income to monitor
    TAS compliance. Modification of Form 3CD so that tax auditor is required
    to certify computation of taxable income in compliance with TAS;

  •  Amendments to be made to the Act to provide certainty on issue of
    allowability of depreciation on goodwill arising on amalgamation,
    allowability of the provision made for the payment of pension on
    retirement or termination of an employee.

Significant impact areas
A
few of the important implications around accounting policies,
inventories, prior period expenses, construction contracts, revenue
recognition and fixed assets are covered below. Impacts for other areas
such as the effects of changes in foreign exchange rates, government
grants, securities, borrowing costs, leases, intangible assets and
provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets will be covered
in our next article.

Accounting policies

  •  AS 1
    considers prudence as an important factor in selection and application
    of accounting policies and requires provisions for all known liabilities
    and losses on best estimate basis. Unlike AS 1, TAS eliminates the
    concept of prudence and disallows recognition of any such provisions of
    expected losses or mark to market (MTM) losses, unless specifically
    provided under TAS. Consequently, fair valuation gain/loss provisions on
    derivatives or other instruments would not be allowed under TAS.

  •  Unlike AS 1, TAS does not permit a change in accounting policy merely
    on account of ‘more appropriate presentation’ and requires reasonable
    cause to do so. What constitutes ‘reasonable cause’ would require
    judgement by management and tax authorities.

  •     TAS does not provide any specific guidance on how the impact of any such change in policies should be included in the computation of income.

Valuation of inventories

  •     Under current practice, on conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade, the fair value on the date of conversion is deemed to be consideration and accordingly treated as the cost of stock-in-trade. The definition of cost for valuation of inventory per TAS does not specifically address this situation and it is possible that such deemed cost may not be allowed post implementation of the TAS;

  •     TAS specifies that opening stock will be valued as at the close of the immediately preceding previous year. This nullifies the impact of judicial decisions which provided that opening stock should be valued on the ‘same basis’ as closing stock, in cases where there is a change in policy for inventory valuation during the year;

Events occurring after the end of the previous year

  •     Similar to AS 4, TAS also allows adjustment for events till the date of approval of the financial statements by the Board of Directors or other approving authority for a non-corporate entity. This may result in a change in current practice where such adjustments are permitted for events till the date of filing the return of income.

Prior period expense

  •     No specific guidance is provided on prior period income in TAS. This seems to be in line with the current practice, whereby prior period income is subjected to tax in the current year.

  •     Prior period expenses are explicitly covered under TAS and provide that no deduction can be allowed in the current year. In line with the current practice, even if the prior period expense can be claimed as a deduction for the year to which it pertains (pursuant to a revised return), there are practical limitations on filing a revised return in all such cases e.g. a revised return can be filed only for the two immediately preceding previous years.

Construction contracts

  •     Percentage of completion method for revenue recognition is mandatory under TAS and accordingly, use of the completed contract method is no longer permitted.

  •     Although TAS permits non-recognition of margins during the early stages of a contract, it prohibits such deferral if the stage of completion exceeds 25 %.

  •     Unlike AS 7, TAS does not permit recognition of expected losses on onerous contracts.

  •     Under TAS, any incidental income in the nature of interest, dividend or capital gains cannot be reduced from the contract cost; however, other incidental income can be reduced from the costs.

  •     Unlike AS 7, TAS does not permit non-recognition of revenue due to uncertainty in collection. If other conditions for revenue recognition per TAS are met, revenue needs to be recognised. A corresponding bad debt expense deduction can be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Revenue recognition

  •     Unlike AS 9, TAS does not require revenue to be measurable or collectible at the time of sale (there is an exception for price escalation claims and export incentives). As such, revenue will have to be recognised even if the sales proceeds are not collectible. A corresponding bad debt expense deduction can be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

  •     Unlike AS 9, TAS requires revenue recognition for all services based on percentage of completion method. As such, completed contract method as per AS 9 is no longer permitted under TAS. Though the TAS does not clarify whether expected losses on onerous service contracts should be recognised on a proportionate basis or in their entirety, given the provisions in the TAS on Construction Contracts and Accounting Policies, it is likely that such expected losses cannot be provided.

  •     AS 9 contains certain illustrations that provide more clarity on application of revenue recognition principles to specific types of transactions. For example, a sale and repurchase agreement may be in substance a financing arrangement, or an upfront membership fee may be consideration for future discounted products or services. Since similar illustrations are not included in TAS, the position around such specific transactions may be unclear.

  •     Unlike AS 9, TAS does not contain guidance on recognition of revenue as a principal or as an agent (gross vs. net). This may impact turnover determination u/s. 44AB, coverage under presumptive taxation and other similar cases where determination of gross turnover is relevant under the Act.

  •     A separate TAS for revenue recognition for real estate developers is supposed to be issued as per Committee recommendation. Until that time, inconsistent practices may continue to exist in the manner in which real estate developers apply the principles of TAS.

Tangible fixed assets

  •     AS 16 provides for capitalisation of exchange differences along with the underlying asset to the extent that such exchange differences qualify as borrowing costs or when the company has adopted the notifications on AS 11 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that permit such capitalisation. TAS reiterates the fact that capitalisation of exchange differences relating to fixed assets shall be in accordance with section 43A of the Act that states that any increase/ decrease in the liability in Indian currency shall be recognised only at the time of payment, which could be materially different from the provisions of AS 10, AS 16 and AS 11.

  •     TAS provides that the actual cost in cases where an asset is acquired in exchange for another asset, shares or securities shall be the lower of the fair market value of the asset acquired or the assets/securities given up/issued. However AS 10 requires that its actual cost shall be determined by reference to the fair market value of the consideration given or asset acquired whichever is more clearly evident.

  •     TAS prescribes maintenance of a Fixed Asset Register with specific disclosures. Currently, non-corporate assessees may not be maintaining Fixed Asset Registers in the prescribed format.

Conclusion

The Final committee report with draft TAS will provide a comprehensive framework for companies to determine their taxable income each year, by adjusting their accounting profits as many of the difference between AS and TAS will harmonise the computation basis for taxable profits with the existing provisions of the Act. This represents a significant progress in providing a consistent basis for computation of taxable income.

Some of the changes could extensively impact certain companies, as the TAS provisions would provide guidance on areas that are subject matters of considerable litigation and areas where there is no guidance under the current tax provisions. Depending upon the tax positions taken by a company these provisions would have an impact on the taxable profits under TAS regime.

Although TAS purports to remove one of the hurdles to implementation of Ind AS by providing independent framework regardless if GAAP followed (Indian GAAP or Ind AS), the issue of impact on computation of the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT), which is based on the accounting profits still remains open, due to uncertainty around the adoption of Ind AS.

Finally, the key challenge lies in thorough implementation of the TAS framework by the tax authorities and the judiciary. This would go a long way in achieving tax uniformity and consistency across different companies.

Editor’s Note: One of the authors is a member of the Accounting Standards Committee.

Industrial undertaking – Deduction under section 80IA – In the absence of separate books of accounts in respect of manufacturing activity and trading activity, the Assessing Officer was justified in working out the manufacturing account.

fiogf49gjkf0d
[Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 385 (SC)]

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing yarn, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 on 30-11-1998 showing total income of Rs.36,27,866 inter alia after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of Rs.15,54,800 being 30% of the gross total income of Rs.51,82,666. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had sold raw wool, wool waste and textile and knitting clothes and that the assessee had not maintained a separate trading and Profit and Loss account for the goods manufactured. The assessee contended that for certain business exigencies in the assessment year in question, it had sold the above items but such sale would not disentitle him from claiming the benefit u/s. 80IA on the told sum of Rs.51,82,666. The Assessing Officer, in the absence of separate accounts for manufacture of yarn actually produced as a part of the industrial undertaking, worked out on his own, the manufacturing account giving bifurcation in terms of quantity of wool produced. The assessee challenged the preparation of separate trading account by the Assessing Officer in respect of manufacturing and trading activity before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court was of the view that the finding given by the Tribunal and the High Court were findings of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, observing that the assessee ought to have maintained a separate account in respect of raw material which it had sold during the assessment year, so that a clear picture would have emerged indicating the income occurring from manufacturing activity and the income occurring on sale of raw materials.

levitra

(2011) 130 ITD 296 (Pune) Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. ITO, Ward 1(2), Pune A.Y.: 2003-04. Dated: 30-4-2011

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 10(23C)(iiiab) — Where the Government legislates law to provide for compulsory contribution by the member societies to an ‘education fund’ which was set apart to be the source of finance for educational institution engaged in the co-operative movement in India, which constitutes indirect financing by the Government, are entitled for exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.

Facts:
The assessee was a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. By virtue of section 68 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, every other membersociety was to mandatorily contribute annually towards the education fund of the assessee as per the sums prescribed in the Notification issued by the State Government. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 claiming exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, while assessing the total income rejected the assessee’s claim holding that it failed to fulfil conditions prescribed u/s.10(23C) (iiiab) with regard to expression ‘financed by the Government’.

On appeal, it was submitted that such supply of finance indirectly by way of mandatory contributions by member co-operative societies met requirement of expression ‘financed by the Government’ used in section 10(23C)(iiiab). The CIT(A) however rejected the claim of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied on the following case laws:

(1) Small Business Corpn., In re (2008) 173 Taxman 452 (AAR — New Delhi)

(2) Dy. DIT (Exemptions) v. Indian Institute of Management, (2009) 120 ITD 351 (Bang.)

The Tribunal noted that in the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab), the Legislature has not used the words such as ‘directly or indirectly’ anywhere, meaning thereby the indirect financing by the Government is also a possibility not ruled out by the Legislature.

Further, the decision of the Department to reject the benefits of tax exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab) to the institution merely in view of the absence of inflow of the finance directly from the funds of the Government and ignoring the alternate financing mechanisms provided by the Government by legislative enactment, tantamount to narrow interpretation of the expression in the said clause.

In such circumstances and considering the peculiarity of the co-operative movement, governmental role in financing such educational institution rightly should stop with the role as a facilitator by providing requisite legislation for enabling the member societies to contribute to the assessee and contribute mandatorily. Therefore, it is the case of indirect financing of the educational institution of the co-operative movement by the Government and it is evolved in order to promote participation of the members and respect the financial independence of the movement in general and institution in particular.

In the light of the above discussion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and allowed the claim by the assessee of being entitled to exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.

levitra

The appellant provided services to Government departments like Income-tax Department, EPFO, DCA, etc. — The Department demanded service tax for services provided to DCA and EPFO under ‘Management Consultants Services’ — Held, services provided to DCA and EPFO were taxable under the category of ‘Information Technology Software service’ — As regards services of issuing PAN cards, it was held that they were services provided in relation to sovereign function of Incometax Department hence not liabl<

fiogf49gjkf0d
(2012) 26 STR 147 (Tri.–Mumbai.) — UTI Technology Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai.

The appellant provided services to Government departments like Income-tax Department, EPFO, DCA, etc. — The Department demanded service tax for services provided to DCA and EPFO under ‘Management Consultants Services’ — Held, services provided to DCA and EPFO were taxable under the category of ‘Information Technology Software service’  — As regards services of issuing PAN cards, it was held that they were services provided in relation to sovereign function of Income-tax Department hence not liable as business auxiliary service.


Facts:

The appellant rendered services to various Government departments, namely, Income-tax Department, Department of Company Affairs, Employees Provident Fund, etc. For Income-tax Department they were undertaking the service of issue of PAN cards and for this purpose they used to print, supply and distribute application forms to the applicant, receive application in the prescribed form on behalf of the Incometax Department, validate the applications with the checklist provided by the Department and in case of any discrepancies, the applications were returned to the applicants pointing out the deficiency and for re-submission with necessary correction/rectification. On receipt of PAN from the National Computer Center of the Income-tax Department, the appellant would print PAN cards and issue the same to the applicants. The above service was sought to be classified under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’. The Department made demand for service tax for the period of July 2003 to September 2004 on amount received as service charges from various applicants of PAN card. Further, for rendering service to Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), demand was made under the category of ‘Management Consultants Services’. Similarly, for services rendered to the Department of Company Affairs (DCA) towards E-Governance Project, also the demand was made treating the service as management consultancy.

Held:

In respect of services rendered for issue of PAN cards on behalf of the Income-tax Department it was held that they were the services provided in relation to sovereign function of the Income-tax Department of levy and collection of income-tax and it was not in relation to any business and hence issue of PAN cards was not leviable to service tax under ‘Business Auxiliary Services’. The services rendered by the appellant to the DCA were to manage and monitor the modernisation and computerisation of various operations and the services provided to EPFO were in relation to acquisition and installation, commissioning and system integration of the IT services. These activities were classifiable under the category of ‘Information Technology Software Service’ and not under ‘Management Consultants Services’.

levitra

India’s low ranking in higher education is a matter of serious concern

fiogf49gjkf0d
The QS world ranking of universities has no place for any Indian institution among the top 200.

Unlike China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, South Africa and Brazil. (Source: The Economic Times dated 13-09-2012) 120 (2012) 44-B BCAJ (Comment: We do not promote meritocracy in India. Politics of reservation in all walks is a big hindrance to promotion of meritocracy.)

levitra

Deduction for “Depreciation” in Works Contract A Dilemma

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction

Under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act, 2002), transactions of works contract are liable to tax. Works Contract is composite contract consisting of supply of materials and labour. In Builders Association of India vs. Union of India (73 STC 370)(SC), Hon. Supreme Court has held that Sales Tax can be levied only on value of goods and not on the total value. In case of Gannon Dunkerly & Co. (88 STC 204)(SC) Hon. Supreme Court further highlighted mode of arriving at value of goods in a works contract.

The State VAT Acts normally provide statutory method for arriving at taxable value of goods in light of the above judgment. This can be referred to as statutory method. Under MVAT, Rule 58(1) of MVAT Rules, 2005 prescribes the method for arriving at value of goods. The relevant portion is reproduced for ready reference.

“58. (1) The value of the goods at the time of the transfer of property in the goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract may be determined by effecting the following deductions from the value of the entire contract, in so far as the amounts relating to the deduction pertain to the said works contract:–

(a) labour and service charges for the execution of the works;

(b) amounts paid by way of price for sub contract, if any, to sub-contractors;

(c) charges for planning, designing and architect’s fees;

(d) charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise, machinery and tools for the execution of the works contract;

(e) cost of consumables such as water, electricity, fuel used in the execution of works contract, the property in which is not transferred in the course of execution of the works contract;

(f) cost of establishment of the contractor to the extent to which it is relatable to supply of the said labour and services;

(g) other similar expenses relatable to the said supply of labour and services, where the labour and services are subsequent to the said transfer of property;

(h) profit earned by the contractor to the extent it is relatable to the supply of said labour and services: …” (emphasis given)

Deduction for Depreciation

One of the deductions is for charges for obtaining on hire, the machinery and tools used in the execution of works contract (item (d) above in Rule 58(1)).

If machinery is obtained on hire, there is no doubt that deduction will be available for hire charges paid. However, it is also possible that contractor will have its own machinery and will be using it for execution of contract. An issue can arise, as to whether or not depreciation relating to such machinery is eligible for deduction under above category? The issue can be examined vis-a-vis into from the following judgments.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (34 VST 53)(Kar)

In this case Hon. High Court, in relation to the allowability of depreciation has observed as under:

“It is in the background of these further developments, we are examining the merits of the submissions made by Sri T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. On such an examination, while we find and as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate the word “depreciation” is conspicuously absent either in rule 6 particularly, Explanation 1 to sub-rule (4) of rule 6 or even in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley’s case [1993] 88 STC 204 as it occurs on this aspect at pages 233 and 235, we are nevertheless inclined to examine the submissions made by Shri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, for the reason that the entire exercise for the purpose of levy of tax under section 5B of the Act is only to ascertain the precise value of the goods in respect of which title passes from the contractor to the client on the execution of the work. The charge cannot be on anything over and above the value of the goods, not even by a pie ! Even assuming that rule 6 when read in its entirety does not contain the word “depreciation”, but nevertheless should necessarily take the hue from the permitted deductions as indicated by the Supreme Court in clause (d) occurring at page 235 of the judgment which reads as “charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise, machinery and tools used for the execution of the works of the Rules construed in this background and answer the question. We say so, for the reason that it is the goods of the assessee for the purpose of execution of the works contract, which the assessee otherwise, could have hired the machinery and tools, instead of utilizing its own machinery and tools and in the process of execution of the work, the machinery and tools are worn down and depreciate in value and as the end price, i.e., the value of the contract is fixed or determined by the contractor factoring this wear and tear to the machinery and tools as a consequence of using them for the execution of the works contract, the value of the proportionate wear and tear of the machinery which is otherwise identified as depreciation has to be necessarily permitted as a deduction on the premise that it is equivalent to the hire charges as is otherwise provided in clause (d) and for such purpose one has to understand the same even in terms of the language of Explanation I as quoted above and particularly, to be one within the scope of “other similar expenses relatable to supply of labour and services”.

We find the submission of Shri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant attractive enough for acceptance, for the reason that section 5B of the Act is only as a sequel to sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) of article 366 which reads as “a tax on the transfer of the property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract:”.

The Hon. Karnataka High Court held that depreciation amount is deductible expenditure before arriving at value of goods.

State of Kerala v. Thampi & Company (41 VST 107)(Ker)

In this case Kerala High Court was also dealing with similar controversy. Hon. Kerala High Court held that the claim is non-admissible, observing as under:

“Depreciation has a definite meaning and content and its rates are varying both for the purpose of income-tax and for preparing profit and loss account and balance sheet under the Companies Act. Therefore, if the Legislature ever intended to provide for deduction of depreciation in the computation of taxable turnover on works contract, we are sure that it would have been specifically provided in section 5C along with other deductions specifically provided. If the Tribunal’s reasoning that depreciation is also covered by sub-clause (2) of section 5C(1) under the head “charges otherwise incurred on machinery and tools for the execution of works contract”, then the provision becomes vague inasmuch as what is the rate of depreciation to be granted and whether it should be straight line method or written down value method, should have been mentioned in the section itself. In the absence of any specific provision in section 5C, we feel depreciation on machinery or tools is not eligible for any deduction in the computation of taxable turnover on works contract. Besides this, in our view, “charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise” in sub-clause (c)(ii) can only mean charges paid for obtaining machinery or tools under any other arrangement other than hire. In other words, if the charges are paid on any other terms, i.e., other than on hire arrangement for availing of the facility of machinery and tools, then only such charges are eligible for deduction, which certainly does not include depreciation because notional expenditure in the form of amortisation of cost of machinery and tools owned by the contractor is not visualised in section 5C(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.”

Thus, the situation has become debatable. In this judgment of Kerala High Court, the earlier judgment of Karnataka High court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (cited  supra) was not cited, and not considered. Had it been the case, it may have made a difference.

Conclusion
When Hon. Supreme Court intended to allow hire charges towards machinery, on same parity, depreciation needs to be allowed. Depreciation is nothing but writing off of sum spent earlier, in part, over a certain number of years. Therefore, with due respect, it can be said that the judgment of Kerala High Court requires reconsideration.  It is expected that the issue will be resolved at the earliest.

REVERSE CHARGE MECHANISM UNDER SERVICE TAX

fiogf49gjkf0d
Amidst tremendous resistance from the business community as well as professionals, the Government has expanded the scope of reverse charge mechanism to a significant extent and thereby fastened the onus of paying service tax on the recipients of various services especially by the corporate sector irrespective of whether the service provider is covered by the threshold exemption limit of Rs 10 lakh or he is already discharging the obligation of service tax fully.

History and background:
Reverse charge was first attempted to be introduced in the service tax law as early as in 1997, on the services of clearing and forwarding agents and those of goods transport operators. This was introduced vide section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) read with Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules (the Rules). When every person engaging a clearing and forwarding agent and every person paying or liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage respectively, was responsible for getting registered, discharging the obligation of payment of service tax. However, since the liability on recipients of these two services was fixed merely by introducing the machinery provisions in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Rules, it was challenged. The Readers may recall that the Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati & Anr. v. UOI & Others 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC)/2006 (2) STR 276 (SC) ruled that provisions of Service Tax Rules, 1994 viz. Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii) of the Rules (as it prevailed then) in so far as it makes the persons other than the clearing and forwarding agents or goods transport operators responsible for collecting service tax were ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994 itself and such sub-rules were accordingly struck down. Later indeed, to overcome the implications of this decision wherein tax collected was ordered to be refunded, the Finance Act, 2000 retrospectively amended these provisions to validate collection of service tax made from recipients of these services. Further, the services of goods transport operators were exempted from 02/06/1998 and later only from 01/01/2005, the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 reintroduced the services of goods transport agency (GTA). It is to be noted here that enabling provisions under section 68(2) were incorporated with effect from 16/10/1998 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1998. However, Notification No.36/2004-ST was issued only on 31/12/2004 which notified certain services whereby recipients of notified services were made liable for payment of service tax. In the year 2005, in addition to the recipients of GTA, the liability to register and pay service tax was also fixed on mutual funds for distribution fee paid to mutual fund distributors, insurance companies in respect of commission paid to insurance agents and later on, sponsoring body corporates or firms located in India.

Service tax liability of recipients of services provided from outside India:

In terms of the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules r.w.s. 68(2) of the Act, the liability of service tax was attempted to be fastened also on the recipient of taxable services provided from a person from a country other than India, with effect from 16/08/2002. In the absence of requisite provision in the Act, the levy on such services was disputed. Even after notifying such services in the Notification No.36/2004-ST referred above, the controversy continued. However, with effect from 18/04/2006 when section 66A was introduced in the Act, creating a charge of service tax on a person receiving taxable services in India provided by a person from a country other than India, the person receiving such services has been liable for service tax. For determining the liability in respect of various taxable services, the Government also prescribed the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 (Import Rules for short) to come into effect from 19/04/2006. These rules along with section 66A have been in force till 30/06/2012 i.e. till the onset of the newly introduced negative list based taxation of services. A tremendous amount of controversy and consequential litigation occurred for the application of reverse charge on taxable services provided from outside India to a person in India between the period 16/08/2002 and 18/04/2006, i.e. the date on which section 66A was introduced. The controversy however, achieved finality with the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Indian National Shipowners’ Association vs. UOI 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom) and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2010 (17) STR OJ57 (SC). The Court held that only from the date of the introduction of section 66A, service tax liability could be fastened on the recipients located in India, for the services received from outside India.

Reverse Charge: Under the new “negative list” based taxation effective from 1st July, 2012:

Reverse charge as it existed under the erstwhile selective levy of services till 30.06.2012 continues under the new system of taxation also both in case of specified services provided in India and in case of services provided from outside India. As discussed above, section 68(2) of the Act is the applicable provision whereby reverse charge i.e. liability to pay service tax is fastened on the recipient of a service. Section 68 is reproduced below:

“68 (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in respect of such taxable services as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in section 66B and all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person, as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service.

Provided that the Central Government may notify the service and the extent of service tax which shall be payable by such person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person to the extent so specified and the remaining part of the service tax shall be paid by the service provider.”

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 68, the Government earlier notified some services vide Notification No.36/2004-ST dated 31/12/2004 (as already discussed above) which now with effect from 01/07/2012 is superseded by a new Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 whereby in addition to the taxable services provided from outside India and services of insurance agents, goods transport agencies, sponsorship services, leasing services of mutual fund distributors, a few other services are also notified for which recipients are made liable for service tax and in some cases, partial reverse charge is introduced, whereby both service provider and service recipient are jointly responsible for tax payment for the proportion respectively specified for each of them in the said Notification No.30/2012-ST as discussed below:

In case of the following services notified as specified services, the service recipient is held as the person liable for payment of service tax to the Government.

Taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by:

i) An insurance agent to a person carrying on insurance business.
ii) A goods transport agency for transportation of goods by road, where freight is paid by:

(a) a factory registered or governed by the Factories Act;
(b) a registered society;
(c) any co-operative society established by or under any law;
(d) a registered excise dealer;
(e) anybody corporate established by or under any law; or
(f)    any registered/unregistered partnership firm including association of persons.

  •    Services provided by a GTA for transportation of vegetables, eggs, milk, food grains or pulses is exempted vide entry 21(a) and goods where the gross amount charged on a consignment in a single goods carriage does not exceed Rs. 1,500/- or goods for a single consignee does not exceed Rs. 750/-are exempted vide entry 21(b) in Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012.

  •    It may further be noted that service tax is payable on 25% of freight amount and person paying freight or liable for paying for services of GTA would be treated as the receiver of service for the purpose of reverse charge.

iii)    By way of sponsorship to any body corporate or partnership firm located in taxable territory.

Note: The following new services are now added in the said Notification No.30/2012-ST:

iv)    Arbitral Tribunal to any business entity located in taxable territory.

  •    “Business entity” as per section 65B(17) means “any person ordinarily carrying out any activity relating to industry, commerce or any other business or profession”.

v)    An advocate whether as individual or a firm of advocates providing legal services to any business entity located in the taxable territory.

  •    “Legal service” as per Rule 2(cca) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (The Rules for short) means “any service provided in relation to advice, consultancy or assistance in any branch of law, in any manner and includes representational services before any Court, Tribunal or authority.”

  •     Services by arbitral tribunal or by individual advocate or a firm of advocates to any person other than a business entity or business entity with a turnover not exceeding rupees ten lakh are exempted vide entry 6(a) and (b) of Notification No.25/2012-ST.

vi)    Government or local authority by way of support services to any business entity located in the taxable territory except in the cases of:
(a)    Renting of immovable property by the Government
(b)    Speed post expenses, parcel post, life insurance and agency services provided to a person other than Government.
(c)    Port and airport in relation to vessel or an aircraft inside/outside the precincts of a port or an airport
(d) Transport of goods or passengers.

  •     Renting of immovable property for the above purpose as per Rule 2(f) of the Rules means “any service provided or agreed to be provided by renting of immovable property or any other service in relation to such renting.”
  •     “Support services” as per section 65B(49) means “infrastructural, operational, administrative, logistic, marketing or any other support of any kind comprising functions that entities carry out in ordinary course of operations themselves but may obtain as services by outsourcing from others for any reason whatsoever and shall include advertisement and promotion, construction or works contract, renting of immovable property, security, testing and analysis”.

  •     It is clarified in the “education guide” issued by the Government that ‘Government’ includes both Central and State Governments. A statutory body, corporation or an authority created by the Parliament or a State Legislature is neither Government nor a local authority.

  •    “Local authority” as per section 65B(31) means-

(a)    a Panchayat as referred to in clause
(d)    of article 243 of the Constitution;
(b)    a Municipality as referred to in clause
(e)    of article 243P of the Constitution;
(c)    a Municipal Committee and a District Board, legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund;
(d)    a Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (41 of 2006);
(e)    a regional council or a district council constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution;
(f)    a development board constituted under article 371 of the Constitution; or
(g) a regional council constituted under article 371A of the Constitution.”

(vii)    a director of a company to the said company. (see note)
(viii)    Hiring of a motor vehicle designed to carry passengers to any person who is not in similar line of business.
(ix)    Supply of manpower for any purpose or security services. (see note)

  •     Supply of manpower as per Rule 2(g) of the Rules means supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise to another person to work under his superintendence or control.

  •    Security for the above purpose as per Rule 2(fa) of the Rules means services relating to the security of any property whether movable or immovable or of any person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any fact or activity.

(x)    Service portion in execution of works contract:

  •     Works contract as per section 65B(54) means “a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property.”

  •     In this case, it may also be noted that Notification No.24/2012-ST dated 06/06/2012 has provided for alternate method of valuation by providing presumptive rate by introducing Rule 2A in the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 from 01/07/2012.

Note-1: In case of the three services listed at (viii),
(ix)    and (x), the liability to pay service tax is fastened only when the services are provided by any individual, HUF or partnership firm registered or not including association of persons located in a taxable territory to a business entity registered as body corporate located in the taxable territory.

Note-2: Services of director and the words “or security services” along with manpower supply have been inserted only with effect from 07/08/2012 vide Notification No.45/2012-ST.

(xi)    Taxable service provided or agreed to be provided by any person who is located in a non-taxable territory and received by any person located in the taxable territory.

  •    As discussed above, reverse charge mechanism, earlier in terms of the erstwhile section 66A, applied to the services provided or to be provided by a person outside India and received by a person in India. Now with effect from 01/07/2012, to determine the liability of the recipient vis-à-vis various types of services, the Government has prescribed Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POP Rules for short) in place of Import Rules (as well as Export Rules).

  •    “Taxable territory” as per section 65B(52) means “the territory to which the provisions of this Chapter apply.”

  •    Non-taxable territory as per section 65B(35) means “the territory which is outside the taxable territory.”

  •     ‘India’ as per section 65B(27) means –

(a)    the territory of the Union as referred to in clauses (2) and (3) of article 1 of the Constitution;
(b)    its territorial waters, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone or any other maritime zone as defined in the Territorial Waters,
Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (80 of 1976);
(c)    the seabed and the subsoil underlying the territorial waters;
(d)    the air space above its territory and territorial waters; and
(e)    the installations, structures and vessels located in the continental shelf of In dia and the exclusive economic zone of

India, for the purposes of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil and natural gas and supply thereof.”

  •     As under the earlier system prevailing till 30/06/2012, an individual recipient receiving any service in relation to any purpose other than commerce or any other business or profession, would not be covered by liability under reverse charge as the same is exempted by entry 34 of the exempted Notification No.25/2012-ST. By this entry, even the Government, a local authority, a Government authority and an entity registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of providing charitable activities (as defined in the said Notification 25/2012-ST) also are declared exempt.

Partial Reverse Charge for 3 services only:

Except for the services listed above at (viii), (ix) and (x) viz. services of renting of motor vehicle, supply of manpower or security service and service in execution of works contract, the entire or 100% amount of service tax payment liability vests in the recipient of services. Partial reverse charge i.e. both the service provider and the recipient of services having liability for service tax exists only for 3 services in the following proportion as notified:

An explanation in Notification No.30/2012-ST is provided to clarify that in case of Works Contract services, where both service provider and recipient thereof are the persons liable to pay tax, the service recipient has the option of choosing the valuation method as per choice, independent of valuation method adopted by the provider of service.

Some Issues:
1.    Is reverse charge applicable to invoices raised by the vendors in July 2012 or later for the services completed in June, 2012 or when the payment for the invoice is made post 1st July, 2012?

For any service, where point of taxation is determined and liability is fastened prior to 01/07/2012 in terms of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 (POT Rules for short), the new provisions of reverse charge do not apply. For instance, if service was completed prior to 30th June, 2012 and invoice also was raised before such date, the point of taxation is determined to be the date of the invoice, if the invoice was raised within the stipulated time limit of 30 days in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules. In the scenario, even if the payment is made post 30th June, 2012, reverse charge would not apply to the receiver for such payment.

2.    Whether in the following situations, the liability under reverse charge would arise for the recipient?

  •     When a partnership firm provides works contract services to another partnership firm.

  •     When manpower supply services are provided by a private limited company to another private limited company.

  •     A firm of solicitors provides service to a proprietary business concern.

In the first two situations, recipient does not have liability under reverse charge. In the first situation, it is so because except for body corporates, liability is not cast on any other person in case of works contract services. In the second situation, there is no liability because the service provider is a company, the receiving corporate body does not have the liability. In this case, the provider would have to charge service tax and the receiver would pay him as per the invoiced amount unless the provider is covered by threshold exemption under Notification No.33/2012-ST. In the third situation, the liability to pay tax would vest in the recipient as the recipient is a business entity if his turnover is more than Rs.10 lakh i.e. when he is not covered by the threshold exemption limit and provider is a solicitor firm (solicitors are necessarily advocates). However, it may be noted that under Notification No.25/2012-ST, services by Arbitral Tribunal or individual advocate or a firm of advocates provided to any person other than business entity or a business entity with a turnover upto Rs. 10 lakh in the preceding financial year are exempted at entry no.6(b) as discussed above. Therefore, if the proprietary business concern is within the threshold turnover limit, no service tax is payable by such proprietor under reverse charge. The definition of business entity is provided above.

3.    When does the liability to pay service tax under partial reverse charge arise both for the provider of service as well as for the receiver?

This is governed by POT Rules. Service provider would have to pay service tax either depending on the date of invoice or the date of receipt of consideration for service whichever is earlier. The recipient as per the said rules would pay, considering the date of payment made for the service. However, if no payment for the invoice is made within six months, point of taxation would be the date of invoice in accordance with Rule 7 of the said POT Rules.

4.    Whether the service tax liability under reverse charge, partial or full, can be discharged by the recipient of services using balance in the CENVAT credit account?

No. CENVAT credit balance cannot be used for discharging the liability under reverse charge in terms of Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). CENVAT credit in terms of this rule can be utilised for payment of excise duty or amount payable on removal of inputs or capital goods or amount payable under Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and for payment of service tax on any output service. When a person pays service tax as a receiver of service, it is neither towards output service nor for any excise duty payment or an amount payable as stated above. Further, with effect from 01/07/2012, an express provision vide insertion of an explanation is also made below the said Rule 3(4), providing that CENVAT credit cannot be used for payment of service tax in respect of services where the person liable to pay tax is a service recipient. Also Rule 2(p) of CCR specifically excludes the service where the whole of service tax is liable to be paid by the recipient of service from the definition of output service.

5.    When a service provider is located in Jammu and Kashmir and provides taxable service to a receiver located in taxable territory, whether the recipient is liable for service tax?

This is to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in section 66C of the Act read with the rules prescribed in this regard viz. Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POP Rules, for short) as notified vide Notification No.28/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012. For instance, if the service provided by J&K service provider in the above question is of architect’s service in relation to immovable property situated in Chandigarh, the recipient located anywhere in the taxable territory would be liable to pay service tax under reverse charge as Rule 5 of the said POP Rules provides that place of provision of service is the place where the immovable property is located. Thus, depending on the type of service, the applicable POP Rule would determine the place of provision to determine whether service tax is payable by the recipient located in taxable territory from a person located in non-taxable territory including services received from outside India.

6. (a) When a small service provider is availing benefit of Rs. 10 lakh exemption under Notification No.33/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 from service tax leviable under section 66B of the Act and has provided services to a body corporate, whether the receiver is liable for service tax?

(b)    What would be the answer in case of services for which partial reverse charge is prescribed?

For this purpose, we may refer the Notification No.33/2012-ST. It contains a non-obstante clause which reads as:

“Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to:
(i)    ……………..
(ii)    Such value of taxable services in respect of which service tax shall be paid by such person and in such manner as specified under sub-section (2) of section 68 of the said Finance Act read with the Service tax Rules, 1994.”

Section 68(2) referred to in the above clause including proviso therein is reproduced above. Both the provisions read together indicates that the threshold limit does not apply to the service receiver liable for service tax in terms of section 68(2) read with Notification No.30/2012-ST and Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules.

The Government also has clarified in the Guidance Note as follows:

“Liability of the service provider and the service recipient are different and independent of each other. Thus, in case the service provider is availing exemption owing to turnover being less than Rs.10 lakh, he shall not be obliged to pay any tax. However, the service recipient shall have to pay service tax which he is obliged to pay under the partial reverse charge mechanism”

Thus, the clarification answers that in both the situations, whether having full or partial liability, service tax is payable by the recipient irrespective of the threshold exemption availment by the provider. The recipient would discharge the liability of his part.

7.    Whether the credit of service tax paid under reverse charge is available to the service recipient? If the recipient is not able to utilise the credit, would the amount paid be refunded?

The availability of credit is subject to provisions of CCR. If the service on which service tax is paid under reverse charge satisfies the definition of “input service” as provided in Rule 2(l) of the CCR and based on GAR-7 challan evidencing payment of service tax, credit can be availed. Rule 5B is introduced in CCR for granting refund to service provider providing services are notified under section 68(2) of the Act and the service provider unable to utilise CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services for service tax payment on output services subject to procedure, conditions and safeguards to be prescribed.

Comment: In the matter of refund, the above Rule 5B of CCR indicates that the refund would be available to service providers of services notified in section 68(2) and not to recipients liable under reverse charge. Hence, if the recipient corporate body of, say, works contract services and manpower supply services is engaged in pure “trading activity” which is not liable for service tax, such trader cannot claim refund and so would be the manufacturing body corporate manufacturing products which are exempt or have Nil rate of duty. [The newly intro-duced Rule 5A in CCR refers to refund for manufacturers only on inputs].

8.    (a) In case of services provided by a director of the company to the company, now that Notification No.45/2012-ST has introduced reverse charge with effect from August 07, 2012, if a director receives sitting fees from more than one company, whether all the companies where a person provides service as a director would separately pay service tax on his sitting fees?

(b)    How about remuneration to managing director, whole-time directors or executive directors?

In principle, all the companies in which a person is a director would independently pay service tax as a recipient, in respect of services received from all its directors. As regards the payment made to the managing director, whole-time director or executive director, the liability under reverse charge would be determined, based on facts of each case. If there is an employment contract with such a director and the amount paid is as ‘salary’, there will not be any service tax liability since employment contracts or an employee providing services to an employer are specifically excluded from the definition of ‘service’ in section 65B(44) of the Act. Manner of tax deduction at source under the Income Tax Act i.e. whether deduction is made u/s 192 or section 194J may also help indicate (although not conclusive) whether the amount paid is in the nature of salary or remuneration. If a director is paid some fixed amount as salary and other or additional amount as remuneration and if this is not part of the employment contract with the director, reverse charge would apply to such amount paid additionally and not forming part of the employment contract. However, independent directors on the Board act in a fiduciary capacity and therefore the consideration for the service rendered by the director to the company would be liable for reverse charge.

9.    In case of works contract service, in terms of Notification No.24/2012-ST depending on the nature of works contract, different valuation rate viz. 40%, 70% or 60% is applicable. How would the recipient body corporate know whether the provider has applied/paid service tax at the correct rate?

In terms of Explanation II to Notification No.30/2012-ST, the service recipient has the option of choosing the valuation method, independent of the valuation method adopted by the provider of service. Consider an instance, when a provider has charged and paid 50% of the service tax on 40% of the value of an invoice, considering the works contract as one of “original works” whereas if the recipient holds a view that the contract/transaction is not covered by the definition of “original works” and therefore, service tax would be attracted on 60% value. In such a case, whether the recipient is “mandatorily required” to independently determine the substance of the contract by virtue of the above explanation or not, is not clear. The explanation refers only to having an option in reflecting “valuation method”. Therefore, it appears that the recipient along with the provider runs a risk of dispute over ‘valuation’ option if a lower rate in place of a higher one is selected.

Conclusion:

The intention of the Government in introducing the above complicated procedure of reverse charge and especially partial reverse charge for various services provided predominantly in semi-organized sector, can be understood and appreciated as the compliance is poor and undue advantage of threshold exemption also may have been taken by some. However, certain fall-outs of the clumsy system cannot be ignored when it is introduced at the cost of hardship that would be faced by small entities including trading outfits and even the law firms as enumerated below:

  •    Large law firms would not be able to avail any CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various taxable services used by them, as they are not required to collect and pay service tax for their services. This indeed means a substantial cost addition for them.

  •     In case of partial reverse charge, a number of compliance issues are likely to emerge. For instance, if a manpower supply agency has already discharged service tax obligation, as in the past, of 100% liability, and if no service tax is paid by the recipient to the Government, as he has inadvertently paid 100% service tax to the provider.

  •     Whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid to the vendor would be allowed?

  •     Whether or not service tax demand would be raised against the receiver and consequently whether excess service tax paid as the provider would be refunded to the provider?

There are no definite answers to the above issues without going through the litigating process. However, it may be noted here that in the past, considering the basic cannons of taxation that no transaction can be taxed twice, in Invincible Security Services vs. CCE (2009) 13 STR 185 (Tri.-Del) and in Navyug Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. CCE&C (2008) 17 STT 362 (Ahd-CESTAT), liberal view was taken by the Tribunals and even on receiving service tax without authority of law, it was held that it was not open to the department to confirm the same again in respect of the same service and the appeals were allowed.

Since the above illustrations are only a small part of various issues and difficulties that are likely to be faced on account of partial reverse charge, it is recommended that the same should be done away with at the earliest and instead the Government may consider introduction of transaction threshold. A private limited company paying barely Rs.1,500/-as sitting fees to each director for every meeting also is required to register and pay service tax of an insignificant amount. Transaction threshold can relieve such hardships as well as administration costs of the corporate sector as well as that of the department. A pragmatic approach is required on the part of the Government in this matter.

VAT on Builders and Developers in the State of Maharashtra – Part II

fiogf49gjkf0d
(Continued from August’ 12 issue of BCAJ)

Determination of Taxable Sale Price of Works Contract under Rule 58 of MVAT Rules:

For the sake of better understanding of the procedure, relevant portion of Rule 58 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (MVAT Rules) is reproduced hereunder:

‘58. Determination of sale price and of purchase price in respect of sale by transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract –

(1) The value of the goods at the time of the transfer of property in the goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract may be determined by effecting the following deductions from the value of the entire contract, in so far as the amounts relating to the deduction pertain to the said works contract:–

(i) labour and service charges for the execution of the works;

(ii) amounts paid by way of price for sub-contract , if any, to subcontractors;

(iii) charges for planning, designing and architect’s fees;

(iv) charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise, machinery and tools for the execution of the works contract;

(v) cost of consumables such as water, electricity, fuel used in the execution of works contract, the property in which is not transferred in the course of execution of the works contract;

(vi) cost of establishment of the contractor to the extent to which it is relatable to supply of the said labour and services;

(vii) other similar expenses relatable to the said supply of labour and services, where the labour and services are subsequent to the said transfer of property;

(viii) profit earned by the contractor to the extent it is relatable to the supply of said labour and services:

Provided that where the contractor has not maintained accounts which enable a proper evaluation of the different deductions as above or where the Commissioner finds that the accounts maintained by the contractor are not sufficiently clear or intelligible, the contractor or, as the case may be, the Commissioner may, in lieu of the deductions as above, provide a lump sum deduction as provided in the Table below and determine accordingly the sale price of the goods at the time of the said transfer of property-

 Serial No.

 Type of Works contract

 *Amount to be deducted from the contract price (expressed as a percentage of the cont ract price)

 (1)

 (2)

 (3)

 5

  C i v i l w o r k s l i k e construction of buildings, bridges, roads, etc.

 30 %

Note: The percentage is to be applied after first deducting from the total contract price, the quantum of price on which tax is paid by the sub-contractor, if any, and the quantum of tax separately charged by the contractor if the contract provides for separate charging of tax.

‘(1A) In case of a construction contract, where along with the immovable property, the land or, as the case may be, interest in the land, underlying the immovable property is to be conveyed, and the property in the goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of the construction contract is also transferred to the purchaser such transfer is liable to tax under this rule. The value of the said goods at the time of the transfer shall be calculated after making the deductions under sub-rule (1) and the cost of the land from the total agreement value.

The cost of the land shall be determined in accordance with the guidelines appended to the Annual Statement of Rates, prepared under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995, as applicable on the 1st January of the year in which the agreement to sell the property is registered:

Provided that, deduction towards cost of land under this sub-rule shall not exceed 70% of the agreement value.
(In the above rule 58, after sub-rule (I), the sub-rule (1A) is inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted w.e.f. the 20th June 2006 by Notification No VAT-1507/CR-53/Taxation-1)

(2)    The value of goods so arrived at under sub-rule(1) shall, for the purposes of levy of tax, be the sale price or, as the case may be, the purchase price relating to the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract.’

After arriving at the taxable value of works contract, as per the above Rule, the dealer shall calculate tax pay-able on various items of goods involved, the property in which gets transferred from the contractor to the principal, in the execution of works contract.

What should be the amount payable in respect of each of such contract (agreement), that may be a big question and there is no straight way method to determine the liability. It may depend from builder to builder, location to location and project to project. There may be many different combinations, in various types of projects, since its conceptualisation through execution and till completion. All such factors will have their impact in arriving at the taxable value and tax thereon.

If we look at the provisions of the Law, in Maharashtra, tax is payable by a dealer on sale price of goods at such rate of tax as prescribed in the Schedule. And the dealer is entitled to claim input tax credit i.e. setoff of taxes paid on his purchases. Thus net tax payable is Output tax – Input tax credit.

As the sale of flats, offices, etc., (in the circumstances discussed earlier) will be taxed under the concept of deemed sale i.e. ‘works contract’, the taxable value of each contract will have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 of MVAT Rules, as given above. The taxable value so determined will have to be divided in such proportion of taxable goods as the property in which is deemed to have been transferred from the contractor (builder) to the principal (flat purchaser) during the course of execution of ‘works contract’. The proportionate value of each type of goods so determined shall be liable to tax @ 4% or 5% or 12.5% as the case may be.

After working out tax on such sale price, the dealer has to work out the amount of setoff available, of taxes paid on his purchases, in accordance with Rules 52 to 55. The net tax payable shall be the difference of these two amounts (i.e. VAT = Output Tax – Input Tax Credit).

As each agreement is a separate contract, the taxable value of each such agreement needs to be determined separately. The aggregate taxable value of all such agreements, during a given period, shall be the turnover of sale for the purposes of calculating the tax.

It may be noted that, while, it is possible (except in certain circumstances) to determine the total taxable value of sale of goods in each such agreement of this nature, it would not be possible to determine the cost of various kinds of material used in the construction of that particular flat which is just one part of the whole project. Therefore, for applying the rate of tax, one may have to take proportionate value of goods used in the whole project or building as the case may be. Similarly, the aggregate amount of setoff admissible, during a given period, will be available as input tax credit against the total tax payable on aggregate sale price (taxable value) of all such agreements during that period.

(While determining aggregate amount of setoff, care has to be taken to keep separate the proportionate cost of goods used in the construction of unsold flats i.e. those flats and units which are sold after the construction of the building has been completed.)

Thus, for all practical purposes, proportionate method may have to be adopted. And the same method may be used, if required, to determine the net tax payable in respect of each such agreement for sale of flats and units in an under construction building or project. The builder/developer may first work out his total tax liability (net tax payable) on the entire building or project (as the case may be) and then the net tax liability may be divided proportionately either on the basis of area or on the basis of value or on such other method (as may be appropriate) to find out net tax payable in respect of each such agreement.

To take an example (just to explain the point), suppose a builder has constructed a building having a total built up area of 10,000 sq. ft., consisting of 20 units only (all having exactly similar area in terms of sq. ft. as well as amenities and all have been sold simultaneously). Each purchaser has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 25 lakh in respect of one unit and the amount is payable in 25 monthly installments of Rs. 1 lakh each. Thus, the total sale price of the above project (spread over 25 months) works out to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- .

The cost of project to the builder may be consisting of various items, but, if we take a simple format, the cost may comprise of the followings:-


The taxable value of goods (in the above project), as per Rule 58 of MVAT Rules will have to be worked out as follows:-
Sale Price – Cost of Land – Expenses on design, hire, consumables, labour and other services (i.e. 500 – 300 – 45 – 25 = 130, all figures in lakh)

(A careful look at the Rule reveals that the sale price so work out is exactly the total of purchase cost of material used and the profit margin, including non-deductible expenses of the dealer.)

Thus, the dealer (builder) will be liable to pay tax on Rs.1,30,00,000/- at the rate as set in the Schedule. As the building, flat or a unit in a building is not an item in the Schedule, tax needs to be worked out on each item of goods, the property in which gets transferred from the contractor to the principal in the course of execution of works contract. Thus, this amount needs to be proportionately divided over all such goods like steel, cement, bricks, stones, wood, electrical wire, plumbing material, fittings and such other construction and finishing goods.

As the cost of material is already known, there should be no difficulty in arriving at the proportionate value. Although, the combinations may differ from project to project, just to make it easier to understand, suppose the total cost of material used in the construction and finishing (i.e Rs. 1,05,00,00/-) is comprising of two types of goods, one liable to tax @ 4% and another @ 12.5%. And suppose, the ratio thereof is 30:70, then the sale price of 130 shall be divided in the proportion 30:70.

Thus, the output tax, for entire project, in this example shall be:


(Note: As tax is not collected separately on sale of such flats, etc. the tax needs to be calculated with reference to Rule 57, by applying the formula: Tax = Sale Price * Rate of Tax/100+Rate)

Now, let’s work out the amount of setoff of taxes paid on purchases:


Thus, total amount of setoff admissible is Rs. 9,37,821/-, and, net Tax payable on the entire project works out to (VAT = Output Tax – Input Tax credit) Rs. 2,23,290 (11,61,111 – 9,37,821)

For each flat, it may work out to (net tax payable/ number of units sold) Rs. 11,165 (223290/20)

[Note: As the built up area of each unit and the price thereof, in the above example have been taken as same, the calculation looks to be very simple, but in a project where there are units of different sizes, sale agreements are entered into at different dates and at different rates, complication of calculation may arise. However, the method of working of net tax payable on the total project will remain almost on the same line. Only thing that the amount of setoff admissible may be little different in a project where some of the units are sold after completion of the project.]

The net tax payable, in terms of percentage to agreement value, works out to app. 0.45%
In some of the cases, it is possible that the builder does not purchase any material himself, but he gives the entire contract of construction and finishing to a contractor for a lump sum price per sq ft and/or per unit, etc. In that case, the contractor will use his own goods and labour, on the land provided to him by the builder, and do the entire work of construction and finishing as per designs and specifications provided to him. The builder either may give entire contract to one contractor or to various contractors for various types of works to be carried out. In all such cases the taxable sale price of flat/units in the hands of the builder, for the purposes of levying VAT shall be worked out as follows:-

Continuing with the above example, suppose the total value of all such contracts (on which such contractor/ sub-contractor has paid tax) is Rs 1,50,00,000/- (@ Rs 1,500/- per sq. ft.), then the amount so paid to sub-contractor/s will also have to be deducted from the total sale price (agreement value). Thus, the calculation may look like as follows:-

Sale Price – Cost of Land – amount paid to sub-contractor – Expenses on designing, hiring, consumables and such other services (i.e. 500-300-150-25 = 25, all figures in lakh), i.e. the amount equivalent to non-deductible expenditure and profit margin of the builder.

As the builder has not used any material of his own, he is not entitled for any setoff, and, in the absence of any direct relation of this taxable sale price with any particular kind of material, the rate of tax applicable may be the highest i.e. 12.5%. Thus, the builder will be liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,77,778/- as tax on the entire project (Rs. 25,00,000 * 12.5 / 112.5).

Tax payable in respect of each flat works out to Rs. 13,889 (277778/20).

In terms of percentage it is 0.56%, almost the same as above (little higher).

It may be noted that the deduction under Rule 58(1), in respect of labour & service charges, etc., is available subject to maintenance of proper accounts which en-able a correct evaluation of the different deductions (as above). Thus, there may be an argument that the sales tax authorities may not agree to accept as it is the amount of cost of expenditure incurred on design, labour & such other services, therefore, the builder may have to opt for lump sum deduction at a fixed percentage, as provided in the Table appended to Rule 58(1). In that case, the tax payable may have to be worked out in the following manner (using the figures from same example as above):

Determination of Sale price by adopting deduction as per Table (Rule 58)

A. In case the builder using his own material:-


B. In case of construction and finishing, etc., done by sub-contractor/s:-

For each flat, it may work out to Rs. 19444 (app. 0.78%)

(* Note: Regarding base amount for deduction towards labour and services @ 30%, there may be two views. One view is that this percentage is to be applied after deducting from the total contract price, the quantum of price on which tax is paid by the sub-contractor, the value of land need not to be deducted for calculating this percentage. And another view, which the Department has referred to in one of the FAQ, is that the land price also needs to be deducted before calculating this percentage. For the purposes of this example, view expressed by the Department, has been taken, though the legal position may be different.)

It can be seen from above that the tax burden, through any of these methods, on such agreements works out to between 0.45% & 0.78%, i.e. well below 1% of the agreement value.

It may be noted that in different projects this percentage may differ. If the quantum of amount paid to sub-contractor is higher, the amount of tax payable by the builder will be lower. However, there should not be any material difference in most of the projects of above nature throughout the State.

It may further be noted that in the above example, the land price is taken at about 60% of the sale price (agreement value), but there may be cases where land price is much higher. In all such cases, deduction for the total cost of the land is available, subject to a ceiling of 70% of total sale price (agreement value). Thus, it is possible that due to this artificial ceiling, in some of the projects, the amount of tax payable in terms of percentage may differ substantially. To understand the point, let’s take an example of a luxury look apartment at a prime location.

Suppose the sale price of a luxury look apartment, in an under construction building, located in a prime area of city, is Rs. 25,000 per sq. ft. of built up area, and the amount paid to sub-contractor/s for construction and finishing is Rs. 3,500 per sq ft. Then, the working of tax payable may be as follows:-


Tax in terms of percentage of the agreement value, in such a situation, works out to 1.24%. Although, this percentage would be little lower, where amount paid to sub-contractor is higher than the value considered for this example, the fact remains that this higher percentage is due to artificial ceiling of 70% imposed in Rule 58(1A) . If the actual cost of land is deducted then the tax payable, in same case, will work out at Rs. 117 (i.e. 0.47%).

(* Refer note above)

Point of Taxation and payment of Tax

A dealer (builder/developer) may be able to work out his total tax liability on the entire project through above referred examples, but the main difficulty arises in determining periodic tax liability for depositing tax into the Government treasury.

To understand the provisions regarding payment of tax, filing of returns, etc., one may refer to relevant provisions contained in section 20 of MVAT Act, Rule 17 of MVAT Rules and other such provisions, which provide that a dealer is liable to pay tax on taxable turnover of his sales within 21/30 days from the end of period (i.e. month, quarter or six months) as may be applicable in respect to such dealer. The periodicity, as per Rule 17 is decided on the basis of net tax liability of the immediate previous year. Accordingly, if the net tax payable during the previous financial year is up to Rs. 1,00,000/-, the dealer has to file his return for a period of six months and pay the taxes for that period within 21/30 days from the end of that period of six months (April to September). If the tax liability of the previous financial year is more than Rs. 1 lakh but up to Rs. 10 lakh then the periodicity is quarterly and if the tax liability is more than Rs. 10 lakh, the periodicity is monthly. In fact, now as per the new procedure, a registered dealer has to file his returns and pay taxes as per the periodicity determined and displayed by the sales tax department on its website ‘mahavat.gov.in’. In respect of new dealers, in the first year of registration, and for unregistered periods periodicity is quarterly. (Refer Rule 18)

Next question which arises is, what should be considered as taxable turnover of that particular period (i.e. month, quarter or six months)? Whether point of taxation arises in such cases on the date of agreement so entire value is taxable on that date itself, or on the basis of actual work carried out, or on the basis of payment due or actual payment received, or at the time of giving possession?

As this is for the first time that such kind of agreements, for sale of flats and units in a building, will be liable to tax under the concept of ‘works contract’ the Department may have to provide appropriate guidelines so as to avoid any kind of disputes.

However, if we look into the concept of ‘works contract’, the point of taxation arises as and when the work is carried out. And the quantum thereof is certified by a competent person. In case the builder/developer has given construction contract to a sub-contractor, such a certification may be available because the builder/ developer may be releasing payment accordingly, but in cases where builder/developer employing his own material and labour such periodic certificate/s may or may not be available. In such circumstances, in case of normal contracts, the assessing authorities generally ask for payment of tax on the basis of bills raised by the main contractor on the principal. But, in case of builders/developers such system of raising bills or debit notes on the purchasers of flats/units may or may not be there (depending upon normal practice each builder may be following so far). The question then arises whether the Department can ask the builder/s to pay tax on the basis of amount due as per various dates mentioned in each agreement. If that is so, it may be a huge exercise. Another simple method, in case of non-issue of bills or debit notes, may be as and when actual payment is received, if the same is acceptable to the Department.

Once, the above issue gets settled the next question arises is the periodic determination of taxable sale price i.e. sale price arrived at under Rule 58, which requires various amounts to be reduced from the total agreement value (as referred above). This is one aspect, which may create unending litigation between the dealer/s and the Department.

It may be noted that these agreements for sale of flats and units in an under construction or to be constructed building are not normal construction contracts, these are special agreements (as noted by the Hon’ble High Court also). These contracts require reduction on account of value of land from the total agreement value. Now, this reduction is to be done at what stage in such periodic determination of taxable sale price? Whether the value of undivided share in land is to be reduced from the first few installments (and other reductions in the subsequent installments) or to be spread over through all the installments proportionately? Further, at what point of time the amount paid to sub-contractor/s is to be reduced from the agreement value, particularly if it does not have a direct (periodic) relationship with periodic installments received or to be received from the purchaser/s?

One more aspect, which needs specific attention is the reference to fair market value of land in section 58(1A), which provides that “the cost of the land shall be determined in accordance with the guidelines appended to the Annual Statement of Rates prepared under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995, as applicable on the 1st January of the year in which the agreement to sell the property is registered:”. Thus, it is possible that value of undivided share in land, in respect of certain flats or units may differ from the value of land for other flats or units within the same building, if the agreements to sell have been registered in two different calendar years. As each agreement is to be treated as a separate contract, the taxable sale price in respect of each such agreement has to be determined on periodic basis.

Various steps involved in determination of net tax payable, by a builder/developer on periodic basis may be summarised as under:-

1.    Determine the taxable value (sale price of goods) of each agreement for each period of liability.

2.    Sum total of taxable value of all agreements, during a given period, is taxable turnover of sale of goods for the purposes of levying tax.

3.    Determine proportionate taxable value of turnover liable to tax, during that period, at different rates of tax (in proportion to the cost of goods involved).

4.    Calculate total tax payable, during the period, on the taxable turnover of sale of goods by applying the applicable rates (4%, 5%, 12.5%, etc.)

5.    Calculate the amount of setoff admissible on purchase of goods, during the period, property in which gets transferred from the contractor (builder) to the principal (purchaser).

6.    The difference between amounts arrived at in steps 4 and 5 is the net tax payable for that period.

Each and every step, noted above, may need clarification. A further question may arise, in case of certain builders, who are constructing building with their own material. As these dealers (builders) will be entitled to take setoff of taxes paid on their purchases in the period in which the material has been purchased, there may be situations where their claim of setoff is much more than the amount of output tax in that particular period. In all such cases, whether they will be entitled to carry forward the input tax credit (setoff) beyond the financial year?

All these questions need to be addressed appropriately by the Department of Sales Tax and Government of Maharashtra. Another question which arises is in case of certain purchasers, who fall under the specified category of employers, u/s 31 of MVAT Act, i.e whether the provisions of TDS are applicable to such agreements?

As the subject matter is new, there may be many such queries, which need to be resolved.

In the light of the above, it may be necessary for the Government of Maharashtra to consider, in the inter-est of all stake holders, to design a scheme whereby the builders/developers can discharge their tax liability in an appropriate manner, the flat purchasers can discharge their obligation, if any, without hesitation and the Department can assess the tax liability in a hassle-free manner.

While in the Press – Latest Developments:

1.    The artificial ceiling of 70%, in respect of deduction for value of land, in section 58(1A) has been removed vide Notification dated 31st July 2012.

2.    The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra, has issued a circular dated 6th August 2012, prescribing conditions and the procedure for granting administrative relief in respect of obtaining registration for past periods and payment of taxes, etc. The prescribed due date for late registration is now extended, by an order of the Supreme Court, to 15th October 2012, and, due date for payment of tax for past periods extended up to 31st October, 2012.

3.    The Department of Sales Tax, through new FAQ hosted on its website, has clarified that:

(i)    Tax is payable by the dealers (builder/ developers) shall be as per the prescribed periodicity (i.e. monthly, quarterly or six monthly as may be applicable).

(ii)    For new dealers and for unregistered periods, periodicity shall be quarterly.
(iii)    The amount received or receivable (due for payment), as per terms of agreement, shall be considered as the gross value of contract for respective period.
(iv)    Deduction for value of TDR will also be available under Rule 58(1A).
(v)    The value of land (including TDR) can be deducted from the initial installments or spread over proportionally on all installments.
(vi)    Input tax credit (set-off of taxes paid on purchases) is available in the period in which such purchases have been effected.
(vii)    However, the builders/developers can carry forward the input tax credit as well as deduction towards land value (including TDR) to the periods of next financial year (for the periods from 20th June 2006 to 31st March 2010). The ceiling of one lac, as prescribed for other dealers, not applicable to builders/ developers.
(viii)    Returns for past periods can be uploaded now.
(ix)    Sale of completed flats are not liable to tax.
(x)    The builder is not liable to pay VAT on flats given to land owner. If land owner sells those flats afterwards, he is not liable to VAT.

(xi)    It is possible that within the same buildings some agreements were registered before 31st March 2010 and others after 1st April 2010. In such cases the dealer can opt for composition scheme of 1% in respect of flats sold after 1st April 2010, and, in respect of earlier transactions he may discharge tax liability in accordance with Rule 58. However, input tax credit in respect of goods used in the construction of flats (for which composition scheme opted) will have to be reversed.

4.    The Supreme Court, in its order dated 28th August 2012, in SLP Nos. 17709, 17738, and 21052 of 2012, has clarified that the payment of tax by the builders/developers shall be subject to the final decision of the Court in the matter involved in Special Leave Petitions.

5.    The Supreme Court has further stated in its order “In case the amendment in section 2(24) of the 2002 Act is held to be unconstitutional and the tax so paid/deposited by the developers is ordered to be returned by the State Government to the developers, the same shall be returned with interest at such rate that may be ordered by the court finally at the time of disposal of matter.”

6.    The representations, made by BCAS, may have some fruitful results. The Government of Maharashtra may consider a proposal for simplified composition scheme for the period 20th June 2006 to 31st March 2010.

Definition of Service, Charge of Service Tax and Negative List

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction:
Service tax law has
undergone paradigm shift from the selective approach to the negative
list based approach of taxation of services with effect from 01.07.2012.
Till then, service tax was payable on 117 categories of taxable
services. Now the levy of service tax encompasses all services as
defined in the law, barring 17 services listed in the Negative List. For
the first time after introduction of service tax in 1994, the
definition of the term “service” is provided in the law. Definitions of
various terms including that of taxable services in the earlier
dispensation have been given a go-bye. Certain services have been
defined as “Declared Services”. Further, changes are made in Point of
Taxation Rules, 2011, Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006
and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Export of Services Rules, 2005 and
Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India)
Rules, 2006 are being replaced by the Place of Provision of Service
Rules, 2012. The ambit of reverse charge mechanism under which the
recipient of service is liable to pay tax is considerably widened. This
is described as a step towards GST. Through the increase in tax rates
from 10% to 12% and widening of tax net, the Government has targeted
revenue collection of Rs.1,24,000 crore. as against the last years
budgeted revenue of Rs. 67,000 crore and revised budgeted revenue of Rs.
92,000 crore.

An attempt is made in this article to analyse the
definition of service, charge of service tax and Negative List of
services. Clause by clause analysis of definition of service:

Section
65B (44) – “service” means any activity carried out by a person for
another for consideration, and includes a declared service, ……………… .

Important ingredients of “service”:

a) any activity
– The focus of the levy is now shifted to an activity which has a wide
coverage. The word, “activity” is not defined in the Act. Any execution
of an act or operation carried out or provision of a facility will also
be included. A single activity is also covered in its ambit and it is
not necessary that such activity should be carried on a regular basis.
Even a passive activity or forbearance to act or to refrain from an act
or to tolerate an act or a situation, would be regarded as service.

b) Carried out by a person for another
– For a transaction of service, there must be two parties, one, service
provider and the other, service receiver. By implication, self service
is outside the ambit of taxable service. However, certain exceptions are
provided which are explained later.

c) For a Consideration
– The term consideration is not defined in the Act. However, as per the
Education Guide issued by the Tax Research Unit, the meaning assigned
to it in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is to be adopted. Under the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, the definition of “consideration” is, “When,
at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done
or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to
do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or
promise is called a consideration for the promise”. In simple terms, the
word, “consideration” would mean everything received in return for a
provision of service including consideration of monetary or non-monetary
nature (in kind). Even deferred consideration would be included. It is
to be noted that it is not necessary that the consideration should flow
from the recipient of service only. The amount received will be
considered as consideration, as long as there is a link between the
provision of service and consideration. However, free gifts, donations,
charities would be outside its scope. Any activity carried on free of
charge or without any consideration is not covered here.

The
definition of “service” thus appears to be all encompassing, subject to
certain exclusions and inclusions explained herein below, the inclusion
of words, “and includes a declared service” appears to be for abundant
caution and the narrative of its importance.

Definition of service (contd.) – but does not include,

(a) an activity which constitutes merely

(i) a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or

(ii)
such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be
sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of article 366 of the
Constitution; or

(iii) a transaction in money or actionable claim;

(b) a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment;

(c) fees taken in any Court or tribunal established under any law for the time being in force.

Let us now examine what could be regarded as covered in each limb of the exclusion clause.

“Mere transfer of title in goods”:

Transfer
of title in goods signifies purchase or sale of goods by which property
in goods is transferred from one person to another. The term, “goods”
is defined in clause 25 of section 65B, “as every kind of movable
property other than actionable claim and money; and includes securities,
growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of that
land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of
sale. The word, “mere transfer of title” has been clarified in the
Education Guide to mean change in ownership. Mere transfer of custody or
possession over goods or immovable property where ownership is not
transferred does not amount to transfer of title. For example, giving
the property on rent or goods for use on hire would not involve a
transfer of title”. This means that, sale or purchase of goods would not
be covered in the definition of service. Transaction in shares and
securities, forward contracts in commodities or currencies, future
contracts in financial derivatives are also included in the definition
of “goods” and would be out of the ambit of the definition of “service”.

“Mere transfer of title in immovable property” :

As clarified in the Education Guide, the term, “immovable property” is to be defined as per the General Clauses Act, 1897. It has been defined to include land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth. Immovable property thus consists of bundle of rights like right to use, right to develop, right to transfer etc. Taking clue from earlier paragraph, it is clear that where ownership is changed in a transaction of immovable property, the same would not be regarded as service. The term, “transfer of property” is defined u/s 5 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as an act by which a living person conveys movable or immovable property, in present or in future, to one or more living persons. It has been further provided that, the seller is entitled to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer for payment of purchase money, or any part thereof remaining unpaid and for interest on such amount where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of purchase money [section 55(4)] and the buyer is entitled to the benefits of any improvement in, or increase in value of the property, and to the rents and profit thereof where the ownership of the property has passed to him [section 55(6)]. As the transaction of mere transfer of title of immovable property is excluded from the definition of service, it needs to be juxtaposed against the declared service of “construction” defined in clause b of section 66E wherein tax is levied on construction of complex, building etc. for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration is received after issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority. The conflict between the exclusion clause from the definition and this entry in “declared service” is apparent.

The activity of transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution:

By 46th Amendment, Clause 29A was introduced under Article 366 of the Constitution, deeming certain transactions as sale. Such transactions are —

(a)    a tax on the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, de-ferred payment or other valuable consideration;

(b)    a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;

(c)    a tax on the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by installments;

(d)    a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;

(e)    a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;

(f)    a tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxi-cating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made.

The definition of service excludes transactions of sale and purchase, delivery or supply of any of above kind of “deemed sale”. The transactions listed above needs to be juxtaposed against some of the “Declared Services” in order to understand the conflict between the exclusion clause and such “Declared Services”. It has been clarified in the Education Guide that activities specified as declared list which are related to transactions that are deemed as sales under Article 366(29A) have been carefully specified to ensure that there is no conflict. The Education Guide dwells on the Supreme Court decision in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. UOI [2006(2) STR 161] which would be a self explanatory guide to determine taxability of such transactions.

The following principles emerge from the said judgment for ascertaining the taxability of composite transactions :

  •  The nature of a composite transaction, except in case of two exceptions carved out by the Constitution, would be determined by the element which determines the ‘dominant nature’ of the transaction.

  •     If the dominant nature of such a transaction is sale of goods or immovable property, then such transaction would be treated as such.

  •     If the dominant nature of such a transaction is provision of a service, then such transaction would be treated as a service and taxed as such, even if the transaction involves an element of sale of goods.

  •  If the transaction represents two distinct and separate contracts and is discernible as such then contract of service in such transaction would be segregated and chargeable to service tax if other elements of taxability are present. This would apply even if a single invoice is issued.

The principles explained above would, mutatis mutan-dis, apply to composite transactions involving an element of transfer of title in immovable property or transaction in money or an actionable claim”.

An activity which constitutes merely a transaction in money or actionable claim:

Transaction in money:

In relation to “transaction in money”, deposits or withdrawals from bank accounts, advancing or repayment of principal sum as loans, investments etc. would be covered under the exclusion clause. However, any return by way of interest, commission etc. in such monetary transactions would not qualify for the exclusion. The exclusion clause also would not apply to money changing or conversion from one form of currency to another form (forex transactions) for a consideration. It may however, be noted that interest is not liable for payment of service tax.

Actionable claim:

The term, “actionable claim” is defined under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As per the definition, “actionable claim” means a claim to any debt or to any beneficiary interest in movable property not in the possession (either actual or constructive) of the claimant. Thus, the term actionable claim has a very wide connotation. The transaction of securitisation or transfer of debt, beneficial interest in an estate or trust or any right in expectancy in a movable property, insurance claim etc. would not be covered under the definition of service. However, any commission service fees or other charges collected in respect thereof, would get covered.

A provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment:

Services provided by an employee to the employer in the course of, or in relation to employment contract, are outside the ambit of the definition of service. In other words, the services provided by persons on the pay roll of the company, to that company would not be covered under service tax. Reimbursement of expenditure on actual basis during the course of employment should not be regarded as taxable service. Services provided by a person on contractual basis on principal to principal basis (other than employment contract), would be covered under the definition of service.

The question may arise in relation to service by employer to the employee. If such services, e.g. provision of residential accommodation at concessional rate, provision of company’s motor car for personal use with a charge, food coupons, leave travel etc. emanating from employment contract should not be covered under the definition and may not be taxable. The provision of services of employees of one company to the other group company for a consideration which is known as ‘secondment’ may not be covered in this exclusion clause and hence are taxable. Benefits to ex-employees are covered under this clause and excluded from payment of service tax if the same are in pursuance of employment contract. The fees, remuneration, commission etc. paid to employee/ whole time/executive directors would also fall under the exclusion clause.

Fees taken in any Court or tribunal established under any law for the time being in force:

This is a self explanatory clause by which Court or Tribunal fees are excluded from the purview of service tax and does not require any deliberation.

Other Exclusions:

Certain other kind of activities are also excluded from the definition of “service”. The same is provided for removal of doubt by way of an Explanation to the definition of “service” in section 65B(44) :

  •     the functions performed by the Members of Parliament, Members of State Legislative, Members of Panchayats, Members of Municipalities and Members of other local authorities who receive any consideration in performing the functions of that office as such member; or
  •     the duties performed by any person who holds any post in pursuance of the provisions of the

Constitution in that capacity; or

  •     the duties performed by any person as a Chairper-son or a Member or a Director in a body established by the Central Government or State Governments or local authority and who is not deemed as an employee before the commencement of this section.

This clause provides certain exclusions as an abundant caution, as the above persons may not be covered under the exclusion clause relating to employer – employee kind of relationship. The definition of Central and State Government is as per General Clauses Act, 1897. The local authority is defined in clause 31 of section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994.

Deeming Fiction

Explanation 3 to the definition of “service” provides that the transaction between a member and an unincorporated association or body of persons would be treated as transaction between distinct persons and therefore would be liable to tax if not otherwise excluded. The definition of person in clause 37 of section 65B includes an individual, HUF, company, society, LLP, firm, AOP or BOI whether incorporated or not, Government, local authority or artificial judicial person. Through the insertion of the said Explanation, the concept of mutuality is sought to be diluted.

In relation to an establishment of a person in taxable territory and any of his other establishment in non-taxable territory, both the establishments shall be treated as different persons for the purpose of levy of service tax. Thus, transactions between the head office or a branch or agency or representative office located in different taxable territories are regarded as different entities for the purpose of levy of service tax. This is an exception to the general rule that services provided by a person to another are only taxable.

In view of wide coverage of the definition of “service”, the following activities are some examples of what hitherto was not covered, but now may be covered under the new dispensation:

  •     Activities by commercial artists/performers, actors, directors, reality show judges

  •     Arbitrators to business organisations

  •     Banking Service to Government

  •     Lectures, Private tutors

  •     Corporate guarantees

  •     Research grants with counter obligations

  •    Service of renting of immovable property provided by Government & local authority to non-commercial organisations unless otherwise specifically excluded

  •     Service of renting of immovable property provided to Government and local authority by a person located in Taxable Territory.

This is just an illustrative list, there could be many more such examples.

Charge of Service tax

Section 66B provides for charge of service tax – “There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of twelve percent on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.”

Important requirements for charge of Service tax:

  •     Charge on all services [defined u/s 6B(44)], other than Negative list,

  •    Service provided or agreed to be provided,

  •     Service should be in the taxable territory (as determined under The Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012)

  •     Service by one person to another (subject to exceptions mentioned above)

Having discussed the definition of service, the most important term to be discussed here is “service provided or agreed to be provided”. The term pre-supposes an agreement for provision of service. Such agreements could be oral, written or even implied by the conduct of the parties to the transaction. Without any indication in the Act or from the Government, by implication, it could be presumed that the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1882 would be applicable. The European Court of Justice in R. J. Tolsma’s case held that only if there is a legal relationship between the provider of service and the recipient, pursuant of which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of service constituting the value actually given in return for the service supplied to the recipient. In case of Naturally Yours Cosmetics reported in (1988) ECR 6365, it is held that the basis of assessment for a provision of service is everything which makes up the consideration for the service and that a provision of service is therefore taxable only if there is a direct link between the service provided and the consideration received. In other words, in absence of a contractual obligation and direct relationship between a provision of service and the consideration, no service tax can be levied and unilateral acts would not be covered. The examples of such activities are charities, inheritance, compensation for accidents, alimonies in divorce cases, personal transactions etc.

Negative List:

The Negative list provided in section 66D, comprises of following services:

a)    Services by government or a local authority excluding certain services to the extent not covered elsewhere. These are as follows :
(i)    Services by the department of post, by way of speed post, express parcel post, life insurance and agency services carried out on payment of commission on non-government business,

(ii)    Services in relation to a vessel or an aircraft inside or outside the precincts of a port or an airport,

(iii)    Transportation of goods and/or passengers,

(iv)    Support services other than those covered above to the business entities. Important support services provided by the Government to the business entities are as under:

  •  Infrastructural, operational, administrative, logistic, marketing or any other support of any kind comprising functions;

  •  Such functions are carried out in ordinary course of operations by the entities themselves;

  •    Such services, however, may be outsourced from others for any reason whatsoever;

  •  and includes advertisement and promotion, construction or works contract, renting of immovable property, security, testing and analysis.
b)    Services by Reserve Bank of India;
c)    Services by foreign diplomatic mission located in India;
d)    Certain services in relation to agriculture or agriculture produce by way of,

  •     agricultural operations directly related to production of any agricultural produce including cultivation, harvesting, threshing, plant protection or seed testing;

  •     supply of farm labour;

  •     processes carried out at an agricultural farm including tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting, drying, cleaning, trimming, sun drying, fumigating, curing, sorting, grading, cooling or bulk packaging and such like operations which do not alter the essential characteristics of agricultural produce but make it only marketable for the primary market;

  •     renting or leasing of agro machinery or vacant land with or without a structure incidental to its use;

  •     loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural produce;

  •     agricultural extension services;

  •    services by any Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee or Board or services provided by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce;

The terms, “agriculture”, “agricultural produce”, “agricultural extension service” and “Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee or Board” are defined in the Act:

e.    Trading of goods;

A transfer of title in goods is excluded from the definition of “service”. Trading in goods involves a transfer of title in goods. Despite that, trading of goods is also included in the Negative list. This inclusion in Negative list effectively means that Cenvat credit in relation to trading of goods will be denied/restricted.

f.    Any process amounting to manufacture or production of goods;

Generally speaking, process amounting to manufacture or production of goods cannot be said to be a “service”, however, the same is not specifically excluded from the definition of service as we have seen above. Process amounting to manufacture or production of goods is defined as “a process on which duties of excise are leviable u/s 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or any process amounting to manufacture of alcoholic liquors for human consumption, opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics on which duties of excise are leviable under any State Act for the time being in force”. Further, the Education Guide clarifies that this entry covers manufacturing activity carried out on contract or job work basis, which does not involve transfer of title in goods, provided duties of excise are leviable on such processes under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or any of the State Acts.

The inclusion of such activity in Negative list effec-tively means that Cenvat credit in relation to such process amounting to manufacture or production of goods may be denied to a job worker though the principal manufacturer has paid excise duty.

g)    Selling of space or time slots for advertisements other than advertisement broadcast by radio or television;

Selling of space or time slots in cinema theatres, hoard-ings in public places etc. are covered in the State List and therefore they are placed in the Negative list.

h)    Services by way of access to a road or a bridge on payment of toll charges;

Allowing access to road or a bridge on payment of toll is in Negative list. However, services rendered by any toll collecting agency are leviable to tax.

i)    Betting, gambling or lottery;

Betting or gambling is defined in the Act to mean, “putting on stake something of value, particularly money, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain on the outcome of a game or a contest, whose result may be determined by chance or accident, or on the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring”. Lottery is covered under “actionable claim” which is excluded from the definition of “service”. Further, the betting or gambling activities are included in the State List. However, any ancillary service for organising or promoting betting or gambling events is not covered under the Negative list.

j)    Admission to entertainment event or access to amusement facilities;

Entertainment event is defined under the Act to mean, “an event or a performance which is intended to pro-vide; recreation, pastime, fun or enjoyment, by way of exhibition of cinematographic film, circus, concerts, sporting event, pageants, award functions, dance, musical or theatrical performances including drama, ballets or any such event or programme”.

Amusement facility is defined under the Act to mean, “a facility where fun or recreation is provided by means of rides, gaming devices or bowling alleys in amusement parks, amusement arcades, water parks, theme parks or such other places, but does not include a place within such facility where other services are provided”.

Tax on admission or entry to such events is covered in the State List which is subjected to Entertainment tax and therefore the same is included in the Negative list. It has been clarified that membership of a club providing such amusement facility would not be covered in the Negative list. Further, any ancillary service in relation to such entertainment event like an event manager for organising such event or an entertainer for providing the entertainment is also not covered under the Negative list.

k)    Transmission or distribution of electricity by an electricity transmission or distribution utility;

Electricity transmission or Distribution utility is defined under the Act to mean, “the Central Electricity Authority; a State Electricity Board; the Central Transmission Utility or a State Transmission Utility notified under the Electricity Act, 2003; or a distribution or transmission licensee under the said Act, or any other entity entrusted with such function by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government”. It has been clarified that a developer or housing society collecting charges for distribution of electricity within a residential complex would not be covered under the Negative list. Further, any service provided by way of installation of gensets etc. by private contractors for distribution of electricity would not be covered under this entry.

l)    Certain educational services;

  •     Any pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent;

  •    Education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force;
  •     Education as a part of an approved vocational education course.

Education services relating to delivery of education as a part of the curriculum that has been prescribed for obtaining a qualification under Indian law is covered in this entry. Conduct of degree courses by colleges, universities or institutions which lead grant of qualifications recognised by the law, is covered. It has been clarified that services of international schools by way of education upto higher secondary school or equivalent giving IB certifications are covered in this entry. Coaching or training given by private coaching institutes or tutors is not covered in this entry.

Approved Vocational Education Course as defined under the Act, is also covered in the Negative list.

m)    Services by way of renting of residential dwelling unit for use as residence;

Renting is defined under the Act as “allowing, permitting or granting access, entry, occupation, use or any such facility, wholly or partly, in an immovable property, with or without the transfer of possession or control of the said immovable property and includes letting, leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements in respect of immovable property”. Renting of a residential accommodation for use as residence is covered under the Negative list. However, a hotel accommodation, motel, inn, guest house, campsite, lodge are not covered in this entry.

n)    (i) Services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances for interest or discount;

This entry covers such services wherein money is allowed to be used or retained on payment of interest or discount. The deposits, loans or advances, corporate deposits, overdraft facility, mortgage or loans with a collateral security, corporate deposits lent for interest or discount would also be covered in this entry. However, any charges like administrative charges, fees, entry charges recovered in addition to interest, would not form part of this entry. It has been clarified that, late payment charges signifies extra charges over and above the normal interest in relation to credit cards and therefore would not be covered under this entry.

(ii) Inter se, sale or purchase of foreign currency amongst banks or authorised dealers;

This entry covers sale and purchase of foreign exchange between banks, or banks and authorised dealers of foreign exchange. Any commission or discount in relation to such forex transactions would not be covered in this entry.

o)    Services of transportation of passengers with or without accompanying belongings by,

  •    a stage carriage;

  •   railways in a class other than first class; or an air-conditioned coach;

  •     metro, monorail or tramway;

  •     inland waterways;

  •     public transport, other than predominantly for tourism purpose, in a vessel between places located in India; and
  •     metered cabs, radio taxis or auto rickshaws;

The term, “stage carriage”, “inland waterways” and “metered cabs” are defined under the Act. However the term, “radio taxis”, is not defined.

In relation to services by public transport other than for tourism purpose, it has been clarified that normal public ships or other vessels that sail between places located in India would be covered in the negative list entry, even if some of the passengers on board are using the service for tourism as predominantly such service is not for tourism purpose. However, services provided by leisure or charter vessels or a cruise ship, predominant purpose of which is tourism, would not be covered in the negative list even if some of the passengers in such vessels are not tourists.

p)    Services by way of transportation of goods by road except the services of a goods transportation agency or a courier agency or by an aircraft or a vessel from a place outside India to the customs station of clearance in India or by inland waterways;
The term, “goods transport agency” is defined under the Act as “any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called”.

The term, “courier agency” is defined under the act as “any person engaged in the door-to-door transportation of time-sensitive documents, goods or articles utilising the services of a person, either directly or indirectly, to carry or accompany such documents, goods or articles”.

It has been clarified that service provided by ‘angadia’ is covered within the definition of courier and liable to Service tax. Services provided by an agent for transportation of goods by inland waterways would not be covered in the Negative list.

q)  Funeral, burial, crematorium or mortuary.

Conclusion:

The definition of service provides greater clarity and is a good attempt to begin with. However, the inclusion of “any activity” may create a number of complications as any non-economic activities can also be covered. It is therefore necessary to confine the levy only on economic activity. The Negative list based taxation substantially reinvents the law on Service tax and will have a deep impact on service transactions. From specific definition of taxable services in the earlier dispensation, the shift to all inclusive definition of service, the onus of proof that a service provided is taxable or not has shifted from the department to the service provider or the recipient, as the case may be. A provider of service would now be required to discharge the burden of payment of tax, if his activity is not excluded from the definition of service or not covered in the Negative list and not an exempted activity under the Mega exemption notification. The necessity of written contract of provision of service cannot be over-emphasised under the changed provisions of the law.

Ramakrishna Vedanta Math v. Income Tax Officer In the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata Before Pramod Kumar (A.M.) and Mahavir Singh ( J. M. ) I.T.A. No.: 477,478 and 479/Kol/2012 Assessment year: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09. Decided on July 31 , 2012 C ounsel for Assessee/Revenue : Miraj D Shah/ Amitava Ray

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 201(1) and 201(1A) r.w.s. 194C – Default
in recovery and payment of TDS – Appellant treated as Assessee in
default for failure to deduct tax at source u/s 194C – Whether the
appellant is justified in its contention that if the recipient has paid
taxes then no action against it under the provisions be taken – Held,
yes.

Facts:
The issue before the tribunal was whether a
demand under section 201(1) and section 201(1A) r.w.s. 194C can be
enforced even in a situation in which, the recipient of income embedded
in the payments has paid due taxes thereon, and, if not, who has the
onus to demonstrate that status about payment of such taxes.

During
the relevant period, the assessee had made several payments, in respect
of book binding charges, printing charges, advertisement and publicity
and bus hire charges etc, but had not deducted tax at source from the
payments made. According to the assessee the recipients have paid tax on
income embedded in those payments, and in the light of Supreme Court’s
decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v CIT
(293 ITR 226), the taxes cannot once again be recovered from the
assessee. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the
ground that the assessee was not able to prove that taxes on income
embedded in those payments have been duly been paid by the recipients.
Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal but without any
success.

Held:
The tribunal referred to the
observations of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagran Prakashan
Ltd. v DCIT [ (2012) 21 taxmann.com 489 All], viz. that “tax deductor
cannot be treated an assessee in default till it is found that assessee
has also failed to pay such tax directly”. According to it, once this
finding about the non payment of taxes by the recipient was held to be a
condition precedent to invoking section 201(1), the onus was on the
Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the condition was satisfied. It
further noted that the Act provides for three different consequences for
lapse on account of non-deduction of tax at source viz., penal
provisions (section 271C), and interest provisions (section 201 (1A) and
recovery provisions section 201(1). As far as the matter under the
later two provisions were concerned, the former provides for levy of
interest in case of any delay in recovery of such taxes and the later
provisions seek to make good any loss to revenue on account of lapse by
the assessee tax deductor. The Tribunal further added that the question
of making good the loss of revenue arises only when there is indeed a
loss of revenue and the loss of revenue can be there only when recipient
of income has not paid tax. Therefore, it held that recovery provisions
under section 201(1) can be invoked only when loss to revenue is
established, and that can only be established when it is demonstrated
that the recipient of income has not paid due taxes thereon.

Accordingly,
the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the related facts about
payment of taxes on income of the recipient directly from the recipients
of income before invoking provisions of section 201(1).

levitra

(2012) 146 TTJ 543 (Mumbai) Pranit Shipping & Services Ltd. v. Asst.CIT ITA No.5962 (Mum.) of 2009 A.Y.2005-06. Dated 25.01.2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sections 36(1)(iii), 40(a)(ia) and 194A of the Income Tax Act 1961 – Assessee having neither credited the interest in the books of account under any account nor paid such interest in the year, but claimed deduction on the basis of mercantile system of accounting straightaway in the computation of income without routing it through books of account, mandate of section 194A is not attracted and, consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted.

Facts
For the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) Rs. 336.49 lacs towards accrued interest payable by the assessee-company to Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. (SIFC) for which no entry was passed in the books of account.Deduction was claimed directly in the Computation of Total Income. The CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance.

For earlier A.Y.2003-04, the assessee claimed deduction for similar interest payable on term loan to SIFC to the tune of Rs. 2.51 crore which was allowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed u/s 143(3). Subsequently, the learned CIT, taking recourse of the provisions of section 263, held that the amount of interest was not deductible. ”

Held:
The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are not attracted in the assessee’s case. The Tribunal noted as under:

In the mercantile system of accounting, deduction is allowed on accrual of liability. It is not material whether the amount is paid or not, or whether or not it is recorded in the books of account. Therefore, the deduction of interest payable to SIFC cannot be denied.

On a conjoint reading of sub section (1) with Explanation to section 194A, it is amply borne out that the event for deduction of tax at source arises when the amount of interest is credited to the account of the payee or when it is paid, whichever is earlier.

Even if the amount is not credited to the account of payee but shown under the head `Interest payable 20 account’ or `suspense account’, etc. it shall still be deemed as credit to the account of payee.

Thus, the essential requirement is that the amount must be credited in the books of account either in the account of payee or interest payable account or any other account by whatever name called such as suspense account. Once an amount is credited in the books of account, the liability to deduct tax at source arises if the payment of such interest is made after the date of crediting.

Since the assessee has not credited the amount of such interest in its books of account and, further, such interest has not been paid in this year, the mandate of section 194A cannot be attracted. This provision comes into play only when either the amount is credited in the books of account or interest is paid, whichever is earlier.

Once there is no liability to deduct tax at source u/s 194A, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted.

Probably, this lacuna was not noticed by the legislature while enacting the relevant provisions, which has been exploited by the assessee as a measure of tax planning. In this year the deduction has to be allowed. It will be open to the Assessing Officer to consider the later development of actual payment or non-payment of interest to SIFC and deal with it as per law in such later years.

levitra

(2011) 132 ITD 34 (Allahabad) Asst. CIT v. A.H.Wheelers & Co. (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2004-05 Dated. 18-05-2011

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 271(1)(c) – Penalty cannot be levied in respect of wrong figures claimed by the assessee by mistake.

FACTS:
The assessee, who was engaged in the business of trading of books and periodicals, declared certain loss in its return of income for the relevant assessment year which was filed by a tax consultant on the basis of audit report u/s 44AB. The said loss included brought forward losses of earlier years. The Assessing officer, on going through past records, noticed that the assessee had wrongly claimed the brought forward loss in excess of the actual amount.

The assessee rectified the discrepancy before the completion of assessment. However, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and imposed a penalty u/s 271(1) (c).

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. On revenue’s appeal to the Tribunal, it was held:

HELD:
The details of brought forward losses are within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer in the form of return of income of earlier years filed by the assessee.

The mistake by the assessee was bonafide as it was based on the advice of the Tax Consultant.

It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to apply the relevant provisions of the Act for the purpose of determining the taxable income of the assessee and the consequential tax liability, even if the assessee failed to provide accurate figures relating to set-off of loss of earlier years already determined by the department.

Further, the mistake was inadvertent and was rectified before finalisation of assessment.

Merely because the assessee claimed the wrong amount of set-off, the Assessing Officer cannot reject the claim and consequentially levy the penalty considering wrong claim as concealment of income.

levitra

(2011) 131 ITD 471 (Mum.) Chika Overseas (P) Ltd. v. ITO A.Y. 2000-01 Dated: 25-02-2010

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 147 – During the original assessment, facts placed before AO and detailed explanation given – AO discussed issue and then allowed deduction u/s 80HHC – hence there was application of mind by AO – matter carried to Tribunal – during pendency of appeal, AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 – while issue was subject matter of appeal, initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law – As AO applied his mind earlier, subsequent belief can only be considered as change of opinion on same set of facts-reopening not sustained.

Facts:
The assessee company was engaged in business of export of leather goods and textile dyes. It had filed return of income declaring total income at NIL after availing at a deduction u/s 80HHC. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed and the Ld. AO had adjusted the trading losses against the profits of business and had then arrived at deduction u/s 80HHC. On certain other issues relating to section 80HHC, the matter was carried to the Tribunal.

While the appeal was still pending before the Tribunal, the AO had initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147. The reason for reopening given by the AO was that his predecessor had allowed the losses in trading of goods to be set off against profit on incentives and hence erred in allowing excess deduction u/s 80HHC.

Held:
As the issue was subject matter of appeal during the pendency of appeal, issuance of notice of reassessment is bad in law.

During the original assessment, all the facts were placed before the AO and detailed explanation was given to the AO. The ld. AO had also considered certain judicial decisions while allowing set off of losses. This indicates that the AO had applied his mind at the time of original assessment. Hence, subsequent belief of AO can only be considered as change of opinion on same set of facts. Thus, reopening cannot be sustained.

levitra

(2011) 131 ITD 396 (Mum.) Capgemini Business Services (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT, Mumbai) A.Y. 2006-07 Dated: 26-11-2010

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 246A – where the credit of foreign taxes
paid is not given by the assessing officer, appeal against the same to
the CIT(A) is maintainable.

Facts:
The assessee
filed IT return of income electronically, claiming tax credit u/s 90 and
91 to the extent of Rs. 8,38,764. While passing the assessment order
and determining the tax liability, the AO ignored this tax credit and
determined the amount to be refunded to the assessee. Aggrieved by this,
the assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not accept
the appeal on the ground that section 246A did not permit such issues
within its ambit. He observed that the provisions of cl. (B) of s/s (1)
of section 246A refer to “tax” only for calculation of tax on total
income and not beyond that. According to him, the definition of “tax” in
section 2(43) refers to only income chargeable under the provisions of
this Act and hence, the question of tax is to be restricted only to tax
on total income. As the assessee was not challenging the calculation of
tax on total income, the CIT(A) held the appeal was not maintainable.

Held:
On
going through the mandate of clause (a) of section 246(1), it is clear
that an assessee has the right to appeal to the CIT(A) against inter
alia, “any order of assessment under s/s (3) of section1 43”, income
assessed, or to the amount of tax determined etc.

When we see
the expression “amount of tax determined” in juxtaposition to any “order
u/s 143(3)”, it becomes approved that the reference in the provision is
to the determination of the final amount of tax, which is distinct from
income assessed or the amount of loss computed or the status under
which the assessee is assessed.

Considering the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT (48
ITR 34) (SC) it appears that the same expression, viz., “amount of tax
determined” as employed in section 246(1) (a), encompasses not only the
determination of the amount of tax on the total income but also any
other act of omission which has the effect of reducing or enhancing the
total amount payable by the assessee. As the question of not allowing
relief in respect of withholding tax under section 90/91 has the effect
of reducing the refund or enhancing the amount of tax payable, such an
issue is squarely covered within the ambit of section246(1)(a).

levitra

[2012] 23 taxmann.com 226 (Mum) DCIT v Ranjit Vithaldas ITA No. 7443/Mum/2002 Assessment Year: 1998-99. Date of Order: 22.06.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 54 – Exemption u/s 54 would be available in respect of long term capital gain arising on sale of two flats, in two different years, invested in one residential house. Capital gain arising on sale of more than one residential house can be invested in one residential house. One of the requirements for claiming exemption u/s 54 is that the income of the residential house which has been sold, should be chargeable to tax under the head `Income from House Property’ and not that income should have actually been so charged.

Facts:
The assessee alongwith his three brothers had purchased two residential houses situated in two separate buildings viz. R and V. The assessee had 25% share in each of these two flats. Flat in R was sold on 4.10.1996 for Rs. 1,77,00,000 and flat in V was sold on 8.10.1997 for Rs. 3,30,00,000. The assessee had invested the capital gain arising on sale of two flats in construction of a residential house by purchasing a plot on 25.4.1996 at Bangalore from M/s Adarsh Builders and vide another agreement, had engaged the same builder for construction of a house on the said land. The assessee computed his share of capital gain and therefrom claimed exemption u/s 54 in respect of amount spent on construction of a new residential house and the balance was offered for tax. In response to the AO’s contention that exemption u/s 54 can be claimed only with reference to capital gain arising on transfer of one residential house, the assessee submitted that both R and V need to be regarded as one residential house on the ground that they were proximately located and in the earlier years in wealth-tax returns they were regarded as one residential house and this contention was accepted.

The AO noted that in AY 1997-98 the assessee had claimed exemption in respect of capital gain arising on sale of flat R meaning thereby that it was treated as its SOP and therefore the annual value of flat V was chargeable to tax but the assessee had not included its annual value in returned income and the AO concluded that the only reason it could be excluded was that the flat was used for the purposes of the business by the assessee. The AO concluded that the flat V was used for the purposes of the business and also that in AY 1997-98 capital gain arising on sale of flat R was claimed to be exempt with reference to new house constructed. He therefore, denied claim for exemption u/s 54.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who allowed the appeal.

Aggrieved the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that the two flats sold were located in two different buildings on two different roads and were acquired in two different years. There was no common approach road to the buildings. Hence, it held that the two flats sold could not be regarded as one residential house as was held by CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that there is no restriction placed in section 54 that exemption is allowable only in respect of sale of one residential house. Even if assessee sells more than one residential houses in the same year and capital gain is invested in a new residential house, the claim for exemption cannot be denied if other conditions of section 54 are fulfilled. It noted that the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Rajesh Keshav Pillai has held that exemption u/s 54 will be available in respect of transfer of any number of long term capital assets being residential houses if other conditions are fulfilled. The only restriction is that the capital gain arising from sale of one residential house must be invested in one residential house and not in two residential houses.

There is an inbuilt restriction that capital gain arising from sale of one residential house cannot be invested in more than one residential house. However, there is no restriction that capital gain arising from sale of more than one residential houses cannot be invested in one residential house. Therefore, even if two flats are sold in two different years, and capital gain of both the flats is invested in one residential house, exemption u/s 54 will be available in case of sale of each flat provided the time limit of construction or purchase of the new residential house is fulfilled in case of each flat sold.

As regards the finding of the AO that flat V was used for the purposes of the business, the Tribunal noted that this conclusion was based only on the finding that the asssessee had not returned any income in respect of this flat under the head `Income from House Property’. The Tribunal held that only on the ground that the assessee had not shown any income from the property, it cannot be concluded that the flat had been used for the purposes of business when there is no material to support the said conclusion. It held that the only requirement of section 54 is that the income should be chargeable to tax under the head `Income from House Property’ and it is not necessary that income should have been actually charged.

The appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed.

levitra

New form 24 aaa and modification to form 21 and 23:

fiogf49gjkf0d
Forms 21 and 23 have been modified to include the SRN of the new Form 24 AAA pertaining to Form for filing petitions to Central Government (Regional Director) Pursuant to sections 17, 18, 19, 141 and 188 of the Companies Act.
levitra

Form 5 INV – Returns of unclaimed amounts filed prior to 1st August 2012 should be filed again in a consolidated manner

fiogf49gjkf0d
Form 5 INV is required to be filed by all companies annually giving complete information on unpaid/ unclaimed amounts lying with companies as on the date of the AGM of that year, pursuant to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (uploading of information regarding unpaid and unclaimed amounts lying with companies) Rules 2012, published vide Notification GSR 352(E) dated 10th May 2012. However, as some companies are filing multiple Form 5 INV, the ministry requires that if multiple form 5 INV have been uploaded for the year 2010-11 on or before the date of this circular i.e. 1st August 2012, the Company should again file Form 5 INV(single) giving details in excel template by 31st August 2012. Further Companies that have not filed their Form 5 INV are required to do so by 31st August 2012.
levitra

Don’t delay GAAR : Do it properly – but do it now

fiogf49gjkf0d
There is no question that the proposed General Anti- Avoidance Rules, or GAAR, need to be reviewed. To the extent that they give excessive discretion to the tax assessment authorities, they are clearly unsuitable for a country like India where the tax department has often been accused of harassing its taxpayers. Compliance with tax requirements is difficult enough currently; allowing more levers for potential harassment to income tax officers is a dangerous step. The government’s move to set up a committee headed by tax expert Parthasarathi Shome was, thus, welcome. The Shome committee’s draft report, which was released on Saturday, however, is worrying in its own way. The delay by three years for “administrative” reasons, in particular, is questionable.

Remember, GAAR was always proposed to be part of the new direct taxes code, which was supposed to be in force by now. What additional preparation time will three years gain? It merely kicks the responsibility for introducing GAAR and calming market participants over to the next government. It strains belief to assume that, by that time, distrust of the income tax authorities will have ended. GAAR needs to be redrafted to ensure that excessive discretion is minimised — but six months is long enough to do that. The new tax policy should be in place by the next Budget. To try any less hard would be to betray the core purpose of GAAR: to serve as part of a co-ordinated, international crackdown on the sources and destinations of unaccounted-for and tax-avoiding money. This was a compact between the countries of the G20 post the financial crisis, when government resources were crucial to staving off the worst that could happen; and it is clearly something that voters desire. The government should do it properly, and do it now.

Some other aspects of the recommendations are equally questionable. For one, there is insufficient recognition that the incentivisation of “foreign” investment from Mauritius must end. The tax treaty that India currently has with Mauritius must be renegotiated, and the grandfathering of investment made under more lax rules must not also perpetuate the “evergreening” of tax-free pipelines even after laws change. Entities investing in India must be properly regulated, even if in low-tax environments like Singapore, and should meet more stringent know-your-customer requirements than has hitherto been expected of those from Mauritius. The “Mauritius route” is unsustainable, and must be closed. A clear timeline and method to do so must be laid out.

Finally, there is the question of tax on short-term capital gains from listed securities, which the panel suggests be ended. This – yet another attempt to boost listed securities as destinations for India’s savings – is problematic in isolation. However, the Shome committee suggests that securities transaction taxes receive a compensating hike, in order to ensure no loss of revenue to the government. That has some points in its favour: a securities transactions tax does have the advantage of ensuring that more people come into compliance with the law. It serves as an incentive against speculation. It is simple. These are all positive qualities. In the end, it must be remembered that India’s tax system is starkly regressive, and taxation is too easy to avoid. The concerns of equity must be borne in mind when designing taxation. GAAR is an essential tool towards equalizing the tax burden, and must not be watered down beyond recognition.

levitra

Be Constructive – What are the BJP’s alternatives to the government policies it bashes?

fiogf49gjkf0d
Ordinary people won’t be happy with the politics of obstructionism. Recently, the BJP stalled Parliament at taxpayers’ cost. Then it decided to take anti-UPA protests to the streets, along with reforms-bashers like the Left. The result was partially effective “Bharat bandh” coming at the aam aadmi’s cost. The biggest irony is that the BJP, thanks to which Parliament’s monsoon session was washed out, now wants a special session to discuss the UPA’s nod to retail FDI!

Certainly, the main opposition party should seek answers from the government on important issues, including corruption. However, the place for such interrogation is Parliament. The BJP is also within its rights to disagree with government initiatives, be it subsidy reduction or retail reform. But to come across as neither interested in debate nor offering alternatives to the policies it bashes, doesn’t bolster the party’s image. The BJP seems more concerned with destabilising the government than with resolving issues.

Why does the BJP limit its critique of the diesel price hike or retail reform to making noise? Surely, it should also prescribe how it thinks India should promote much-needed fiscal consolidation. Petrol prices rose several times under the tenure of the NDA, which endorsed price decontrol in 2002. Nor was the NDA hostile to retail reform, as pointed out by commerce minister Anand Sharma. Opposing multi-brand retail FDI today, the BJP must explain how else investors can be made to help boost the agri-value chain. Or how direct contact between farmers and buyers could be facilitated to raise farm incomes and lower prices for consumers.

When ruling at the Centre, the NDA brandished pro-growth policies to claim India was shining. Today, the BJP comes across as wilfully disowning a modern economic vision in tune with fastglobalising India. Tomorrow, if it comes back to power, can it afford to blink at reforms and let the economy go further down the tube? It’ll also serve the nation better by providing constructive opposition rather than fuelling political uncertainty.

levitra

New Publications

fiogf49gjkf0d
The following publications have been released : (Page 522)

a) Compendium of Guidance Notes on Accounting (As on 1-7-2012)

b) Technical Guide on Audit of NBFC (Revised Edition 2012) c) WIRC Reference Manual (2012-13)

levitra

Direct entry to CA course

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has given its final approval to the Amendments to Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 which have been notified on 1st August, 2012.

Amongst other provisions, the amendments also stipulate Direct Entry Scheme to CA Course. Henceforth, Commerce Graduates/Post Graduates with prescribed percentage of marks and other students who have passed the Intermediate level examination or its equivalent examination by whatever name called, conducted by the Institute of Cost Accountants of India or by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, shall be exempted from passing the Common Proficiency Test (CPT) if they wish to join the C.A. course. The details of the Scheme have been hosted on the Institute’s website and also published on Pages 507-517 of C.A. Journal for September, 2012.

levitra

(Auditor’s appointment under Company Law)

fiogf49gjkf0d
Clause (9) Part I of first Schedule to CA Act, 1949. CA Arjuna (A) : Hey Bhagawan, last time you explained to me the importance of communicating with the previous auditor. Now what next? Bhagawan Shrikrishna (S):I told you many things. But have you understood?

A – Well, I was attentive. I did understand; but find it difficult to digest and implement.

S – That is always the situation. You are impatient to grab the audit work; and are reluctant to comply with your Institute’s rules.

A – Unfortunately, our mindset has become that way. We often think of short-cuts or bypassing the rules or complying only at the 11th hour.

S – 11th hour is also not bad. You do it at 13th hour with a backdate!

A – We always have some hypothetical fear of doing things in time. We can’t work without tension! Now tell me, if directors of a company give us an appointment letter, is it not sufficient?

S – You often behave as if you have never studied the Companies Act. You can never see anything beyond income tax! That is the whole trouble.

A – Tell me then what I need to do.

S – At least read clause (9) of the First Schedule. First see whether you are the first auditor of that company or there is a change?

A – Why? Is there a difference? I just go by the directors’ letter.

S – Oh! Very dangerous! There are many who don’t even take an appointment letter! You are little better!

A – I am talking of a private limited company. Who is going to verify? Everything is within the family.

S – Are you sure – never are there any disputes in the family? Then why did you fight with Kauravas?

A – They were our cousins! Here, they are husband-wife and their son.

S – In Kaliyuga, there are instances where husband and wife – both CAs – separated and lodged complaints against each other to the Institute!

A – Oh Lord! I must keep Draupadi and Subhadra in good mood. Otherwise, they will drag me into court!

S – Can’t rule out! So, don’t be in a slumber. Previously you were ‘innocent’; but now they will call you ‘stupid’!

A – Anyway. Then what should I see?

S – See Sections 224 and 225 of the Companies Act. If it is the first appointment, then directors can appoint the auditor. But this has to be done within 30 days from incorporation.

A – Oh! And if they don’t?

S – That was sub-section (5) of Sec 224. Otherwise, they will have to hold an extraordinary general meeting and appoint the first auditor.

A – Ah! That’s simple. These are paper meetings. I will ask my friend to write minutes. He is a company secretary.

S – Arey Arjuna, don’t take it so lightly. All formalities of EGM must be observed.

 A – Yeah! He will draft the notice and minutes. Everything is internal!

S – One should see the record of service of notice. Remember, directors and members can deny that they received the notice. They can challenge the validity of the meeting itself.

A – Why should they? It is being done in company’s interest only.

S – So you feel. When everything is smooth and amicable, they will agree. But when friction starts, they will conveniently forget it.

A – Unnecessary complications! Very disgusting

. S – Why are you so uncomfortable when the compliances are so simple? After all, it is a corporate entity. There is sanctity behind these provisions.

A – Then tomorrow, there could be disputes amongst partners also!

S – Yes. That is very common. It is inevitable. Partners are bound to dispute and separate one day or the other! For every birth, there is a death and partnership is no exception.

A – Then, do you mean we should take everything in writing?

S – If possible, you should obtain signatures of all partners on your copy of balance sheet. Do you ever read the partnership deed of a client? There is normally a clause there that accounts will be signed by all partners.

A – Ah! All those are standard clauses. I don’t even ask for the Deed. Same is the case of memorandum and articles of a company. What’s the use of all those stereotyped clauses?

S – Then be ready for trouble.

A – Now, I am in practice for 24 years! Nothing has happened so far.

S – You have not died in the last 50 years. Can you not die now?

 A – Come back to auditor’s appointment. What if there is a change of auditors?

S – You have to first ensure whether the previous auditor has resigned or was removed. He may have just given a letter expressing his unwillingness to be reappointed.

 A – Then what? Is it not sufficient?

S – It may be an item requiring special notice under section 190 of the Companies Act. You have to see all these things.

A – This is too much! If I spend time on this, when shall I audit the accounts. There are deadlines.

S – This happens because you don’t recognise any other deadline except your tax returns. Why don’t you understand that your appointment should be validly made? It is of prime importance. Why are you so casual about it?

A – Clients come to us only at the last moment.

S – So to accommodate them, you compromise everything! If they are careless, make them understand the things. If you accommodate them, they will take you for granted. As if everything is your own duty.

A – I think I should insist on a company secretary’s certificate regarding compliances.

S – That will be better. At least some safeguard!. Client must spend for it. But your basic duty still remains.

A – What duty? S – At least to see the prima facie compliance.

A – Tell me further. Board can fill up a casual vacancy. Is it not?

S – Yes. But every vacancy is not a casual vacancy. First see whether the Board has power to do so. I mean, whether the vacancy is really casual.

A – Why?

S – Don’t expect me to teach you the whole of the Company Law. Why don’t you read the publication on Code of Ethics of your Institute?

A – Where will I get it?

 S – That also you want me to tell? What kind of a CA you are! Go to WIRC. The latest edition is of January 2009 – reprinted in May 2009.

A – Okay! I will see that. There seems no escape!

S – And remember, these provisions of Companies Act and Code of Ethics are very well thought of. Don’t take them as a burden. They are designed to safeguard your own interest. Otherwise, someday, you yourself will crib about your unjust removal.

A – I agree; but our clients are like that! And other CAs also are not bothered about it.

S – Don’t let your client take your professional work for granted. Read all these carefully and update yourself regularly. They are meant for your betterment. Your conduct with the client will decide the dignity of your fraternity, not only now but also in future. If you conduct yourself very loosely before the client, I am sure your future generation will pay for it.

Om Shanti.
Note :
The above dialogue is with reference to Clause 9 of the First Schedule which reads as under:
Clause (9): accepts an appointment as auditor of a company without first ascertaining from it whether the requirements of Section 225 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in respect of such appointment have been duly complied with;
Further, readers may also refer pages 188 to 210 of ICAI’s publication on Code of Ethics, January 2009 edition (reprinted in May 2009)
levitra

Refund of the unlinked incorrect NEFT Payments

fiogf49gjkf0d

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has introduced a refund process on 16th September, 2012 for the unlinked incorrect NEFT payments, to be done through a revised refund e-Form available on the MCA21 portal.

levitra

Conditions imposed for Conversion of Ordinary Society into Producer Company, under part-IX A of the Companies Act, 1956.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has vide circular No .29/2012 dated 10th September 2012 issued the conditions to be imposed for conversion of ordinary Society into producer Company, Part-IX A of the Companies Act, 1956.

On receipt of an application for conversion of a Co-operative Society into a Producer Company, the ROC’s will seek a written consent from the local Co-operative Department of the concerned state, certifying that the Society desirous of being converted into a Producer Company, under part IX A of the Companies Act, 1956, has no dues payable to the State at the time of such conversion and the Cooperative Department has ‘no objection’ to its being converted into a Producer Company. Further, the ROC’s need to satisfy themselves fully that the applicant society has indeed extended its activities outside the State where it is registered a Co-operative Society under the local/State level Law governing Co-operative Societies which are not inter State Co-operative Societies.

levitra

Filing of B alance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account by Companies in Non-XBR L for accounting year commencing on or after 01.04.2011

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Ministry of Company Affairs has on 3rd September 2012 issued a General Circular No. 28/2012 extending the time for filing of E-form 23AC/ACA (non-XBRL) as per revised Schedule VI without the additional Fees upto 15.10.2012 or within 30 days from the date of the AGM whichever is later. Full Circular can be accessed at http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/General_ Circular_28_2012.pdf

levitra

JCIT v American Express Bank Ltd (2012) 24 taxmann.com 50 (Mum) Article 7(3) of India-USA DTAA; Section 44C of I T Act Asst Year: 1997-98 Decided on: 08 August 2012 Before R S Syal (AM) & I P Bansal (JM)

fiogf49gjkf0d
Restriction under Article 7(3) of India-USA DTAA on allowability of expenses applies to all the expenses covered in various sections dealing with deductions and allowances and not only to the expenses covered by section 44C.

Facts
The taxpayer was a banking company incorporated in USA. It was carrying on banking operations in India through its branches in India. In terms of Article 7 of India-USA DTAA, the taxpayer had PE in India. Article 7(3) of DTAA provided that while certain expenses which are allocated to the PE will be allowed as deduction, such deduction will be in accordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of the taxation laws of that states.

The taxpayer claimed deduction of certain head office expenditure and marketing expenditure and contended that these were direct expenses exclusively incurred for the Indian Branch and hence, question of applicability of the restriction on allowability u/s 44C of I T Act did not arise. According to the taxpayer, the restriction in Article 7(3) applied only to the latter part starting with ” … a reasonable allocation of executive and general administrative expenses … ” and accordingly, only the expenses included within the ambit of section 44C would be subject to the restriction of domestic tax law while other expenses should be fully allowable.

Held
Rejecting taxpayer’s contention, the Tribunal held as follows.

  • Language of Article 7(3) indicates that deductibility of all the expenses is subject to the restrictions set out under various sections in Chapter IV-D and such restriction is not confined only to section 44C.
  • Further, the limiting provision in Article 7(3) is set out at end of the sentence. Thus, it is evident that limitation is applicable to all the expenses.
levitra

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd v ADIT (IT) (2012) 23 taxman.com 359 (Mum) Article 7(3) of India-UAE DTAA; Section 44C of I T Act Asst Year: 1995-1960 To 2000-2001 Decided on: 20 July 2012 Before P. M. Jagtap (AM) and Amit Shukla (JM)

fiogf49gjkf0d
Amendment to Article 7(3) of India-UAE DTAA from 1st April, 2008, restricting allowance of head office expenditure, has only prospective effect and does not apply to periods prior to that date.

Facts
The taxpayer was a banking company incorporated in UAE. It was carrying on banking operations in India through two branches. In terms of Article 7 of India-UAE DTAA, the taxpayer had PE in India.

Based on Article 7(3) (prior to its amendment from 1st April, 2008, pursuant to Protocol dated 3rd October, 2007), the taxpayer claimed deduction of all the expenses relating to the PE and contented that the restriction u/s 44C of I T Act on allowability of head office expenditure did not apply to it .

Relying on CBDT Circular No. 202 dated 5th July, 1976, the tax authority observed that the intention behind Article 7 is to ensure that correct profit is brought to tax and accordingly, it restricted the head office expenditure up to the limit prescribed in section 44C. The tax authority further contended that the amendment to Article 7(3) was merely clarificatory and hence, had retrospective operation.

The issue before the Tribunal was whether the amendment provision could apply to the period prior to the amendment.

Before the Tribunal, the taxpayer relied on the decision of ITAT Special Bench in Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn v Dy Director of IT [2012] 145 TTJ 649 (Mum) (SB) and Dalma Energy LLC [2012] 136 ITD 208 (Ahd). As against that, the tax authority relied on the decision in Mashreqbank Psc v Dy Director of IT [2007] 108 TTJ 554 (Mum).

Held
The Tribunal accepted taxpayer’s contentions and held as follows.

(i) Prior to April 1, 2008, Article 7(3) did not restrict allowance of head office and other expenditure attributable to PE. When particular provision in a DTAA is brought in from a particular date, Prima facie, it should be considered prospective unless expressly or impliedly it is provided to have retrospective operation. The parties interpreting a DTAA get vested right under such existing DTAA and any interpretation giving retrospective effect not only impairs the vested rights, but attracts new disability in respect of executed transaction.

(ii) In the present case, interpretation of retrospective operation of Article 7(3) would create new obligation and disturb assessability of the profit of PE.

levitra

Digest of Recent Important Global Tax Decisions

fiogf49gjkf0d
1. United States: US taxpayers sentenced to prison for hiding assets offshore

A US District Court chief judge sentenced US taxpayers to 12 months and 1 day in prison for hiding assets in secret offshore bank accounts. The US taxpayers were also ordered to pay restitution to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and to pay a civil penalty for failing to file Form TD-F 90-22.1 (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FBAR).

The sentencing was announced in a Press Release dated 30th July 2012, issued by the US Department of Justice.

The Press Release states that the US taxpayers failed to report their financial accounts at UBS (a Swiss bank) and several other foreign accounts in the Isle of Man, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and South Africa. The Press Release further states that the US taxpayers failed to report any income earned on the foreign accounts and that they also under-reported their income by using their Swiss bank accounts.

UBS AG entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice on 19th February 2009 on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States in the ascertainment, computation, assessment, and collection of US federal income taxes. As part of the agreement, UBS AG provided the United States with the identities of, and account information of certain US clients.

An FBAR is a form separate from an income tax return that a taxpayer is required to file with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) every June, to disclose information about foreign financial accounts over which the taxpayer has signature authority or other control, and which have an aggregate value exceeding $10,000 at any time during the year.

2 Netherlands : Court of Appeal ‘s-Hertogenbosch decides that sportsman is entitled to avoidance of double taxation for foreign employment income attributable to a test match

On 29th July 2012, the Court of Appeal ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Hof ‘s-Hertogenbosch) gave its decision in X. v. the Tax Administration (Case No. 12.0024, BX 0587) on the avoidance of double taxation for a sportsman, who derived foreign employment income from playing test matches in Spain and Thailand. Details of the case are summarised below.

(a) Facts:
The Taxpayer was a Dutch resident who played as a sportsman for a Dutch club. In 2002, he played test matches with his club in Spain and Thailand. He claimed avoidance of double taxation for the part of his employment income attributable to the days spent in Spain and Thailand, based on article 25 of the Netherlands – Spain Income and Capital Tax Treaty (1971) and article 23 of the Netherlands – Thailand Income and Capital Tax Treaty (1975) (the Treaties). The tax inspector refused to grant avoidance of double taxation for those days arguing that the test matches did not constitute a public performance.

(b) Legal Background:
Article 18 of the Treaty with Spain and article 17 of the Treaty with Thailand provide that income derived by sportsmen from their personal activities may be taxed in the state where those activities are exercised. Based on article 25 and 23 of those Treaties, the Netherlands applies an exemption with progression method for foreign employment income.

(c) Decision
Contrary to the Lower Court of Breda, the Court decided that avoidance of double taxation must also be granted with respect to the foreign employment income attributable to test matches played in Spain and Thailand. The Court held decisive that the test matches were open for the public, which meant that the sportsman was carrying out personal activities. Therefore, the Court decided that the sportsman was entitled to avoidance of double taxation for the days spent in Spain and Thailand.

Note: For the attribution of the employment income, reference can be made to a Decision of the Dutch Supreme Court of 7th February 2007 , in which it was held that the part of the basic salary of a sportsman, which can be classified as income from personal activities, depends on the intention of the contracting parties as expressed in the employment contract. If that contract obliges a sportsman to participate in games and races in foreign countries, the basic salary, generally, has to be allocated to his income from personal activities in the state of performance on a pro-rata basis, unless the employment contract indicates otherwise.

In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that the term “personal activities” covers the performance aimed at an audience and time spent for activities related to such performance as training, availability services, travels and a necessary stay in the country of performance. Due to the fact that the test matches were open for the public, this requirement seems to be met in the case at hand.

3 Treaty between Spain and Ireland – Spanish Administrative Tribunal considers commission agent acting in his own name as PE

Spain’s Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central gave its resolution on 15th March 2012 (No. 00/2107/2007), published in June 2012, in a case relating to a multinational group involved in the design, development and manufacture of computer products which are commercialised through entities of the group. Details of the resolution are summarised below.

(a) Facts :
An Irish company, without human or material resources, commercialises computer products in Spain (as in other several countries) through a commission agent, a Spanish affiliate company, acting on behalf of the Irish enterprise but in its own name, with the support of foreign entities that provide after-sales services as technical assistance or repair. The commercialisation in the Spanish market was formerly realised directly by the Spanish affiliate. However, a group reorganisation took place under which the customer’s profile was transferred to the Irish company. For commercialisation purposes, the Spanish market was segmented into two areas:

– large customers who require personalised and customised attention so they were addressed to the Spanish commission agent; and

– retail customers with whom contact is made through foreign call-centres or on-line through a web page registered under a “.es” domain, hosted in server located outside Spain.

(b) Issue :
The tax authorities considered that the Irish company deemed to have a permanent establishment (PE) in Spain because the Irish company had in this country:

(i) a fixed place of business or, alternatively,
(ii) a dependent agent.

(i) Fixed place of business: Contrary to the taxpayer ´s argument that having an affiliate was insufficient to give rise to a PE, the Tribunal held that the Irish company had a PE in Spain. To support its consideration, the Tribunal held that the Irish company did not merely realise auxiliary or preparatory activities through a steady business framework in Spain.

(ii) Dependent agent: Alternatively, the Tribunal maintained that in case no fixed place of business was found to exist, the Irish company could be deemed to have a PE in Spain as a dependent agent. It based this result on the grounds that the Spanish company was sufficiently empowered to bind the Irish company, which was its sole client, and had to follow its instructions, provide reporting, request its authorisation before setting prices or delivery, allow record inspections as well as copyright control.

In addition, the tax authorities considered that income derived from all sales in Spain of the Irish company should be allocated to its Spanish affiliate, including those made through the web page, although the server was outside the Spanish territory (reference is made to the Spanish reservation included in the OECD Model (2005) and OECD Model (2003) versions in this respect). Only part of the Irish costs was directly allocated to the Spanish PE.

(c)    Decision:
The Spanish Tribunal resolution, following the Supreme Court decision of 12th January 2012, confirmed the existence of a PE based on the facts that demonstrate the substance of the activities and the operational reality of the Spanish company as well as the opinion of the tax authorities in respect of the attribution of income to the PE.

4    Treaty between Singapore and Japan : Unutilised losses of de-registered branch allowed for offset against profits of re-registered branch of a foreign company

The Income Tax Board of Review gave its decision recently in the case of AYN v. The Comptroller of Income Tax [2012] SGITBR1 on the availability of unutilised tax losses for offset against the profits of a foreign branch in Singapore. Details of the decision are summarised below.

(a)    Facts :
In 1992, a Japanese company called AYN Corporation (the Appellant) registered a branch in Singapore (the “old branch”) to carry on business there. The old branch was de-registered in 2004, at which time it had accumulated unutilised losses amounting to SGD 30 million. In 2006, the Appellant re-registered itself in Singapore and carried on business activities through a newly-registered branch (the “new branch”).

The Appellant sought to deduct the unabsorbed losses of the old branch against the business profits of the new branch for the year of assessment 2008. However, the claim was disallowed by the Comptroller of Income Tax, on the basis that pursuant to article 7 of the Japan – Singapore Income Tax Treaty (1994) (the Treaty), a branch is treated as a distinct and separate entity from the enterprise of which it is a part for income tax purposes. As such, the losses incurred by the old branch cannot be utilised against profits earned by the new branch.

The Appellant argued that a branch is from a legal perspective, an extension of the head office, and that section 37(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act (ITA) dealing with unabsorbed losses refers to the amount of loss incurred by a “person”, which refers to the legal entity, i.e. AYN Corporation and not the Singapore branch.

(b)    Issue :
The issue was whether the unabsorbed tax losses of the de -registered branch could be utilised against the profits earned by the new branch of the same company, i.e. whether they were the same “person”, as required by the ITA.

(c)    Decision:
The Board of Review held that the unutilised losses of the old branch could be used to offset the profits of the new branch, on the following grounds:

  •     Section 37(1) of the ITA provides that “the assessable income of any person…shall be the remainder of his statutory income for that year after the deductions in this Part have been made”. Section 37(3)(a) allows the deduction of “the amount of loss incurred by that person in any trade, business, profession or vocation”.

  •     The term “person” is defined in the ITA to include a company. The Appellant was a company incorporated under the laws in Japan, and was in the Board’s view, a “person” as covered by section 37 of the ITA. On the other hand, a branch is an extension or arm of the foreign company in Singapore and exists to carry on the business of the foreign company in Singapore. It has no separate legal status, and is for all intents and purposes the same legal person as the parent company formed outside Singapore.

  •     Article 7 of the Treaty deals with the allocation of profits to a permanent establishment and does not modify the provisions of section 37.

The Board concluded that the unabsorbed tax losses belonged to the Appellant and therefore were available for offset, provided that there was no substantial change (more than 50%) in the shareholders and their shareholdings of the Appellant.

Extension of Due date for filing return for the period ending 30th June, 2012-Trade Circular No.15T of 2012 dated 13.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
For monthly or quarterly return period ending 30th June, 2012, due date for uploading of return was 31.07.2012 which is extended upto 17.08.2012. If the said return filed before 17.08.2012, but after 31.07.2012 have to be filed along with late fee of Rs. 5000/- and the late fees so paid will be entitled for adjustment as credit for the immediately succeeding return period.

levitra

Grant of Registration and Administrative Relief to Developers – Trade Circular No.14T of 2012 dated 06.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
Vide this Circular, the Commissioner has announced a grant of administrative relief to builders and developers. If the builders and developers are not registered under the VAT Act, then they were required to apply for VAT TIN on or before 16.8.2012 to get benefit of this circular. Further, they are also required to pay all taxes and upload all the returns from 20.6.2006 till date and apply for administrative relief on or before 31.8.2012.

levitra

Amendments to certain laws administered by the Sales Tax Department – Trade Circular No.13T of 2012 dated 06.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
In this Circular, the Commissioner has explained the amendments carried out under different Acts administered by the sales tax department through the Finance Act of the State.

levitra

Automatic cancellation of unilateral assessment order – Trade Circular No. 12T of 2012 dated 01.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
In the present procedure, in the event of failure to file return, assessing authority undertakes the assessment in respect of the period under default. The assessment order is passed in Form-303 known as “unilateral assessment order” and the dealer after filing return or making payment of tax due, applies in Form 304 for cancellation of such UAO.

WEF 01.08.2012, there is no need to file Form 304 for cancellation of UAO. MAHAVIKAS system automatically ascertains the return filing status for a particular period and if filed then the system shall cancel the UAO and will inform the dealer by email. The dealer may also access his e-mail at <Your mail> menu at department’s web-site.

levitra

Security Services & Services provided by Directors under partial reverse charge mechanism – Notification No. 45/2012-ST & 46/2012 – ST both dtd. 07.08.20112

fiogf49gjkf0d
Notification no. 45/2012-ST has amended Notification No. 30/2012-ST dtd. 20-06-2012, by adding the following two more services under partial reverse charge mechanism:

(a) Services provided or agreed to be provided by director of a company to the said company: 100% of the service tax payable by the person receiving services;
(b) Security services provided or agreed to be provided by an Individual, HUF, partnership firm or association of persons to a business entity registered as a body corporate : 25% of the service tax payable by person providing service & 75% of service tax payable by person receiving service.

The term “Security Services” has been defined vide Notification No. 46/2012 as services relating to the security of any property, whether movable or immovable, or of any person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any fact or activity.

levitra

Reg. Bovine Animals Notification No. 44/2012 – ST – dtd. 07.08.2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
By this Notification Mega Exemption Notification
No. 25/2012 dtd. 20-06-2012 has been amended by omitting word “bovine”
in entry no. 33 which reads as “Services by way of slaughtering of
bovine animals”.

levitra

V. Win Garments v. Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur, [2011] 42 VST 330 (Mad).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax – Sales to the exporter –
Against Form H – Production of agreement with foreign buyer – Not
mandatory – Section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Facts
The
dealer claimed exemption from payment of tax u/s 5(3) of the CST Act in
respect of sale of goods to the exporter against Form H and produced
the Form H and copy of bill of lading before the assessing authorities.
The assessing authorities denied the exemption claimed by the dealer for
want of production of agreement of export with the foreign buyer. The
dealer filed writ petition before the Madras High Court against such
order passed by the lower authorities.

Held
In order
to claim exemption from payment of tax u/s 5(3) of the CST Act, what is
required by the dealer to prove the factum of the transaction and once
he is able to do so with sufficient and satisfactory documents, the
value of the same is exempted from tax liability. No rule lays it
mandatory to produce the agreement with foreign buyers. The High Court
accordingly allowed the writ petition filed by the dealer and remanded
back the matter to assessing authority to decide the matter afresh in
the light of form H and other documents already available on record and
fresh document, if any, produced by the petitioner and after giving him
the opportunity of being heard.

levitra