Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Category: Direct Taxes

TDS – Chit Fund – Interest – Section 194A – A. Ys. 2004-05 to 2006-07 – Amount paid by Chit Fund to its subscribers – Not interest – Tax not deductible at source on such interest

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Avenue Super Chits P. Ltd.; 375 ITR 76 (Karn)

The assessee ran a chit fund. The assessee had several chit groups which were formed by having 25 to 40 customers to make one chit group. The customers subscribed an equal amount, which depended upon the value of chits. There were two types of chits. One was the lottery system and the other was the auction system. In the lottery system the lucky winner got the chit amount and in the auction system the highest bidder got the chit amount. Under the scheme the unsuccessful members in the auction chit would earn dividend and the successful bidders would be entitled to retain the face value till the stipulated period under the scheme. The Revenue took the view that when the successful bidder in an auction took the face value or the prize money earlier to the period to which he was entitled, he was liable to pay an amount to others who contributed to the prize money which was termed as interest and that this interest amount, which had been paid by the assessee to its members was liable for deduction of tax u/s. 2(28A) and section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount paid by way of dividend under the chit scheme by the assessee to the members of the chit could not be construed as interest under the Act and, therefore, there was no liability on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. This was upheld by the Tribunal.

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

“In the first place the amount paid by way of dividend could not be treated as interest. Further, section 194A of the Act had no application to such dividends and, therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to make any deduction u/s. 194A of the Act before such dividend was paid to its subscribers of the chit.”

levitra

Penalty – Concealment – Section 271(1)(c): A. Y. 2003-04 – The rigors of penalty provisions cannot be diluted only because a small number of cases are picked up for scrutiny – No penalty can be levied unless assessee’s conduct is “dishonest, malafide and amounting to concealment of facts” – The AO must render the “conclusive finding” that there was “active concealment” or “deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars”

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. M/s. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd. (Bom); I. T. A. No. 1396 of 2013 dated 06/07/2015: www. itatonline.org.

For the A. Y. 2003-04, the Assessing Officer disallowed the proportionate interest out ofthe interest paid for the interest free advances given to the sister concern, holding that the assessee had borrowed funds of which interest liability had been incurred. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty holding that the assessee concealed it’s income by furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and cancelled the penalty. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that merely because the claim made by an Assessee was disallowed, penalty cannot be levied, unless it is demonstrated that the Assessee had any malafide intention. The Tribunal accepted the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the penalty cannot be levied merely because the claim of the Assessee is found to be incorrect. The Commissioner and the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC):

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

“i) Section 271(1)(c) of the Act lays down that the penalty can be imposed if the authority is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) applied the test of strict interpretation. It held that the plain language of the provision shows that, in order to be covered by this provision there has to be concealment and that the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court held that by no stretch of imagination making an incorrect claim in law, would amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

ii) Thus, conditions u/s. 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty can be imposed. Mr. Chhotaray tried to widen the scope of the appeal by submitting that the decision of the Apex Court should be interpreted in such a manner that there is no scope of misuse especially since a miniscule number of cases are picked up for scrutiny. Because small number of cases are picked up for scrutiny does not mean that rigors of the provision are diluted. Whether a particular person has concealed income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars, would depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, we are concerned only with the finding that there has been no concealment and furnishing of incorrect particulars by the present assessee.

iii) Though the assessee had given interest free advances to it’s sister concerns and that it was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had challenged the same by instituting the proceedings which were taken up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restored the same back to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the interpretation placed by Assessee on the provisions of law, while taking the actions in question, cannot be considered to be dishonest, malafide and amounting to concealment of facts. Even the Assessing Officer in the order imposing penalty has noted that commercial expediency was not proved beyond doubt. The Assessing Officer while imposing penalty has not rendered a conclusive finding that there was an active concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. These parameters had to be fulfilled before imposing penalty on the Assessee.”

levitra

Scientific research expenditure – Weighted deduction – Section 35(2AB) – A. Y. 2003-04 – Denial of deduction by AO on ground that machinery is required to be installed and commissioned before expiry of relevant previous year – Not proper

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Biocon Ltd.; 375 ITR 306 (Karn):

The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of enzymes and pharmaceutical ingredients. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s claim for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on three machineries acquired during the year on the ground that the machineries had not been installed and commissioned during the year. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.

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

“i) The provision nowhere suggests or implies that the machinery is required to be installed and commissioned before expiry of the relevant previous year. The provision postulates approval of a research and development facility, which implies that a development facility shall be in existence, which in turn, presupposes that the assessee must have incurred expenditure in this behalf.

ii) The Tribunal had rightly concluded that if the interpretation of the Assessing Officer were accepted, it would create absurdity in the provision inasmuch as words not provided in the statute were to be read into it, which is against the settled proposition of law with regard to the plain and simple meaning of the provision. The plain and homogeneous reading of the provisions would suggest that the entire expenditure incurred in respect of research and development has to be considered for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act.”

levitra

[2015] 153 ITD 664 (Mumbai – Trib.) DIT (Exemptions) vs. Critical Art and Media Practices A.Y.: 2012 – 13 Date of Order: 11th March 2015.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 2(15), read with sections 12A and 11 – If activities of an assessee trust are charitable and property is held wholly and exclusively under trust for charitable and religious purposes, then such a trust cannot be denied registration merely because its activities are extended outside India. Also the income applied outside India is also eligible for exemption, subject to the provisions of section 11(1)(c), if the activities of the assessee trust tend to promote the international welfare in which India is interested and the approval has been granted by the Board for such application of income.

FACTS
The Ld. DIT(E) had rejected the application of the appellant trust observing that the trust deed of the appellant trust reveals that the appellant trust has charitable as well as non charitable objects such as hosting of artists-inresidence programmes for international artists and raising funds for organising trips, seminars and conferences within and outside the country etc.

The Ld. DIT(E) had further observed that objects of the applicant trust were not merely confined to the territories comprising in India but also extended to and encompassed the whole world and consequently concluded that any activities carried out by the applicant trust in pursuit of aforesaid objects would involve application of funds of the trust outside India which renders it ineligible for exemption. He had therefore held that the objects of the trust contravene the provisions of section 11 of the Act, wherein it has been specifically provided that the application of income of the trust has to be within India, and consequently held that the applicant trust would not be entitled to registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.

On appeal:

HELD THAT
A careful reading of the twin conditions mentioned in section 11(1) reveals that these conditions can be differentiated on the point that the requirement of the first condition is that the property should be held under trust for ‘charitable purposes’ and whether the property is held in India or outside India is not relevant. As per second condition, it is not restricted that the whole of the income should be applied to charitable purposes in India only. The second condition suggests that ‘the income to the extent to which it is applied in India’ for charitable purposes is not to be included in the total income. The interpretation that can be drawn from the above provision is that even if the income is applied for charitable purposes outside India, then, it cannot be said that the purpose or activity of the trust is not charitable. However, the exemption from inclusion in the total income will not be given to such an expenditure incurred by the trust. The exemption as per the second condition has been restricted to the extent up to which such income is applied for charitable activities in India. Hence, if a charitable trust applies some of its income for charitable activities outside India and some of its income for charitable activities in India then it will be entitled to exemption up to the extent such income is applied in India and not otherwise and subject to the other conditions laid down in other provisions of the Act.

A careful reading of the main provision reveals that for a purpose or activity to be charitable in nature, there is no condition that such an activity should be performed ‘in India’ only. Such a condition of activities to be performed in India only is missing in the wording of the section 2(15) defining charitable purposes. Hence, the charity as per the provisions of the Act is not confined or limited to the boundaries of India only. If the activities of a trust fall within the domain of above definition e.g. relief to the poor, education, medical relief or advancement of any other object of general public utility etc. as mentioned above, then it is to be treated as a charitable trust.

The definition of ‘charity’ in no manner can be restricted to the activities done in India only, the ‘charity’ remains the ‘charity’, whether it is done in India or whether elsewhere in any part of the world irrespective of the territorial boundaries. However, so far as the computation of income or the relief under the Income-tax Act is concerned, the Act has restricted the exemption from inclusion in total income to the extent such an income is applied in India. So in the given example, if an institution offers help and support not only in India but also outside India for charitable purposes, such an institution will get benefit of exemption from tax of the income to the extent it is applied in India and not in relation to the income which is applied outside India. But, the fact remains that such an institution will be called a charitable institution only and not a commercial institution.

If the activities of the trust fall in the definition of ‘charitable purposes’ as defined u/s. 2(15) and the property is held under the trust wholly and exclusively for charitable and religious purposes as provided u/s. 11, and the Commissioner is satisfied about the genuineness of such activities, the trust is to be granted registration. For the purpose of grant of registration, the application of income in India is not a pre-condition, if its activities otherwise fall in the definition of ‘charitable activities’. However, so far as the computation of the income is concerned, such an institution will get exemption of income to the extent it is applied in India and not in relation to the income, even if applied for charitable purposes, outside India.

Further, as per the provisions of clause (c) of section 11(1), if the activities upon which the income is applied outside India tend to promote international welfare in which India is interested, such an income is also exempt but subject to approval of the Board.

In the present case, the objects of the trust suggest that the trust has been formed to promote art and culture of India within India and globally which fall in the definition of ‘any other object of general public utility’ and, hence, included in the definition of ‘charitable purposes’. So far as the application of income outside India is concerned, the assessee has vehemently stressed that the projects, conferences and seminars had been carried out by the trust to promote Indian culture and art at international level, further that the activities such as to host artists-inresidence programmes for national as well as international artists for the benefit of society are the objects that promote international welfare in which India is interested. He has further stressed that the trust has received permission from the Home Ministry, Government of India, to carry out such activities outside India. Considering the overall discussion it is to be held that the activities of the trust would fall in the definition of ‘charitable purposes’. However, so far as the application of income outside India, as claimed to have been applied to promote international welfare in which India is interested is concerned, it is to be proved with necessary evidences and also subject to approval of the Board for entitlement of exemption from tax on such income. However, the registration cannot be refused on the ground that the income is applied for charitable purposes outside India. 

In result, the appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed.

levitra

[2015] 152 ITD 828 (Mumbai – Trib.) Navi Mumbai SEZ (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant CIT A.Y.: 2008-09 Date of Order: 22nd December 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 37(1) – Where assessee incurs certain expenditure for increase in share capital and if the entire incremental share capital is used to meet the need for more working funds, then the said expenditure is to be allowed as revenue expenditure.

FACTS
The assessee filed its return wherein expenditure incurred for increase on share capital was claimed as revenue expenditure.

The revenue authorities rejected assessee’s claim holding that expenditure in question was capital in nature

On appeal before Tribunal:

HELD THAT
It was noted from record that the entire incremental share capital has been absorbed in the inventories. There is not an iota of doubt that the increase in the share capital has been fully utilised only in the purchase of trading stock.

In the present day scenario, the authorised/paid up capital is not static and can also be reduced as per provisions of the Companies Act. In the light of the factual matrix of the balance sheet, plea raised by the assessee is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure..

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

levitra

TDS- Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) – A. Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10 – Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) which states that TDS shall be deemed to be deducted and paid by a deductor if resident recipient has disclosed the amount in his return of income and paid tax thereon, is retrospective in nature

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd.; [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi):

The following question was raised before the Delhi High Court:

“Whether the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) (inserted by the Finance Act, 2012), which states that TDS shall be deemed to be deducted and paid by a deductor if resident recipient has disclosed the amount in his return of income and paid tax thereon, is retrospective in nature or not ?”

The High Court held as under:

“i) Section 40(a)(ia) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 to ensure that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee in a situation where income embedded in such expenditure has remained untaxed due to tax withholding lapses by the assessee. Hence, section 40(a)(ia) is not a penalty provision for tax withholding lapse but it is a provision introduced to compensate any loss to the revenue in cases where deductor hasn’t deducted TDS on amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn’t offered to tax income embedded in such amount.

ii) The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided u/s. 271C. and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized u/s. 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue.

iii) The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555 (Agra – Trib.) had held that the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, even though the Finance Act, 2012 had not specifically stated that proviso is retrospective in nature.”

The High Court affirmed the ratio laid down by the Agra Tribunal and held that the said proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005.

levitra

TDS – Failure to deduct – Section 201(1), (1A), (3) – A. Y. 2008-09 – Notice and order deeming the assessee in default – Notice declared barred by limitation by court – Amendment extending period of limitation – AO has no power to issue notice afresh on the same basis

fiogf49gjkf0d
Oracle India P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT; 376 ITR 411 (Del):

In respect of F. Y. 2007-08, the Dy. Commissioner had issued a notice u/s. 201 dated 17/02/2014 and thereafter passed an order pursuant to the notice. The assessee filed a writ petition and contended that under proviso to section 201(3) introduced w.e.f. 01/04/2010, an order can be passed at any time on or before 31/03/2011 and that the notice and the order were barred by limitation. The Court allowed the writ petition and held that the notice dated 17/02/2014 was barred in view of the provisions of section 201(3) as it then existed. Thereafter another notice was issued on 20/01/2015, to take advantage of the amended section 201(3) which was brought into effect from 01/10/2014 whereby the period of limitation had been extended to seven years.

The Delhi High Court allowed the assessee’s writ petition and held as under:

“The notice that was issued on 20/01/2015, was on the basis of the same information in respect of which the notice dated 17/02/2014 had been issued. Thus, those proceedings which had ended and attained finality with the passing of the order of the Court in the writ petition could not be sought to be revived. Even otherwise, in so far as the F. Y. 2007-08 is concerned, the period for completing the assessment u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) had expired on 31/03/2015. The impugned notice is set aside.”

levitra

Refund – Adjustment against demand u/s. 245 – A. Ys. 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2008-09 – Grant of stay of demand – Section 245 cannot be invoked

fiogf49gjkf0d

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT; 279 CTR 71 (Bom):

By an intimation u/s. 245 dated 31/07/2013, the Assessing Officer sought to adjust the refund for the A. Y. 2006-07 against the demand for the A. Ys. 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessee filed its objections pointing out that no demand is outstanding for A. Y. 2004-05 and stay of the demand has been granted u/s. 220(6) in appeal pending before he CIT(A) for the A. Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09. Ignoring the objections, the Assessing Officer adjusted the refund against the demand.

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and held as under:

“Factually there was no due outstanding for the A. Y. 2004-05 and the demand for the A. Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 had been stayed pending disposal of the assessee’s appeal before the CIT(A). Section 245 cannot therefore be invoked.”

levitra

Reassessment – Sanction u/s. 151 – A. Y. 2007-08 – In the absence of the requisite sanction u/s. 151 the notice u/s. 148 will be invalid

fiogf49gjkf0d
Dhadda Export vs. ITO; 278 CTR 258 (Raj):

For the A. Y. 2007-08,
the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 without obtaining the
prior sanction u/s. 151 of the Act. The objection raised on this count
was countered by relying on section 292B of the Act.

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the notice and held as under:
“i)
The objection has been rejected by the ITO citing the reason that
required sanction of CIT was not taken due to oversight that assessment
of the assessee firm had already been completed u/s. 143(3). It was
stated that mistake was committed inadvertently and is curable by
recourse to section 292B.
ii) That plea is liable to be rejected
because when specific provision has been inserted in the proviso to
section 151(1), as a prerequisite condition for issuance of notice,
namely, sanction of the CIT or the Chief CIT, the Assessing Officer
cannot find escape route for not doing so by relying on section 292B.
Resort to section 292B cannot be made to validate an action, which has
been rendered illegal due to breach of mandatory condition of the
sanction on satisfaction of Chief CIT or CIT under proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 151.
iii) This is an inherent lacunae
affecting the very correctness of the notice u/s. 148 and is such which
is not curable by recourse to section 292B.”

levitra

Income from house property – Annual letting value – Section 23 – A. Y. 1986-87 – Annual value is lesser of fair rent and standard rent

fiogf49gjkf0d
Vimal R. Ambani vs. Dy. CIT; 375 ITR 66 (Bom):

For the A. Y. 1986-87, the Assessing Officer determined the annual value on the basis of the standard rent and not on the basis of the rateable value as determined by the municipal corporation. This was upheld by the Tribunal.

On appeal by the assessee, the following question was raised before the Bombay High Court:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the property income u/s. 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the annual letting value of the self-occupied property has to be the sum equivalent to the standard rent under the Rent Control Act and not the municipal rateable value.”

The Bombay High Court held as under:

“(i) While determining the annual letting value in respect of properties which are subject to rent control legislation and in cases where the standard rent has not been fixed, the Assessing Officer shall determine the annual letting value in accordance with the relevant rent control legislation. If the fair rent is less than the standard rent, then, it is the fair rent which shall be taken as annual letting value and not the standard rent. This will apply to both self-acquired properties and general cases where the property is let out.

(ii) The order of the Tribunal had to be set aside. Matter stands remanded for consideration in accordance with the aforesaid norms.”

levitra

Deemed dividend – Section 2(22)(e) – A. Y. 2009- 10 – Loan to shareholder – Amounts taken as loan from company and payments also made to company – AO directed to verify each debit entry and treat only excess as deemed dividend

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sunil Kapoor vs. CIT; 375 ITR 1 (Mad):

For the A. Y. 2009-10,
the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 76,86,829/- as deemed
dividend u/s. 2(22) (e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being the loan
received from KIPL of which the assessee was a shareholder. The
Assessing Officer noted that there were certain payments as on
31/03/2009 and the balance due to the company was Rs.39,32,345/-. The
assessee pointed out that there was credit balance in favour of the
assessee in a sum of Rs.45,44,303/- while there was debit balance of
Rs.39,32,345/-, and accordingly, the company itself had to pay
Rs.6,11,957/-. CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer
had erred in not taking into consideration the amount that has been
repaid by the assessee to KIPL. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was
directed to verify each and every transaction and, accordingly, to
determine the dividend amount.

On appeal, the Madras High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i)
Any amount paid to the assessee by the company during the relevant
year, less the amount repaid by the assessee in the same year, should be
deemed to be construed as “dividend” for all purposes. However, the
Assessing Officer had taken the entire amount of Rs.76,86,829/- received
by the assessee from the company as dividend, while computing the
income but had lost sight of the payments made.

ii) In such
circumstances, the Commissioner(Appeals) had rightly come to the
conclusion that the position as regards each debit would have to be
individually considered because it may or may not be a loan. The
Assessing Officer, was, therefore, directed to verify each debit entry
on the aforesaid line and treat only excess amount as deemed dividend
u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act.”

levitra

Charitable Institution – Exemption u/s. 11 – A. Y. 2006-07 – Where the objects of the trust include “(2)Devising means for imparting education in and improving the Ayurvedic system of Medicine and preaching the same. In order to gain objects No. 2, it is not prohibited to take help from the English or Yunani or any other system of medicine and according to need one or more than one Ayurvedic Hospital may be opened.”, it cannot be held that running an allopathic hospital is ultra vires to the ob<

fiogf49gjkf0d
Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust vs. DIT; [2015] 59 taxmann.com 398 (Delhi)

The Assessee was a charitable institution engaged in running a hospital (both Allopathic and Ayurvedic). For the A. Y. 2006-07, the Assessing Officer had denied the exemption claimed by the Assessee u/ss. 11 and 12 of the Act as the Assessing Officer was of the view that the activities of the Assessee were not in accordance with its objects. In addition, the Assessing Officer also denied the Assessee’s claim for depreciation on assets purchased by the Assessee by application of its income that was exempt u/s. 11 of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the Assessee’s claim and also held that the Assessee was entitled for depreciation on the assets purchased by application of its income, which was exempt u/s. 11 of the Act.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue’s contention that the properties of the Assessee had not been applied towards its objects. The Tribunal held that the Assessee’s activities relating to Allopathic system of medicine had more or less supplanted the activities relating to Ayurvedic system of medicine and concluded that predominant part of the Assessee’s activities exceeded the powers conferred on the trustees and the objects of the Assessee Trust were not being followed. The Tribunal held that whilst the activities of the Assessee relating to providing medical relief by the Ayurvedic system of medicine were intra vires its objects, the activities of providing medical reliefs through Allopathic system of medicine was ultra vires its objects. Consequently, the Assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in respect of income from the hospital run by the Assessee, which offered medical relief through Allopathic system of medicine. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the income and expenditure of the Assessee from the activities relating to the two disciplines of medicine, namely Ayurveda and Allopathy, be segregated. Insofar as the Assessee’s claim for depreciation was concerned, the Tribunal held that deprecation on assets, used for providing relief through Ayurvedic system of medicine or used in education and research relating to Ayurvedic system of medicine, was allowable notwithstanding that the expenditure on purchase of the assets was exempted u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act. However, insofar as the assets purchased for providing medical relief through Allopathic system of medicine was concerned, the Tribunal held that depreciation would not be available if the expenditure incurred on purchase of the assets had been exempted u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act.

On appeal by the assessee, the Delhi High Court held as under:

“i) In our view, the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal erred in concluding that the Assessee’s activities were in excess of its objects. Running an integrated hospital would clearly be conducive to the objects of the Assessee. The trustees have carried out the activities of the trust bonafide and in a manner, which according to them best subserved the charitable objects and the intent of the Settlor. Thus the activities of the Assessee cannot be held to be ultra vires its objects. The Assessing Officer and the Tribunal were unduly influenced by the proportion of the receipts pertaining to the Ayurvedic Research Institute and the hospital. In our view, the fact that the proportion of receipts pertaining to the Ayurvedic Research Institute is significantly lower than that pertaining to the hospital would, in the facts of the present case, not be material. Undisputedly, significant activities are carried out by the Assessee for advancement and improvement of the Ayurvedic system of medicine in the institution established by the Assessee and though the receipts from the Allopathic treatment are larger, the same does not militate against the object for which the institution has been set up and run.

ii) Insofar as the issue regarding depreciation on assets used for providing Allopathic systems of medicine is concerned, the learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that the depreciation would be allowable if the activities of the Assessee were considered to be within the scope of its objects. The Tribunal had denied the claim of depreciation, in respect of assets used for providing medical relief through Allopathic system of medicine, only on the basis that the Assessee’s activity for running the hospital was ultra vires its objects. In the circumstances, the third question is to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Assessee.”

levitra

Business income or short term capital gain – A. Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07 – Transaction in shares NBFC – Whether business transactions or investment – Frequency of transactions is not conclusive test – Concurrent finding that transactions not business activity – Upheld

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Merlin Holdings P. Ltd.; 375 ITR 118 (Cal):

The assessee was a certified NBFC. Its main activities were giving loans and taking loans and investing in shares and securities. For the A. Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer opined that the activity which, according to the assessee was on investment account amounted business activity and, therefore, he treated the short term capital gains of Rs.1,01,00,000 as business income. The Commissioner (Appeal) and the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s claim that it is short term capital gain.

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

“i) The frequency of transactions in shares alone cannot show that the intention of the investor was not to make investment. The Legislature has not made any distinction on the basis of frequency of the transactions. The benefit of short term capital gains can be availed of, for any period of retention of shares upto 12 months. Although a ceiling has been provided, there is no indication as regards the floor, which can be as little as one day. The question essentially is a question of fact.

ii) The assessee had adduced proof to show that some transactions were intended to be by way of investment and some transactions were by way of speculation. The revenue had not been able to find fault from the evidence adduced. The mere fact that there were 1,000 transactions in a year or mere fact that the majority of the income was from the share dealings or that the managing director of the assessee was also the managing director of a firm of share brokers could not have any decisive value.

iii) The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently held against the views of the Assessing Officer. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue, it was not possible to say that the view entertained by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal was not a possible view. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal could not be said to be perverse. No fruitful purpose was likely to be served by remanding the matter.”

levitra

Business expenditure – Section 37 – A. Y. 2005- 06 – Assessee running hospital – Daughter of MD working in hospital as doctor – Expenditure on her higher studies incurred by assessee – She comes back to work in hospital – Expenditure had nexus with business of assessee – Expenditure allowable as deduction

fiogf49gjkf0d

Mallige Medical Centre P. Ltd. vs. JCIT; 375 ITR 522 (Karn):

The assessee company was running a hospital. In the A. Y. 2005-06, it had claimed deduction of Rs.5 lakh spent for the higher education of the daughter of the managing director of the company who was working in the assessee’s hospital as a doctor. The deduction was claimed on the ground that the daughter was committed to work for the assessee after successful completion of studies. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance.

On appeal by the assessee, the Karnataka High court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) Before the expenditure was incurred, the daughter had acquired a degree in medicine. She was employed by the assessee. She was sent outside the country for acquiring higher educational qualification, which would improve the services, which the assessee was giving to its patients. It was in this context, that the sum of Rs.5 lakh was spent. That was not in dispute. After acquiring the degree she had come back and she was working with the assessee.

ii) Therefore, there was a direct nexus between the expenses incurred towards the education, with the business, which the assessee was carrying on. In that view of the matter, the expenditure was deductible.”

levitra

Penalty – Concealment of income – Section 271(1)(c) – A. Y. 2005-06 – Assessment u/s. 115JB – No change in book profits and assessed tax – Penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) could not be levied

fiogf49gjkf0d

CIT vs. Citi Tiles Ltd.; 278 CTR 245 (Guj):

For the A. Y. 2005-06, the assessee was assessed u/s. 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was addition to the normal income but the book profits remained the same. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

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

“CIT(A) having not permitted addition in book profits u/s. 115JB even after detection of concealment, there remained no tax sought to be avoided. Hence penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) could not be levied.”

levitra

Smt. Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT ITAT Mumbai `F’ Bench Before Vijay Pal Rao (JM) and N. K. Bhillaiya (AM) ITA No. 4061 /Mum/2012 A. Y. : 2007-08. Decided on: 19th August, 2015. Counsel for assessee / revenue : J. D. Mistry / Manjunath R. Swamy

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sections 153A, 153D – If the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner is devoid of application of mind, mechanical and without considering the materials on record, such an approval renders the assessment order void.

Facts:
In the search carried out on Simplex group of companies and its associates, the office/residential premises of the company and its directors/connected persons were covered. On the basis of incriminating documents/books of account found during the course of search, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. As per endorsement on page 11 of the assessment order, the assessment order was passed with the prior approval of the Addl. CIT, Central Range-7, Mumbai.

Aggrieved by the additions made, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A).

Aggrieved, by the order passed by CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

In the Tribunal, the assessee preferred an application to raise additional ground viz., that the A.O. has not complied with the provisions of section 153D and hence the assessment u/s. 153A was bad in law.

Held:
The Legislative intent is clear inasmuch as prior to the insertion of section 153D, there was no provision for taking approval in cases of assessment and reassessment in cases where search has been conducted. Thus, the legislature wanted the assessments/reassessments of search and seizure cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authorities which also means that the superior authorities should apply their minds on the materials on the basis of which the officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authorities have to approve the assessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the Addl. CIT had granted approval vide his letter dated 31.12.2010 where he mentioned that as per his letter dated 20.12.2010, the AOs were asked to submit the draft orders for approval u/s. 153D on or before 24.12.2010. He had also mentioned that since the draft order in the case of the assessee was submitted on 31.12.2010, there was not much time left for him to analyse the issues of draft order on merit. Therefore, he approved the draft order as it was submitted.

Having noted the language of the approval, it came to a conclusion that the language of the approval letter established that there has been no application of mind by the Addl. CIT. It held that the approval granted is devoid of any application of mind, is mechanical and without considering the materials on record. It held that in its opinion the power vested in the Joint Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Addl CIT is required to apply his mind to the proposals put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the AO. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner.

The Tribunal held the assessment order under consideration to be bad in law and annulled it.

The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

levitra

2015-TIOL-1363-ITAT-HYD C. H. Govardhan Naidu Prodduturu vs. DCIT A. Ys.: 2007-08 to 2011-12. Date of Order: 5th August 2015

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 263, 271D – Failure of the AO to initiate proceedings u/s. 271D for violation of section 269SS could not be considered as an error calling for revision u/s. 263.

Facts:
Consequent to the search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act, at the residential premises of the assessee, notices were issued and assessments made by the Assessing Officer for assessment years 2007-08 to 2011- 12 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.

The CIT on examining the assessment record found that for A.Y. 2007-08 to 2011-12, the assessee had raised/repaid loans in cash, violating the provisions u/s. 269SS/269T which attract penalty leviable u/s. 271D/ 271E of the Act. Since the same, according to him, were not examined by the A.O. the assessments so completed required revision u/s. 263. He issued notices u/s. 263, to the assessee, to show cause why assessments made for all five years under consideration should not be revised.

The CIT, considering the submissions made by the assessee to be not acceptable, passed an order directing the A.O. to redo the same after making detailed inquiries and investigations on the issues pointed out by him in the notices issued u/s. 263.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
The issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M. Dhara & Brothers vs. CIT-XVI (2015-TIOL-482-ITAT-KOL) wherein it was held by the Tribunal by following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. 192 ITR 337 (Kol)., that the failure of the A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s. 271D for violation of section 269SS could not be considered as an error calling for revision u/s. 263.

The Tribunal held that there were no errors in the orders passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for all the five years under consideration which were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue calling for revision by the Learned CIT(A) u/s. 263. The Tribunal set aside the impugned common order passed by the CIT, u/s. 263, for all the five years under consideration and restored the orders passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A.

The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

levitra

2015-TIOL-1467-ITAT-MUM ACIT vs. Tops Security Ltd. A. Y.: 2008-09. Date of Order: 27th May 2015

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 43B – Amount of service tax, billed to the client but not
received, not having been paid to the Central Government, in view of the
provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax
Rules, 1994, cannot be disallowed u/s. 43B.

Facts:
The
Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.6,43,88,850 u/s. 43B of the
Act in view of the fact that the assessee had not paid this amount till
due date of filing its return of income.

Aggrieved, the assessee
preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) where it contended that the amount
under consideration though was included in the bills but was not
collected from the customers. Referring to Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules,
1994, it was argued that tax becomes payable only when it is collected
from the customers. The CIT(A) following the decision of the Madras
Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Real Image Media
Technologies [114 ITD 573(Mad)] allowed this ground of appeal.

Aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
TheTribunal
noted that in the assessee’s own case, for A.Y. 2005-06, this issue was
decided in favour of the assessee. It noted the following observations
in order dated 14.11.2014 –

“We further note that an
identical issue was considered and decided by this Tribunal in
assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06, vide decision dated 30.6.2010, in
ITA No. 5393/ Mum/2008 in para 14 as under:-

14. After
considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on
record it is seen that a sum of Rs.2,74,26,695 represents the amount
which was debited to the profit and loss account but not paid to the
Government as it was not collected. The remaining amount of Rs.45 lakh
and odd represents the amount which was collected by the assessee and in
turn paid to the Government in this year. The contention of the learned
Departmental Representative that the said sum of Rs. 3.19 crore which
was claimed as deduction should be disallowed u/s 43B as it was not paid
to the Government, does not merit acceptance in view of the direct
order of the Tribunal passed by the Chennai Bench in ACIT vs. Real Image
Media Technologies (P.) Ltd. [114 ITD 573 (Chennai)]. In this case it
has been held that service tax though billed but not received not having
been credited to the Central Government by virtue of Finance Act, 1994
read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, cannot be disallowed
u/s. 43B. No contrary judgment has been brought to our notice by the
learned Departmental Representative. Respectfully following the
precedent, we uphold the view taken by the learned CIT(A) on this issue.
This ground is not allowed.”

2.2 The issue before us, is
regarding disallowance of Service Tax which was not collected by the
assessee from the customers to the tune of Rs.5,12,22,734/-. Since an
identical issue was directed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case
(supra), accordingly, following the earlier order of this Tribunal, we
do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of CIT(A) qua
this issue. …..”

Following the above mentioned decision, for
the sake of consistency, the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of
the assessee and against the Revenue.

This ground of appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

levitra

2015-TIOL-1376-ITAT-HYD ACIT vs. Manjeera Hotels & Resorts Ltd. A. Y.: 2008-09. Date of Order: 10th July 2015

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 32 – Transformers, HT lines & miscellaneous civil works form part of wind mill and are entitled to depreciation @ 80% under that category. These are not separate independent Plant & Machinery but are integral part of the windmills system and have no independent existence as Plant & Machinery. The civil works such as foundations cannot be treated as buildings so as to consider them as independent assets.

Facts:
The assessee company, engaged in hotel business, forayed into business of wind mills power generation. In its return of income filed the assessee had claimed depreciation on items like transformer, HT lines, electrical supplies and certain civil work @ 80%. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed part of depreciation on these items. He allowed depreciation on items of plant and machinery (transformer, HT lines and electrical supplies) @ 15% and on civil works @ 10%.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) following the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Rakesh Gupta (Chd Trib)[ 60 SOT 81].

Aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that the issue under consideration is squarely covered, in favor of the assessee, by the following decisions of the co-ordinate bench – ACIT vs. Rakesh Gupta [60 SOT 81 (Chd) DCIT vs. Lanco Infratech Ltd. [2014-TIOL-133-ITAT-HYD]

Following the above decisions, the Tribunal held that the items which were treated by the AO as separate independent Plant & Machinery were integral part of the windmill system and have no independent existence as Plant & Machinery. The civil works such as foundations cannot be treated as buildings so as to consider them as independent assets. The Tribunal held that these items qualify for depreciation @ 80%.

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

levitra

Export oriented undertaking – Exemption u/s. 10B – A. Y. 2007-08 – Development Commissioner granting approval to assessee as 100% export oriented unit – Board of Approval ratifying this subsequently – Ratification relates back to date on which Development Commissioner granted approval – Assessee is entitled to exemption

fiogf49gjkf0d
Principal CIT vs. ECI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.; 375 ITR 595 (Guj):

For
the A. Y. 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10B as a 100%
export oriented unit. It had obtained approval from the Development
Commissioner. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground
that there was no ratification of the decision of the Development
Commissioner by the Board of Approval. The Commissioner(A) found that
the approval was subsequently ratified by the Board of Approval and
accordingly allowed the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal confirmed the
decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

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

“i)
Circular No. 68 issued by the Export Promotion Council for EOUS and
SEZS dated May 14, 2009, made it clear that from 1990 onwards the Board
of Approval had delegated the power of approval of 100% export oriented
undertakings to the Development Commissioner and, therefore, the
Development Commissioner, while granting the approval of the 100% export
oriented unit, exercises delegated powers.
ii) In any case when at
the relevant time the Development Commissioner granted approval of the
100% export oriented unit in favour of the assessee, which came to be
subsequently ratified by the Board of Approval the ratification shall be
from the date on which the Development Commissioner granted the
approval. Hence, both the Commissioner (A) as well as the Tribunal have
rightly held that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s. 10B as
claimed.”

levitra

Export oriented undertaking – Exemption u/s. 10B – A. Y. 2007-08 – Part of manufacture outsourced but under control and supervision of assessee – Assessee entitled to exemption

fiogf49gjkf0d
MKU (Armours) P. Ltd. vs. CIT; 376 ITR 514 (All):

The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit. For the A. Y. 2007-08 the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s. 10B on the ground that the assessee had got the manufacture outsourced. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that only a part of the manufacturing activity was got done by the assessee from outside agency and that too under the direct control and supervision of the staff of the assessee. After the job work, the product was returned to the assessee’s factory, where the final product was assembled, packed and dispatched to the overseas buyers. He allowed the claim of the assessee. However, the Tribunal restored the order of the Assessing Officer.

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

“A new product had come out at the final stage. It was not a case of changing the label or the cover of the product. Only a part of the manufacturing activities was got done by the assessee from the outside agency and that too under the direct control and supervision of the managerial and technical staff available with the assessee. The assessee was entitled to exemption u/s. 10B.”

levitra

Educational Institution – Exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) – A. Y. 2009-10 – One of the object clauses providing trust could run business – No finding recorded that predominant object of trust was to do business – Trust is entitled to exemption

fiogf49gjkf0d
HARF Charitable Trust vs. CCIT.; 376 ITR 110 (P&H):

The
assessee trust was running educational institutions. The Chief
Commissioner rejected the assessee’s application for grant of approval
for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the
ground that the assessee trust had an intention to carry out business
activity which was not permissible for a charitable organisation. The
trustees were in place for the whole duration of their life and it gave
the organisation a look and character of a private body rather than a
charitable organisation and the objectives were not related the
promotion of education and the educational trust did not exist solely
for educational purposes.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the assessee’s writ petition and held as under:

“i) The school run by the assessee as such was affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education and had also been granted registration u/s. 12A w.e.f. 15/07/1997. Merely because one of the clauses of the trust deed provided that the trust would carry on other business as decided by the trustees that would not per se disentitle it from being considered for registration u/s. 10(23C)(vi).
ii) The reasoning that the trust had intention to carry out the business and the institution was not existing solely for educational purposes would amount to giving a very narrow meaning to the section and the predominant object test was to be applied. It was not that the Chief Commissioner came to the conclusion that the trust was doing some other business and the business was generating substantial amounts which would override the main objects of the trust which pertain mainly to the cause of education. In the absence of any such finding that the trust was doing business, the application could not have been rejected only on this ground that one of the clauses in the objects provided such right to the trust. The prescribed authority could have made it conditional by holding that if any such business was carried out, the registration granted was liable to be cancelled.
iii) Therefore, the order refusing to grant approval of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) could not be justified solely on the ground that in view of a clause which provided that the trust could run a business, it would be debarred as such for registration on the ground that it was not existing solely for educational purposes. That merely a conferment of power to do business would not debar the right of consideration of the trust without any finding being recorded that the predominant object of the trust was to do business.
iv) Thus, the Chief Commissioner misdirected himself in rejecting the application on this ground without coming to any conclusion that the trust was carrying on any other activity under clause (i). It was also a matter of fact now that the trust had already also deleted the objectionable clause for the year 2010-11. The Chief Commissioner was directed to decide the assessee’s application afresh.”

levitra

Disallowance u/s. 14A – A. Y. 2004-05 – Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year

fiogf49gjkf0d

Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT; [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi)

In
the case of the assessee Cheminvest Ltd., the Special Bench of the ITAT
in [2009] 121 ITD 318 (DELHI)(SB) held that section 14A disallowance can
be made in year in which no exempt income has been earned or received
by assessee. It referred to the decision of Apex Court in case of CIT
vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 to settle this controversy.

In the appeal by the assessee, the following question was raised before the Delhi High Court:

“Whether
disallowance under Section 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt
income has been earned or received by assessee?

The High Court held in favour of assessee as under:
“(i)
The Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Rajendra (supra). In such case the Supreme Court held that Section
57(iii) does not say that expenditure shall be deductible only if any
income is made or earned. The decision of Supreme Court was rendered in
context of allowability of deduction u/s. 57(iii). Thus, such decision
could not be used in reverse to contend that even if no income has been
received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed u/s. 14A.

(ii)
The expression ‘does not form part of total income’ in Section 14A
envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which is not
includible in the total income, for the purpose of disallowing any
expenditure in relation to said income.

(iii) In other words,
Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable
during the relevant previous year.”

levitra

Business expenditure-Capital or revenue expenditure – Section 37 – A. Y. 1998-99 – Machine not put to use on ground that technology had become obsolete – Expenditure incurred for development of machines is revenue expenditure

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.; 376 ITR 299 (Cal):

In the previous year relevant to A. Y. 1998-99, the assessee had developed four machines at a cost of Rs. 46,26,552/. However, after the machines were developed, the assessee found that the technology used had already become obsolete. Therefore, the machines were not put to use for manufacturing purposes. The assessee claimed the expenditure as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim. CIT(A) held that the expenditure is allowable u/s. 37. The Tribunal upheld the allowance.

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

“The question whether the expenses incurred on account of development of machines was revenue expenditure or not basically is a question of fact and when the Tribunal had concurred with the views expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the view taken by them was a plausible view, no interference in the order of the Tribunal was warranted.”

levitra

Total Income – Income of minor child of assessee from admission to the benefits of partnership cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee u/s. 64(1) (iii) even when read with Explanation 2A where income earned by the trust cannot be utilised for the benefit of the minor during its minority.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Kapoor Chand (Deceased) vs. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 450 (SC)

The
brother-in-law of the appellant, namely Shri Ram Niwas Agarwal had
created two trusts for the benefit of two minor children of the
appellant, Kapoor Chand. One trust known as Priti Life Trust was for the
benefit of Kumari. Priti who was aged about 7 years and the other trust
was created by the name of Anuj Family Trust for the benefit of master
Anuj, minor son of the appellant, Kapoor Chand. One of the important
terms of both the trust deeds was that income so earned by the trusts
shall not be received by two minors during their minority and will be
spent for their benefits only once they attain the majority. Another
fundamental clause in both the trust deeds was that in case any of the
beneficiaries died before attaining majority, his/ her share would be
given to the other sibling. Both these trustees became partners in the
partnership firm. The said partnership firm earned profits in the year
1980-81 and share of the two trusts was given to them.

Since
these trusts were for the benefit of two minor children of the
appellant, invoking the provisions of section 64(1) (iii) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Assessing Officer included the
said income in the income of the assessee and taxed it as such.

The appellant contested the assessment by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal holding that since the minors had no right to receive the income of the trusts till the time they were minors, the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) read with Explanation 2A of the Act would not be attracted.

The Department challenged the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

Dissatisfied with the outcome, the appellant approached the High Court of Uttaranchal by way of an appeal filed u/s. 260A of the Act which appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that it was clear from a plain reading of the aforesaid section that while computing the total income of any individual the income of a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm is to be included as the income of the said individual. Explanation 2A clarifies that if the minor child is a beneficiary under a trust, income arising to the trust from the membership of the trustee in a firm shall also be treated as income of the child and the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of section 64(1) shall get attracted even in that eventuality.

The Supreme Court noted that in the present case, it was clear from the facts narrated above, that two minor children of the appellant were the beneficiaries under the two trusts. The said trustees were the partners in the firm and had their shares in the income as partners in the said firm.

According to the Supreme Court, the entire controversy revolved around the question as to whether such income could be treated as income of a minor child. This controversy had arisen because of the reason that the income that had been earned by the trustees was not available to the two minor children till their attaining the age of majority.

The Supreme Court observed that this very question had come up before it in almost identical circumstances in the case of CIT vs. M. R. Doshi [1995] 211 ITR 1 (SC). The court, after taking note of some judgments of High Courts including the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal vs. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 602 (Bom) interpreted the provisions of section 64(1)(v) of the Act in the following manner (page 4 of 211 ITR):

“Section 64(1)(v) requires, in the computation of the total income of an assessee, the inclusion of such income as arises to the assessee from assets transferred, otherwise than for adequate consideration, to the extent to which the income from such assets is for the immediate or deferred benefit of, inter alia his minor children. The specific provision of the law, therefore, is that the immediate or deferred benefit should be for the benefit of a minor child. Inasmuch as in this case the deferment of the benefit is beyond the period of minority of the assessee’s three sons, since the assets are to be received by them when they attain majority, the provisions of section 64(1)(v) have no application.”

The Supreme Court held that in the present case, as pointed out above, specific stipulation which is contained in both the trust deeds is that in case of demise of any of the minors the income would accrue to the other child. Therefore, the receipt of the said income was also contingent upon the aforesaid eventuality and the two minors had not received the benefit immediately for the assessment year in question, viz., as “minor” children. Explanation was of no help to the Department. The provision that is contained in Explanation 2A is only to take care of the income even when a trust is created. It does not go further and make any provision to the effect that even when the income earned by the trust cannot be utilised for the benefit of the minor during his minority the Explanation 2A shall be attracted. There is no such stipulation in the said Explanation. Moreover, the language of section 64(1)(iii) is clear and categorical which makes the income of minor child taxable at the hands of individual. Thus, in the first instance it has to be shown that the share of income is in the hands of minor child which requirement was not satisfied in the present case.

The Supreme Court however observed that the Department was not without remedy inasmuch as the income earned by the two minors would not go untaxed. On attaining majority when the aforesaid money in the form of income is received by the two individuals it would be open to the Department to tax the income at that time. Or else, the Department could take up their cases u/s. 166 of the Act, if permissible.

levitra

Heads of Income – Where letting of property is the business of the assessee, the income is to be assessed under the head “Income from business”

fiogf49gjkf0d
Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)

The appellant – assessee was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, with its main object, as stated in the memorandum of association, to acquire the properties in the city of Madras (now Chennai) and to let out those properties. The assessee had rented out such properties and the rental income received therefrom was shown as income from business in the return filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, refused to tax the same as business income. According to the Assessing Officer, since the income was received from letting out of the properties, it was in the nature of rental income. He, thus, held that it would be treated as income from house property and taxed the same accordingly under that head.

The assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed the same holding it to be income from business and directed that it should be treated as such and taxed accordingly. Aggrieved by that order, the Department filed an appeal before the Incometax Appellate Tribunal which declined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. The Department approached the High Court. This appeal of the Department was allowed by the High Court, holding that the income derived by letting out of the properties would not be income from business but could be assessed only income form house property. The High Court primarily rested its decision on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC) and in Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353(SC).

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court noted that as per the memorandum of association of the appellantcompany the main object of the appellant company was to acquire and hold the properties known as “Chennai House” and “Firhaven Estate” both in Chennai and to let out those properties as well as make advances upon the security of lands and buildings or other properties or any interest therein. The entire income of the appellant company was through letting out of the aforesaid two properties namely, “Chennai House” and “Firhaven Estate”. There was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of these two properties.

According to the Supreme Court the judgment in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) squarely applied to the facts of the present case. In that case the position in law was summed up in following words:

“Where there is a letting out of premises and collection of rents the assessment on property basis may be correct but not so, where the letting or sub-letting is part of a trading operation. The dividing line is difficult to find; but in the case of a company with its professed objects and the manner of its activities and the nature of its dealings with its property, it is possible to say on which side the operations fall and to what head the income is to be assigned.”

The Supreme Court held that in this case, letting of the properties was in fact the business of the assessee. The assessee, therefore had rightly disclosed the income under the head “Income from business”. It could not be treated as “Income from the house property”. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

levitra

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal to High Court – High Court cannot decide the appeal without framing a question of law.

fiogf49gjkf0d
P.A. Jose & Ors. vs. CWT (2015) 376 ITR 448 (SC)

The Revenue filed connected wealth-tax appeals against the order of the Tribunal holding that cash in hand in excess of Rs.50,000 in the hands of the assessee who were all individuals, did not form part of the asset u/s. 2(ea)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act. The High Court allowed the appeal holding that cash in hand in excess of Rs.50,000 held by the individual assessees formed part of assets under section 2(ea)(vi). The individual assesses approached the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the assessee’s contended that the High Court had committed an error by not framing substantial question of law as per the provisions of section 27A(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Supreme Court held that the appeal under the aforesaid section could be admitted only when a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and according to s/s. (4), of the question of law has to be formulated by the High Court.

The Supreme Court found that the such a question had not been framed and without framing question of law, the appeal had been decided by the High Court. The Supreme Court therefore remitted the matter to the High Court so that a substantial question of law could be framed, if any, and the appeal be heard again.

levitra

Report of Accountant to be filed along with the return – Condition is directory and not mandatory – The report should however be filed before the order of assessment is made.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. and CIT vs. AKS Alloys (P) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC)

Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) had been denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish form 3AA along with the return of income. The Tribunal allowed additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The High Court noted that the Form 3AA was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and that it was not in dispute that the assessee was entitled to the additional depreciation. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in the light of its judgment in CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom). On further appeal by the Revenue, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal concurring with the view of the High Court and holding that even if Form 3AA was not filed along with the return of income but same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made, that would amount to sufficient compliance.

Note: The above were the facts in G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd.

The facts in AKS Alloys (P) Ltd. were as under:

The Appellant was engaged in the business of manufacture of steel ingots. In respect of the assessment year 2005-06, assessment order dated December 26, 2007, was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, in which, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee made u/s. 80-IB of the Act on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income.

The first Appellate authority allowed the appeal, thereby granting the claim of the assessee made u/s. 80-IB of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. On further appeal the Supreme Court held that the substantial question of law namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, was well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed.

The Supreme Court disposed of both the matters by a common order.

levitra

Admission Of Appeal and Section 271(1)(c)

fiogf49gjkf0d
Issue for Consideration Section 271(1)(c) provides for the imposition of penalty by an AO in cases where he is satisfied that the person has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The penalty leviable shall not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded but shall not exceed three times the amount of such tax.

Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposable where the person proves that there was a reasonable cause for his failure to disclose the particulars of his income or to furnish accurate particulars of such income. It is thus, essential for a person, for escaping the penalty to prove that he had not concealed the particulars of his income or has not furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or in any case he was prevented by a reasonable cause in concealing the income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars.

None of the relevant terms namely, concealment, inaccurate particulars or reasonable cause are defined under the Income-tax Act. Needless to say, that a person has therefore to rely on the several decisions delivered by the Courts for assigning true meaning to the said terms. Over a period, a judicial consensus has emerged where under a decision taken under a bona fide belief is considered to be not a case of concealment or a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Likewise, selecting one of the possible views on a subject that is capable of 2 views is held to be providing the person with a reasonable cause for his failure to disclose or furnish accurate particulars of his income.

There seems to be an unanimity about the understanding that no penalty is leviable in a case where the issue concerning a claim of allowance/disallowance/ addition/ deduction/ exemption is debatable. Recently, the term ‘debatable’ has attracted the attention of the judiciary where under, the Courts are asked to determine whether an issue can be said to be debatable in a case where a High Court has admitted the appeal on merits of the claim by holding the issue to be one which involves a substantial question of law. While the Gujarat High Court has held that simply because an appeal has been admitted on merits of the claim of an assesse, it could not automatically be held that the issue was debatable and that no penalty was leviable. The Bombay High Court approving the 3rd member decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the Tribunal held that the issue became debatable once an appeal on merits of the claim was admitted on the ground that it formed a substantial question of law.

Dharamshi B. Shah’s case
The Gujarat high court had an occasion to consider the issue in the case of the CIT vs. Dharamshi B. Shah, 51 taxmann.com 274 (Gujarat). In the said case, an addition made by the AO on account of capital gains computed u/s. 45(3) was upheld by the tribunal and the assessee’s appeal against such an order was admitted by the High Court. The AO subsequently had passed an order levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), which was deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that no penalty was leviable once an appeal on the merits of the case was admitted by the court. In an appeal by the revenue department against such an order of the Tribunal, the court was asked to consider whether merely because the assessee’s appeal in respect of an addition on the basis of which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was levied, had been admitted by High Court, it could be said that the issue was debatable so as to delete the penalty. One of the substantial questions of law raised before the court by the revenue was:

“Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in not upholding the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that since the substantial question of law in respect of the addition on which the penalty has been levied, has been admitted by the hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the penalty would not survive without appreciating that the addition on which the penalty was levied was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal itself ? ”

The Revenue submitted that;

  • in the case before the court, the Tribunal had deleted the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely on the ground that the appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal on the merits of the case, was admitted by the high court and, therefore, the issue was not free from debate and, consequently, the tribunal had set aside the penalty,
  • the issue involved in the appeal was squarely covered by the decision of the court in the case of CIT vs. Prakash S Vyas rendered in Tax Appeal No. 606 of 2010, now reported in 58 taxmann.com 334, wherein the aforesaid view was not accepted by the Division Bench of the court,
  • the impugned order passed by the tribunal was required to be quashed and set aside and the matter was required to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

The court noted the following observations of the tribunal while setting aside the order of the AO levying penalty:

 “… This is the settled position of law that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is imposable in respect of any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. When for the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is confirmed by the Tribunal, a substantial question of law is admitted by the hon’ble Gujarat High Court, it has to be accepted that the issue is not free from debate, and, hence, in our considered opinion, under these facts, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, and, therefore, penalty is not justified. We, therefore, delete the same.”

The court noted with approval its decision on an identical question in Tax Appeal No. 606 of 2010 now reported in 58 taxmann.com 334, wherein the court had observed as under and had quashed and set aside the order of the tribunal deleting the penalty and had remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

“10. Having, thus, heard learned counsel for the parties, we reiterate that the sole ground on which the Tribunal deleted the penalty was that with respect to the quantum additions, the assessee had approached the High Court and the High Court had admitted the appeal framing substantial questions of law for consideration. In view of the Tribunal, this would indicate that the issue was debatable and that, therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed.

11.    We are of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty on this sole ground. Admission of a tax appeal by the High Court, in majority cases, is ex parte and without recording even prima facie reasons. Whether ex parte or after by-parte hearing, unless some other intention clearly emerges from the order itself, admission of a tax appeal by the High Court only indicates the court’s opinion that the issue presented before it required further consideration. It is an indication of the opinion of the High Court that there is a prima facie case made out and the questions are required to be decided after admission. Mere admission of an appeal by the High Court cannot without there being anything further, be an indication that the issue is a debatable one so as to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act even if there are independent grounds and reasons to believe that the assessee’s case would fall under the mischief envisaged in said clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act. In other words, unless there is any indication in the order of admission passed by the High Court simply because the tax appeal is admitted, would give rise to the presumption that the issue is debatable and that, therefore, penalty should be deleted.

12.    This is not to suggest that no such intention can be gathered from the order of the court even if so expressed either explicitly or in implied terms. This is also not to suggest that in no case, admission of a tax appeal would be a relevant factor for the purpose of deciding validity of a penalty order. This is only to put the record straight in so far as the opinion that the Tribunal as expressed in the present impugned order, viz., that upon mere admission of a tax appeal on quantum additions, is an indication that the issue is debatable one and that, therefore, penalty should automatically be deleted without any further reasons or grounds emerging from the record.

13.    This is precisely what has been done by the Tribunal in the present case. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. The question framed is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The order of the Tribunal is reversed. Since apparently the assessee had raised other contentions also in support of the appeal before the Tribunal, the proceedings are remanded before the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The tax appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

The court approving the reasons stated in the said decision, quashed and set aside the order of the tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law on its own merits while holding that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) could not be deleted on the sole ground that assessee’s appeal in respect of addition on basis of which penalty was levied had been admitted by the High Court.

Nayan Builders Case

The issue also arose before the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nayan Builders, 368 ITR 722 wherein the court found that the appeal of the Revenue department could not be entertained as it did not raise any substantial question of law.

In the said case the addition of income of Rs. 1,04,76,050 and disallowance of expenses of Rs.10,79,221 on brokerage and Rs. 2,00,000 on legal fees made by the A.O. were sustained by the Tribunal and the appeal of the assessee u/s. 260A was admitted by the High Court on the ground that the said addition and the disallowances represented a substantial question of law.

The A.O., pending the disposal of the appeal by the High Court, had levied a penalty of Rs. 37,32,777 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which was confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals). On a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, challenging the levy of the penalty, the Tribunal held that, when the High Court admitted a substantial question of law on the merits of an addition/disallowance, it became apparent that the issue under consideration on the basis of which penalty was levied, was debatable. It held that the admission by the high court lent credence to the bona fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. It held that the mere fact of confirmation of an addition/disallowance would not per se lead to the imposition of penalty, once it turned out that the claim of the assessee could have been considered by a person properly instructed in law and was not completely debarred in law. Relying on the decisions in the cases of Rupam Mercantile Ltd. vs. DCIT, 91 ITD 237(Ahd.) (TM) and Smt. Ramilaben Ratilal Shah vs. ACIT, 60 TTJ 171(Ahd.), the Tribunal held that no penalty was exigible u/s. 271(1)(c), once the high court had held that the issue of addition/disallowance represented a substantial question of law.

On an appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court held that the imposition of the penalty was not justified. The court noted that the Tribunal as a proof that the penalty was debatable and involved an arguable issue, had referred to the order of the court passed in the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings and had also referred to the substantial questions of law which had been framed therein.

The court perused its order dated September 27, 2010, passed by it for admitting the Income Tax Appeal No. 2368 of 2009 on merits of the case, and held that there was no case made out for imposition of penalty and the same was rightly set aside. It held that where the high court admitted an appeal on the ground that it involved a substantial question of law, in respect of which penalty was levied, impugned order of penalty was to be quashed. It held that the appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal, passed for deleting the penalty levied, raised no substantial question of law and as a consequence dismissed it with no order as to costs.

Observations

An appeal u/s.260A lies to the High Court from an order of the Tribunal only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The issue under consideration in such an appeal should not only involve a question of law but should be one which involves a substantial question of law similar to the one required u/s.100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. A full bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam, 251 ITR 84, held that to be a substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent…. that it was not free from difficulty or that it called for a discussion for an alternate view. It further held that the word “substantial” qualifying “question of law” meant having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable.

Recently, the Patna High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, 350 ITR 189, has held that a substantial question of law must be one which was debatable and not previously settled under the law of the land or a binding precedent.

A question can be a substantial question of law even when it affects the substantial rights of the party or is of general importance or where a finding based on no evidence is given or where a finding is given without appreciating the admissible evidence or where the order passed is perverse or unreasonable. A question can be held to be a substantial question of law on varied counts – it is largely so in the cases where issues are debatable or call for a discussion for alternate view and are not previously settled by law of the land and binding precedent.

In the context of the provisions of Income-tax Act, it is appropriate in most of the cases, to hold that the issue on hand is debatable, open, capable of having an alternate view once the same is held to be representing a substantial question of law by the Jurisdictional high court at the time of admission of appeal. Once it is so found, it is also appropriate to hold, unless otherwise established, that the assessee was under a bona fide belief for staking his claim and was under a reasonable cause for any failure, if any and in the presence of these factors no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c ) r.w.s.273B was leviable.

The Bombay High Court, in Nayan Builder’s case, following the above discussed logic had held that no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was leviable once an appeal on merits of the case was admitted by the Court by holding that the issue on merits represented a substantial question of law. It does not appear that even the Gujarat High Court in Dharamshi B. Shah’s case has a different view other than when it held that dropping of the penalty should not be an automatic consequence of an admission of appeal on merits of the case. Even in that case, the Court set aside the order of the Tribunal with a direction to it to examine the issue afresh to find out whether there was a bona fide belief or a reasonable cause in the relevant case or not.

In our experience, a court records its satisfaction about the presence of a substantial question of law only where it is satisfied that the essential requisites forming such a question are placed on record. In the circumstances, the Gujarat High Court may be said to side with the view of the Bombay High Court, which view has been taken by the Court while approving the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Rupam Mercantile 91 ITD 273 (Ahd.), Ramilaben Ratilal Shah 60 TTJ 171 (Ahd).

Income Tax Officer vs. Late Som Nath Malhotra (through Raj Rani Malhotra) ITAT Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before D. Manmohan, (V.P) and N. K. Saini, (A.M.) ITA No. 519/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04. Decided on 02.07.2015 Counsel for Revenue / Assessee: J. S. Minhas / Piyush Kaushik

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 148 & 292BB – Assessment made on the basis of notice issued in the name of the deceased is null and void despite the fact that the legal heir attended the proceeding.

Facts:
The AO on the basis of information received from DIT (Investigation), New Delhi that one Deepak Changia had given an accommodation entry of Rs. 2.01 lakh to the deceased assessee, issued notice dated 31.03.2010 u/s 148. In response to the said notice the legal heir, the wife of the deceased assessee, informed the AO that the assessee had expired on 06.12.2002 and she also furnished the death certificate and copy of Income Tax Return filed on 29.08.2003. The AO however framed the assessment in the name of the deceased assessee at an income of Rs. 23 lakh by making the addition of Rs. 19.94 lakh.

On appeal, the CIT(A) held that since the legal heir of the deceased assessee had informed the AO at the very beginning of assessment proceedings that the assessee had expired, the entire reassessment proceeding made in the name of the deceased was null and void. Against the order of the CIT(A), the revenue appealed before the Tribunal and contended that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the provisions of section 292BB and holding the assessment not valid when the legal heir of the assessee had duly attended the proceedings and not objected to the same.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that in the present case the AO recorded the reasons for issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee and got the approval of the Addl. CIT also in the same name. The AO issued notice dated 31.03.2010 u/s. 148 of the Act also in the name of the deceased assessee. In response when the legal heir informed him about the death of assessee, then also the AO did not issue any notice u/s. 148 of the Act or 143(2) of the Act in the name of the legal heir. Thus, according to the Tribunal, the entire assessment proceeding by the AO was on the basis of the notice which was invalid under the Act. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chand Jaiswal (325 ITR 563), it was held that the assessment framed on the basis of the invalid notice was void ab initio.

levitra

U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS) ITAT Lucknow “A” Bench Before Sunil Kumar Yadav (J. M.) and A. K. Garodia (A. M.) ITA No.538/LKW/2012 Assessment Year:2009-10. Decided on 23.01.2015 Counsel for Assessee / Revenue: R. C. Jain / K. C. Meena

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 14A – Investments in wholly owned subsidiaries (WOS) – Before any disallowance can be made the AO must record objectively his satisfaction as regards the expenditure incurred by the assessee – With respect to investment in WOS no expenditure is generally incurred to earn dividend hence no disallowance u/s. 14A

Facts:
The assessee had made investment of Rs. 60.9 crore in the share capital of three wholly owned subsidiary companies. During the year under appeal, the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 7.52 lakh. Applying the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO disallowed the sum of Rs. 40.31 lakh.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that before applying the provisions of section 14A the Assessing Officer had failed to record objective satisfaction as regards the claims made by the assessee and secondly, the investment made is of long term and of strategic in nature, in the wholly owned subsidiaries. According to it, no decision is required in making the investment or disinvestment on regular basis and, therefore, there cannot be any direct or indirect expenditure.

Held:
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that recording of objective satisfaction by the AO with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee is mandatorily required in terms of section 14A(2) of the Act. It also noted that in the instant case, the AO had simply recorded that the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Further, it also noted that the entire investment by the assessee was made in the subsidiary companies, therefore, in those cases disallowance u/s. 14A(2) of the Act cannot be worked out unless and until it is established that certain expenditures are incurred by the assessee in these investments. Further, relying on the decisions of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Steels Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (I.T.A. No. 1733/PN/2012), of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (328 ITR 81) and of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. JM Financial Limited vs. Addl. CIT, I.T.A. No. 4521/Mum/2012, the Tribunal accepted the submission of the assesse and allowed its appeal.

levitra

[2015] 68 SOT 550(Mumbai) Archana Parasrampuria vs. ITO ITA No. 1196 (Mum) of 2009 Assessment Year: 2005-06. Date of Order: 26.11.2014

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 54F – Acquisition of “transferable tenancy rights” which constitute substantial rights over the property and were almost identical to ownership of property qualify for exemption u/s. 54F.

Facts:
The assessee earned long term capital gains on transfer of shares. She claimed the capital gain so arising to be exempt u/s. 54F on the ground that she had purchased a residential flat.

In the course of assessment proceedings, on examination of the transfer deed, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had acquired “transferable tenancy rights” and not “ownership” of the flat. He, disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act.

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

Held: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had purchased rights in one of the flats from the developer, which under the agreement were allotted to him (developer) for selling to the intended purchasers. The assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 78,10,001 as consideration/premium to the developer for obtaining the tenancy rights in the flat in question. Though under the agreement in question, the assessee was liable to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 to the owner, the Tribunal was of the view that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and amount of rent being a meager amount when compared to the amount of rent otherwise payable on such a property in the area, it is apparent that the assessee is not the mere tenant in the house. The Tribunal concluded that she has purchased substantial rights in the flat in question. It observed that a perusal of clause 7 of the agreement reveals that the assessee is entitled to carry out repairs and renovation in the said flat except the changes which could be detrimental to the basic structure of the building. The owner was not entitled to terminate the tenancy of the assessee on any ground, whatsoever, except for nonpayment of rent. In the event of destruction of the said building or construction of a new building, the assessee/ tenant was entitled to obtain tenancy in respect to the new flat having the same carpet area on the same floor without any payment or consideration or premium to the owner under the agreement. The assessee had absolute rights to transfer or assign the tenancy rights in respect of the flat in favor of any person of her choice and to charge such consideration/premium for such transfer/assignment and the tenant/assessee would not be required to obtain any permission from the owner and will not be required to pay any premium for consideration to the owner for such transfer/assignment of tenancy rights. The tenant is also entitled to create mortgage in respect of the tenancy rights in the said flat and also bequeath the tenancy rights in respect of any person.

The Tribunal held that the rights of the assessee in the flat were not the mere tenancy rights but were substantial rights giving the asseseee dominion, possession and control over the property in question with transferable rights, which were almost identical to that of an owner of the property. There was no denial that the assessee has purchased the rights in the said flat for residential purposes.

The provisions of s. 54F having regard to its beneficial objects are required to be interpreted liberally. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of Smt. Meena S. Raheja vs. Dy. CIT (ITA No.3941(Mum) of 2009), dated 22.9.2010 in a case of 99 year leasehold rights has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee qualified for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

levitra

[2015] 171 TTJ 145 (Asr) Sibia Healthcare (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 90/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2013-14. Date of Order: 9.6.2015

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sections 200A, 234E – Prior to 1.6.2015 there was no enabling
provision for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees u/s. 234E.

Facts:
The
assessee company delayed the filing of TDS statements. In the course of
processing of TDS statements, the AO(TDS) raised a demand, by way of an
intimation dated 9th September, 2013 issued u/s. 200A of the Act, for
levy of fees u/s. 234E for delayed filing of the TDS statement.

Aggrieved
by the levy of fees in the intimation issued, the assessee preferred an
appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
The
Tribunal noted the statutory provisions of section 234E as introduced
by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012 and also of section 200A as
inserted by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2010. It also noted that
the provisions of section 200A were amended by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f.
1.6.2015 to provide that in the course of processing of a TDS statement
and issuance of intimation u/s. 200A in respect thereof an adjustment
could also be made in respect of the “fee, if any, shall be computed in
accordance with the provisions of section 234E.”

The Tribunal
held that there was no enabling provision for raising a demand in
respect of levy of fees u/s. 234E. While examining the correctness of
intimation u/s. 200A, it had to be guided by the limited mandate of
section 200A, which, at the relevant point of time, permitted
computation of amount recoverable from or payable to, the tax deductor
after making adjustments specified therein which did not include fees
levied u/s. 234E.

The adjustment in respect of levy of fees u/s.
234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated u/s.
200A. This intimation is appealable order u/s. 246A(a), and, therefore,
the CIT(A) ought to have examined legality of the adjustment made under
this intimation in the light of the scope of section 200A. It also
observed that there is no other provision enabling a demand in respect
of this levy and in the absence of the enabling provisions u/s. 200A, no
such levy could be effected.

The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

levitra

Settlement of cases – Interest – Section 245D(2C) – B. P. 01/04/1995 to 05/10/2001 – Assessee depositing tax on admitting additional income: Required amount deposited within time when application admitted – Further tax liability determined final order satisfied – Interest on further tax for the period during the pendency of application before Settlement Commission is unwarranted

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Vishandas and ors; 374 ITR 591 (Del):

The assessee and two others disclosed Rs. 10,00,000/- in the hands of each of the three assesses. The Settlement Commission directed to accept the offer of additional income of Rs. 1,48,16,160/- and rejected the waiver of interest. While computing the amount payable, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,03,211/- as interest recoverable for the period between 01/01/2004 and 26/03/2010 u/s. 245D(2C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that section 245D(2C) could be invoked only if the assessee did not deposit the tax payable on income disclosed and admitted u/s. 245D(1). In the instant case, the assessee deposited Rs. 6,12,000/- within the time prescribed u/s. 245D(2C) on the income of Rs. 10,00,000/- in terms of order u/s. 245D(1) and deleted the addition. This was confirmed by the Tribunal.

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

“i) When the application was filed before the Settlement Commission, the assessee deposited the admitted tax liability. Soon, thereafter, when the application was admitted, the amount required was deposited within the time stipulated u/s. 245D(6A). The further tax liability determined was payable after the final decision. The records and the materials examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal disclosed that even the tax liability finally determined was satisfied. In these circumstances, the addition of interest for the period during the pendency of the application before the Settlement was entirely unwarranted.

ii) We do not see any reason to disturb the concurrent findings of fact. The appeals do not raise any substantial question of law and are, consequently, dismissed.”

levitra

ITAT: Power to grant stay beyond 365 days: Section 254(2A) – Section 254(2A) third proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that extension of stay of demand should be denied beyond 365 days even when the assesseee is not at fault. ITAT may extend stay of demand beyond 365 days if delay in disposing appeal is not attributable to assessee: ITAT should make efforts to decide stay granted appeals expeditiously

fiogf49gjkf0d
DCIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (Guj);SCA No. 5014 of 2015; dated 12/06/2015; www.itatonline.org: [2015] 58 taxmann.com 374 (Guj)

The Tribunal passed an order extending stay of recovery of demand beyond the period of 365 days. The department filed a Writ Petition to challenge the said order on the ground that in view of the third proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the stay of demand beyond 365 days.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Petition and held as under:

“(i) It is true that as per third proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period allowed under the first proviso i.e. within 180 days from the date of the stay order or the period or periods extended or allowed under the second proviso, which shall not, in any case, exceed three hundred and sixty-five days, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of such period or periods, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, as such, legislative intent seems to be very clear. However, the purpose and object of providing such time limit is required to be considered. The purpose and object of providing time limit as provided in section 254(2A) of the Act seems to be that after obtaining stay order, the assessee may not indulge into delay tactics and may not proceed further with the hearing of the appeal and may not misuse the grant of stay of demand. At the same time, duty is also cast upon the learned Tribunal to decide and dispose of such appeals in which there is a stay of demand, as early as possible and within the period prescribed under first proviso and second proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act i.e. within maximum period of 365 days.

ii) However, one cannot lost sight of the fact that there may be number of reasons due to which the learned Tribunal is not in a position to decide and dispose of the appeals within the maximum period of 365 days despite their best efforts. There cannot be a legislative intent to punish a person/ assessee though there is no fault of the assessee and/or appellant. The purpose and object of section 254(2A) of the Act is stated herein above and more particularly with a view to see that in the cases where there is a stay of demand, appeals are heard at the earliest by the learned Tribunal and within stipulated time mentioned in section 254(2A) of the Act and the assessee in whose favour there is stay of demand may not take undue advantage of the same and may not adopt delay tactics and avoid hearing of the appeals. However, at the same time, all efforts shall be made by the learned Tribunal to see that in the cases where there is stay of demand, such appeals are heard, decided and disposed of at the earliest and periodically the position/ situation is monitored by the learned Tribunal and the stay is not extended mechanically.

(iii) By section 254(2A) of the Act, it cannot be inferred a legislative intent to curtail/withdraw powers of the Appellate Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond the period of 365 days. However, the aforesaid extension of stay beyond the period of total 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay would always be subject to the subjective satisfaction by the Tribunal and on an application made by the assessee / appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay is not attributable to the appellant / assessee.

iv) As observed hereinabove, the Tribunal can extend the stay granted earlier beyond the period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, however, on being subjectively satisfied by the Tribunal and on an application made by the assessee/appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, is not attributable to the appellant / assessee and that the assessee is not at fault and therefore, while considering each application for extension of stay, the Tribunal is required to consider the facts of each case and arrive at subjective satisfaction in each case whether the delay in not disposing of the appeal within the period of 365 days from the date of initial grant of stay is attributable to the appellant – assessee or not and/or whether the assessee / appellant in whose favour stay has been granted, has cooperated in early disposal of the appeal or not and/or whether there is any delay tactics by such appellant / assessee in whose favour stay has been granted and/or whether such appellant is trying to get any undue advantage of stay in his favour or not. Therefore, while passing such order of extension of stay, Tribunal is required to pass a speaking order on each application and after giving an opportunity to the representative of the revenue – Department and record its satisfaction as stated hereinabove. Therefore, ultimately if the revenue – department is aggrieved by such extension in a particular case having of the view that in a particular case the assessee has not cooperated and/or has tried to take undue advantage of stay and despite the same the Tribunal has extended stay order, revenue can challenge the same before the higher forum/High Court. (Commissioner of Customs and Central Exercise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd (2005) 180 ELT 434(SC) & Commissioner vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India in Tax Appeal No.341 of 2014 followed; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited decided on 2.1.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5086 of 2013 not followed)”

levitra

Capital gain – Agricultural land – Section 2(14)(iii) (b) – A. Y. 2009-10 – Land situated within prescribed distance from municipal limit – Measurement of distance – Amendment in 2014 providing that distance should be measured aerially is prospective and not to apply to earlier years

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia; 374 ITR 531 (Bom):

On 10/04/2007, the assessee purchased agricultural land and sold it on 15/04/2008. The assessee claimed the profit as exempt on the ground that the land sold was agricultural land and not a capital asset according to section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, urging that the land was situated beyond 8 kms. of the municipal limits. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim holding that the distance must be measured by the shortest distance as the crow flies or the straight line method and not by the road distance. The Tribunal allowed the assesses claim.

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

“i) The amendment in the taxing statute, unless a different legislative intention is clearly expressed, shall operate prospectively. If the assessee has earned business income and not the agricultural income, section 11 of General Clauses Act, 1897, will prevail unless a different intention appears to the contrary. The relevant amendment prescribing that the distance to be counted must be aerial came into force w.e.f. 01/04/2014. The need for the amendment itself showed that in order to avoid any confusion, the exercise became necessary. This exercise to clear the confusion, therefore, showed that the benefit thereof must be given to the assessee.

ii) In such matters, when there is any doubt or confusion, the view in favour of the assessee needs to be adopted. Circular No. 3 of 2014, dated 24/01/2014, dealing with applicability expressly stipulates that it takes effect from 01/04/2014, and, therefore, prospectively applies in relation to the A. Y. 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, the question whether prior to the A. Y. 2014-15 the authorities erred in computing the distance by road did not arise at all.”

levitra

Business expenditure – Disallowance u/s. 40(a) (ia) -: Section 40(a)(ia) – Argument that the disallowance for want of TDS can be made only for amounts “payable” as of 31st March and not for those already “paid” is not correct. In Liminie dismissal of SLP in Vector Shipping does not mean Supreme Court has confirmed the view of the HC

fiogf49gjkf0d
P. M. S. Diesel vs. CIT (P&H); ITA No. 716 of 2009 dated 29/04/2015:www.itatonline.org: 277 CTR 491(P&H):

Dealing with the scope of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under:

“(i) The introduction of Section 40(a)(ia) had achieved the objective of augmenting the TDS to a substantial extent. When the provisions and procedures relating to TDS are scrupulously applied, it also ensured the identification of the payees thereby confirming the network of assessees and that once the assessees are identified it would enable the tax collection machinery to bring within its fold all such persons who are liable to come within the network of tax payers. These objects also indicate the legislative intent that the requirement of deducting tax at source is mandatory.

(ii) The argument that section 40(a)(ia) relates only to assessees who follow the mercantile system and does not pertain to the assessees who follow the cash system is not acceptable. The purpose of the section is to ensure the recovery of tax. We see no indication in the section that this object was confined to the recovery of tax from a particular type of assessee following a particular accounting practice.

(iii) The argument that section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts which are “payable” and not to amounts that are already “paid” is also not acceptable (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 216 Taxman 258 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sikandar Khan N. Tunwar (2013) 357 ITR 312 (Guj) followed)

(iv) Though in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd (2013)262 CTR (All) 545, 357 ITR 642, it was held that no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) as no amount remained payable at the year end and the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping & Transports, 136 ITD 23 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam) was noted, this cannot be agreed with as there is no reasoning for the finding. The dismissal of the department’s petition for special leave to appeal (SLP) was in limine. The dismissal of the SLP, therefore, does not confirm the view of the Allahabad High Court.”

levitra

Business expenditure – Disallowance of payment to directors – Section 40(c) – A. Y. 1981-82 – Film production – Amounts paid as professional charges to directors for directing and producing film – Amounts not paid in their capacity as members of Board of Directors – No disallowance can be made u/s. 40(c)

fiogf49gjkf0d

CIT vs. Rupam Pictures Pvt. Ltd.; 374 ITR 450 (Bom)

The assessee was in the business of production of films. In the A. Y. 1981-82, two directors of the assessee company were paid Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 1.5 lakh, respectively for directing and producing a film. The Assessing Officer applied section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and disallowed the payment in excess of Rs. 72,000/- in respect of each of them. The Tribunal deleted the addition.

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

“i) The disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer u/s. 40(c) was not justified. The amounts paid to the two individuals were not paid in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors but as professional charges for directing and producing a film.

ii) The Revenue was, therefore, not justified in disallowing the claim, the character of remuneration mode being different.”

levitra

Proviso to section 3 and section 37(1) – Business is set-up on recruitment of employees and all expenditure incurred thereafter are allowable as business expenditure.

fiogf49gjkf0d
5. Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd. vs. DCIT
ITAT “D” Bench, Mumbai
Before N.K. Billaiya (A M) and Amarjit Singh (J. M.)
I.T.A. No.3855/Mum/2013
A. Y. : 2008-09. Date of Order: 28.10.2015
Counsel for Assessee / Revenue: F.V. Irani / Vivek Anand Ojha

Proviso to section 3 and section 37(1) – Business is set-up on recruitment of employees and all expenditure incurred thereafter are allowable as business expenditure.

FACTS

The assessee is in the business of trading and merchandising of diamonds and gold jewelleries. Return for the year was filed disclosing loss of Rs. 87.26 lakh. On perusal of the annual account, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not started its business therefore the entire expenditures were disallowed. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who upheld the order of the AO. Before the Tribunal, the assessee placed before it the details of employee-wise salaries alongwith job description and details of tax deducted at source as well as the details regarding other expenses. The assessee further submitted that the setting up of business is different from commencement of business and the expenditures are allowable on setting up of business. It also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Omniglobe Information Tech India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Income Tax appeal No. 257 of 2012). The Revenue strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the decision relied upon by the assessee relates to service industries and therefore same cannot be applied on the facts of the assessee’s case.

HELD

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had recruited the employees for the purpose of its business. According to the Tribunal, the type of business the assessee was engaged in, require persons who have expertise in understanding the jewellery, and without such recruitment, it would not be possible to commence the business. It also referred to the proviso to section 3 of the Act, which defines the term “previous year” in relation to a newly setup business (and not with reference to the commencement of business), thus as contended by the assessee, the setting up of business was more relevant than the date of commencement of business.

Therefore, relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Omniglobe Information Tech India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that the recruitment of employees was indicative that business was set up by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Section 10A – Unless the initial years claim is withdrawn, subsequent years claim cannot be denied.

fiogf49gjkf0d
4. ACIT vs. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Mumbai `E’ Bench
Before N. K. Billaiya (AM) and Ram Lal Negi (JM)
ITA Nos. 4422/Mum/2012 and 6727/Mum/2011
A. Y.s: 2006-07 and 2007-08.  
Date of Order: 2.09. 2015.
Counsel for revenue / assessee: S. K. Mahapatra / Nitesh Joshi

Section 10A – Unless the initial years claim is withdrawn, subsequent years claim cannot be denied.

FACTS

Deduction u/s. 10A was first made by the assessee in assessment year 2005-06, which was allowed by the order dated 10.12.2008 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. For the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer (AO) denied claim for deduction u/s. 10A. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee on merits. Aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal where on behalf of the assessee it was argued that while the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal on merits, the Revenue could not withdraw the claim of deduction since unless the initial years claim is withdrawn, subsequent years claim cannot be denied.

HELD

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has considered such issue in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that “unless deductions allowed for the assessment year 1980-81 on the same grounds were withdrawn, they could not be denied for the subsequent years”. This decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was followed by the Hon’ble high Court in the case of CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 309 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that “where a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, then unless relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside, the Incometax Officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years. More particularly so, when the Revenue has not even suggested that there was any change in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years.”

Following the ratio laid down by the High Court, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of CIT(A). The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

Section 88E – STT paid on speculation loss has to be considered if after setting off the speculation loss against speculation gain there is positive income which has been included in the computation of total income.

fiogf49gjkf0d
3. Sanjay Mohanlal Mota (HUF) vs. ITO
ITAT Mumbai `E’ Bench
Before N. K. Billaiya (AM) and Ram Lal Negi (JM)
ITA No. 2988/Mum/2013
A. Y. : 2007-08.                                    
Date of Order: 3. 09. 2015.
Counsel for assessee / revenue : Jitendra Singh / S. K. Mahapatra

Section 88E – STT paid on speculation loss has to be considered if after setting off the speculation loss against speculation gain there is positive income which has been included in the computation of total income.

FACTS

The assessee was trading in shares and stocks and
also derived dividend income, interest income and rent which were
assessed under the head Income from Other Sources. While assessing the
total income, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the loss in
respect of speculative transaction, though assessed, was carried forward
and did not form part of total income. He asked the assessee to show
cause why proportionate STT of Rs.1,79,722 should not be treated as STT
relating to speculative transactions and therefore, why this amount
should not be reduced from the total STT paid. The assessee filed a
detailed reply where it contended that when speculation income is taxed
there is no reason its claim should not be allowed when there is a
speculation loss. It was also contended that there is no provision for
bifurcating STT paid on each type of transaction. The AO rejected the
contentions of the assessee and disallowed the proportionate claim of
STT of Rs.1,79,722. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the
CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, by the order
passed by CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held

A
perusal of the section 88E shows that the total income of the assessee
should include income chargeable under the head `profits and gains of
business or profession’ which arises from taxable securities
transactions. If this condition is fulfilled, then the assessee is
entitled to a deduction from the amount of income-tax on such income of
an amount equal to STT paid by him. Since the speculation loss is set
off against the speculation gain and thereafter if any positive income
remains that positive income is taken in the computation of total
income. Even the STT paid on speculation loss has to be considered while
giving effect to it. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the
AO with a direction to examine whether there is any positive income
remaining after giving set off to the speculation loss. The AO was
directed to allow the claim if positive income is found under this head
after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the
assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical
purposes.

Sections 22, 56 – Rent received for renting of terrace for installation of mobile antennas is chargeable to tax under the head `Income from House Property’. It is wholly irrelevant as to whether the antenna is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. As long as the space which has been rented out is part of the building the rent is required to be treated as `income from house property’.

fiogf49gjkf0d
11. [2015] 168 TTJ (Trib) 502 (Del)
Manpreet Singh vs. ITO
ITA No. 3976/Del/2013
Assessment Year: 2009-10.                   
Date of Order: 6.01.2015

Sections 22, 56 – Rent received for renting of terrace for installation of mobile antennas is chargeable to tax under the head `Income from House Property’. It is wholly irrelevant as to whether the antenna is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. As long as the space which has been rented out is part of the building the rent is required to be treated as `income from house property’.

FACTS

In the return of income filed by the assessee, an individual, amounts aggregating to Rs.2,91,723 received from Bharati Airtel and Idea Cellular Limited towards renting out its terrace for use by these companies for installing mobile antennas were offered for taxation under the head `Income from House Property’. The assessee had claimed deduction @ 30% u/s. 24(a) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) considered this sum of Rs.2,91,723 to be chargeable to tax under the head `Income from Other Sources’. He denied deduction of Rs.87,516 claimed u/s. 24(a) and added back this sum to the total income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO by relying on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 161 CTR 470 (Cal). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal noted that under the terms of the leave and license agreement entered into by the assessee rent was for use of “roof and terrace” area (not more than 900 sq. ft. in case of Bharti Airtel and not more than 800 sq. ft. in case of Idea Cellular Ltd.). The installations mentioned in the leave and license agreement, which were permitted, were to be done by the companies. The obligation of the assessee did not exceed beyond permitting use of space for such installations. There was no dispute on the fact that the assessee was the owner of the property. The CIT(A) upheld the taxability under the head `income from other sources’ and thus rejected the claim of deduction u/s. 24(a) on the basis of his understanding of the law laid down by the Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal held that the reliance of CIT(A) on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukerjee Estates (P) Ltd. was misplaced since in that case the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the assessee had let out the hoardings and the assessee had failed to substantiate whether the roof was let out or the hoarding was let out. Undisputedly, the assessee was the owner of the property. Rent was for space to host the antennas and not for the antennas. The Tribunal held that since rent is for the space, terrace and roof space in this case, and which space is certainly a part of the building, the rent can only be taxed as `income from house property’. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Section 271E – Order passed u/s. 271E levying penalty for violation of provisions of section 269T was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated.

fiogf49gjkf0d
15. [2015] 43 ITR (Trib) 683 (Del)
ITO vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd.
ITA No. 5443/Del/2013
A. Y. : 2005-06.                       
Date of Order: 27.03.2015

Section 271E – Order passed u/s. 271E levying penalty for violation of provisions of section 269T was required to be passed within six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated.

FACTS

The assessment of total income was completed vide order dated 28th December, 2007 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271E of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order dated 28th December, 2007. Upon dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A), the AO referred the matter regarding penalty under section 271E to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax who issued a show cause notice on 12th March, 2012.

Order levying penalty u/s. 271E was passed on 20th March, 2012. Aggrieved by the order levying penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who allowed the appeal on the ground that the penalty order was time barred. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal noted that the stand taken by the CIT(A) in holding that the impugned penalty order is time barred on the ground that section 275(1)(c) of the Act will apply in the cases of penalty for violation of section 269SS, has been approved by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 433 (Del). The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court had made a mention of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) expressing a similar view. It noted the following observations of the Delhi High Court:

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so clause (c) of section 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding is usually initiated when during some proceedings such default is noticed, though the final fact finding in this proceeding may not have any bearing on the issues relating to establishing default, e.g. penalty for not deducting tax at source while making payment to employees, or contractor, or for that matter not making payment through cheque or demand draft where it is so required to be made. Either of the contingencies does not affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of clause (c) would arise.”

The Tribunal, following the ratio of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as the penalty order was passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated in the month of December 2007 and the penalty order was thus required to be passed before 30th June, 2008, the penalty order was in fact passed on 20th March, 2012. The date on which the CIT(A) has passed order in the quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty.

The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

Depreciation – Carrying on of business – Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of previous years – Section 32(2) and 41(2) – A. Y. 2002-03 – Where once amount realised by assessee by sale of building, plant and machinery was treated as income arising out of profits and gains from business by virtue of section 41(2) notwithstanding fact that assessee was not carrying on any business during relevant assessment year, provision contained in section 32(2) would become applicable and, consequently, set-

fiogf49gjkf0d
Karnataka Trade Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT; [2015] 62 taxmann.com 239 (Karn)

The appellant is a Public Limited Company manufacturing cement in a factory situated at Mathodu village, Hosadurga Taluk. In the relevant year, i.e. A. Y. 2002- 03, the assessee had not carried on any business. In the relevant year the assessee had received amounts on sale of building, plant and machinery and as a result an amount of Rs. 34,01,644/- was treated as income from business u/s. 41(2). However, the assessee’s claim for set off of the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was rejected. This was upheld by the Tribunal.

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

“In computing the income from business, the provisions of Section 32 as well as Section 41 of the Act would be applicable. Therefore, once the amount realized by the assessee by sale of building, plant and machinery is treated as income arising out of the profits and gains from the business by virtue of Section 41(2) of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee was not carrying on any business during the relevant assessment year, the provision contained in Section 32(2) become applicable and consequently, the setoff has to be given for unabsorbed depreciation allowances of previous year brought forward in terms of that provision.”

Loss – Carry forward and set off – Section 79 – A. Y. 2002-03 – During the relevant assessment year holding company of assessee reduced its shareholding from the 51% to 6% by transferring its 45% shares to another 100% subsidiary company – 51% of voting rights remained with the holding company – The revenue not justified in refusing to allow carry forward and set-off of business losses

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. AMCO Power Systems Ltd.; [2015] 62 taxmann. com 350 (Karn)

In the A. Y. 2002-03, 51% of the shares of the assessee were held by the holding company. In the relevant year the holding company transferred 45% shares to another 100% subsidiary company. In the relevant year, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee’s claim for set off of the carried forward loss relying on section 79, on the ground that the voting power of the holding company is reduced from 51% to 6%. The Tribunal held that the voting power of the holding company has remained at 51% and allowed the assessee’s claim.

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

“The expression ”not less than 51% of voting power…”used in Section 79 indicates that only voting power is relevant and not the shareholding pattern. Despite transfer of shares, the holding-company still holds effective control over the assessee-company. The objective of Section 79 is to prevent misuse of losses carry forward by the new owner. Therefore, losses could be carry forward and setoff even if there is change in shareholding since effective control over the assessee company is unchanged.”

Revision – Section 263 – A. Y. 2007-08 – Assessee consistently following project completion method – Revision on the ground that other method is preferable – Revision not valid

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Aditya Builders.; 378 ITR 75 (Bom):

The Assessee was engaged in construction of commercial and residential premises. For the A. Y. 2007- 08, the Assessing Officer accepted the project completion method followed by the assessee and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3). Exercising the powers u/s. 263 of the Act, the Commissioner set aside the assessment and directed to recomputed the income of the asessee applying the percentage completion method. The Tribunal held that the assessee had been consistently following project completion method over the years. Moreover, the issue relating to the appropriate method of accounting is a debatable issue and, thus, the Commissioner would have no jurisdiction u/s. 263 to direct application of one particular method of accounting in preference to another. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner.

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

“The assessee had chosen the project completion method of accounting and had been consistently following it over the years. The Revenue could not reject the method because, according to the Commissioner, another method was preferable. Thus, no fault could be found with the order of the Tribunal.”

Charitable trust – Exemption u/s. 11(2) – A. Y. 2005-06 – Accumulation of income – Three purposes given covered by fourteen objects of trust – More than one purpose specified in Form 10 and details about plan of such expenditure not given – Not sufficient to deny exemption

fiogf49gjkf0d
DIT(E) vs. Envisions; 278 ITR 483 (Karn):

The assessee, a registered charitable trust, collected donations of Rs.32,47,909/- and incurred incidental expenses of Rs.7,527/-. For the A. Y. 2005-06, it claimed the remaining amount as accumulation u/s. 11(2). In Form 10, 3 purposes were given out of the 14 objects of the Trust. The Assessing Officer disallowed the accumulation holding that the purpose stated was vague and thus the benefit of section 11(2) was denied. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed the assesee’s claim.

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

“i) T he objects of the trust, as given in the trust deed, were 14 in number. The three purposes for which accumulation was prayed for and mentioned in Form 10 by the assessee were undisputedly covered by the objects of the trust. As such, it could not be disputed that the purpose mentioned by the assessee while claiming the benefit, was for achieving the objects of the trust.

ii) M erely because more than one purpose had been specified and details about the plan of such expenditure had not been given would not be sufficient to deny the benefit u/s. 11(2) to the assessee. As long as the objects of the trust are charitable in character and as long as the purpose or purposes mentioned in Form 10 are for achieving the objects of the trust, merely because of nonfurnishing of the details, as to how the amount was proposed to be spent in future, the assessee could not be denied the exemption as was admissible u/s. 11(2) of the Act.”

Rollatainers Ltd. vs. ACIT ITAT Delhi `F’ Bench Before R. S. Syal (AM) and C. M. Garg (JM) ITA No. 3134 /Del/2010 Assessment Year: 2003-04. Decided on: 6th August, 2015. Counsel for assessee / revenue : Gaurav Jain / Vikram Sahay

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 147 – Internal audit cannot perform functions of judicial supervision. Initiation of re-assessment on the basis of an interpretation of the provisions of law by the audit party is forbidden, the communication of law or the factual inconsistencies by the internal audit party, do not operate as a hindrance in the initiation of re-assessment proceedings.

Facts:
The assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,48,92,067. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the loss at Rs.11,32,76,728. While assessing the total income the AO allowed deduction of Rs.3,61,75,597 out of unpaid interest of earlier year amounting to Rs.5,01,38,035 u/s. 43B on the basis of the claim of the assessee that it was discharged / paid.

The audit scrutiny of the assessment records revealed that out of the amount of Rs.3,61,75,597 which was allowed by the AO as a deduction, a sum of Rs.2,45,01,117 was transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary company. The audit party pointed out to the AO that this sum of Rs. 2,45,01,117 was not actually paid but only transferred to subsidiary company and consequently it ought to have been disallowed.

The AO, after recording reasons, issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.ws. 147 of the Act, the AO disallowed the claim of Rs.2,45,01,117.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who upheld the action of the AO in reopening the assessment and also on merits.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal where interalia, it challenged the re-opening on the ground that in view of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC) initiation of reassessment on the basis of internal audit report was not sustainable.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that it had to examine whether the assessee’s case fell within the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. PVS Beedis Pvt. Ltd. 237 ITR 13 (SC) in which the initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of audit objection has been held to be valid or in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (supra) and further CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC).

The logic in not sustaining the initiation of reassessment on the basis of interpretation of law by the audit party is that the internal auditor cannot be allowed to perform the functions of judicial supervision over the Income-tax authorities by suggesting to the AO about how a provision should be interpreted and whether the interpretation so given by the AO to a particular provision of the Act is right or wrong. An interpretation to a provision given by the audit party cannot be construed as a declaration of law binding on the AO.When an internal audit party objects to the interpretation given by the AO to a provision and proposes substitution of such interpretation with the one it feels right, it crosses its jurisdiction and enters into the realm of judicial supervision, which it is not authorised to do. In such circumstances, the initiation of reassessment, based on the substituted interpretation of a provision by the internal audit party, cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the Madras High Court has in the case of CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. 241 ITR 248 (Mad) aptly explained the position that although, the audit party is not entitled to judicially interpret a provision, but at the same time, it can communicate the law to the AO, which he omitted to consider. It also noted that the Madras High Court has observed that the Supreme Court has made a distinction between the communication of law and interpretation of law.

Where the audit party interprets the provision of law in a manner contrary to what the AO had done, it does not lay down a valid foundation for the initiation of reassessment proceedings. If however, the audit party does not offer its own interpretation to the provisions and simply communicates the existence of law to the AO or any other factual inaccuracy, then the initiation of reassessment proceedings on such basis cannot be faulted with.

In a nutshell, whereas the initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of an interpretation to the provisions of law by the audit party is forbidden, the communication of law or the factual inconsistencies by the internal audit party, do not operate as a hindrance in the initiation of reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the audit objection, in this case, divulged that the audit party simply suggested that the interest of Rs.2.45 crore was not actually paid, but, only transferred to a subsidiary company and the same should have been disallowed and this omission on the part of the AO resulted in over assessment of loss of Rs.2.45 crore. This, according to the Tribunal, showed that the AO was simply informed of the fact which had escaped his attention during the course of assessment proceedings to the effect that the sum of Rs.2.45 crore was not allowable u/s. 43B of the Act which is nothing, but a communication of law to the AO. The Tribunal observed that it was not confronted with a situation in which the AO, after due consideration of the matter in the original assessment proceedings interpreted 43B as allowing deduction for a sum of Rs.2.45 crore in respect of interest not paid to financial institutions, but, transferred to assessee’s wholly owned subsidiary company, but, the audit party interpreted this provision in a different manner from the way in which it was interpreted by the AO and then suggested that the amount ought to have been charged to tax. According to the Tribunal, the instant case is fully covered by the decision in the case of PVS Beedis Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and consequently the audit objection in the instant case constituted an `information’ about the escapement of income to the AO, thereby justifying the initiation of reassessment.

levitra

Malineni Babulu (HUF) vs. Income Tax Officer ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad P. Madhavi Devi (J.M.) and Inturi Rama Rao (A. M.) I.T.A. No.: 1326/HYD/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10. Decided on 07-08-2015 Counsel for Assessee / Revenue: S. Rama Rao/ D. Srinivas

fiogf49gjkf0d

Section 40(a)(ia) – Non deduction of tax at source on interest paid as payees furnished Form 15H – Mere non-filing of Form 15H would not entail disallowance of interest paid.

Facts:
One of the issues before the Tribunal was regarding addition of Rs.0.98 lakh made under the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia). During the year, the appellant had made interest payment of Rs.0.98 lakh to the coparceners of the appellant. It was claimed that the taxable income of the payees was below the taxable limit hence Form 15H were obtained from them and it was claimed to have been submitted to the CIT, Guntur by post, but no proof in support of the dispatch by post was furnished before the CIT. However, copies of Form 15H were filed before the AO. The CIT acting u/s. 263 directed the AO to disallow the same for failure to adduce evidence in support of dispatch of Form 15H by post.

Held:
According to the Tribunal, mere non-filing of Form 15H with the CIT does not entail disallowance of expenditure. It is only a technical breach of law and the Act provides for separate penal provisions for such default. Thus, according to the Tribunal, where the taxable income of the payees is below the taxable limit and Form 15H is obtained from them no disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) can be made. Further, relying on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. ITO [2014] [49 Taxmann.com 533, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

levitra

Smt. Rekha Rani vs. DCIT ITAT Delhi `F’ Bench Before G. C. Gupta (VP) and Inturi Rama Rao (AM) ITA No. 6131 /Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10. Decided on: 6th May, 2015. Counsel for assessee / revenue : None / Vikram Sahay

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 271(1)(b) – The provision of section 271(1)(b) is of
deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b)
could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the
Act, which remains not complied with on the part of the assessee.

Facts:
The
Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on five
different dates and the assessee failed to comply with the same. The AO
invoked the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed
penalty of Rs. 10,000 for each default on the ground that the assessee
had no reasonable cause for not appearing on the date fixed for hearing.
Thus, he levied a total penalty of Rs.50,000. Aggrieved, the assessee
preferred an appeal before CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
The
Tribunal observed that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the
assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the
AO in response to the notices issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act. The
Tribunal found that the default was the same in all the five cases and
therefore, it held, that penalty of Rs.10,000 could be imposed for the
first default made by the assessee in this regard. It held that the
penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice
issued under section 143(2), which remained not complied with on the
part of the assessee. It observed that the provision of section 271(1)
(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. It held that any
other view taken shall lead to imposition of penalty for any number of
times (without limits) for the same default of not appearing in response
to the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. This, according to the Tribunal,
does not seem to be the intention of the legislature in enacting the
provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. It observed that in case of
failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notice u/s.143(2)
of the Act, the remedy with the AO lies in framing “best judgement
assessment” under the provisions of section 144 of the Act and not to
impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again.

The
Tribunal restricted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act to the
first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice issued
u/s. 143(2) of the Act.

The appeal filed by assessee was partly allowed.

levitra

Charitable trust – Exemption u/s. 11 – A. Y. 2008- 09 – Hospital – Application of income to objects and for purposes of trust – Charity Commissioner giving directions from time to time – Amounts charged or surcharges levied on bills given to indore patients – To be treated as income from activities of trust – Entitled to exemption u/s. 11

fiogf49gjkf0d
DIT(Exemp) vs. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre; 378 ITR 230 (Bom):

The assessee is a charitable trust running a hospital. For the A. Y. 2008-09, the assessee declared total income at Nil claiming exemption u/s. 11. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee levied surcharge of 20% on the bills given to the patients and recovered 25% of the fees paid to honrary doctors. The Assessing Officer treated these amounts as corpus donations and denied exemption u/s. 11. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim and deleted the addition.

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

“i) T he Tribunal concurred with its earlier order in relation to exemption. Despite the directions of the Charity Commissioner, the Revenue could not insist that the amount charged or surcharges levied should not be treated as income from the activities of the trust. The authorities under the Income-tax Act are supposed to scrutinize the papers and related documents of the trust or the assessee so as to bring the income to tax and in accordance with the Income-tax Act.

ii) In such circumstances, the concurrent finding did not in any manner indicate that the directions issued by the Charity Commissioner are incapable of being complied with or liable to be ignored. The directions issued did not change the character of the receipts. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law.”

National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. JCIT ITAT Delhi Special Bench `F’ Bench Before Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud (President), G. C. Gupta (VP) and R. S. Syal (AM) ITA Nos. 1999 & 2000/Del/2008 Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2002-03. Date of Order: 16th October, 2015. Counsel for assessee / revenue : Hiren Mehta & Sanjeev Kwatra / Sulekha Verma

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 37(1) – If a claim of damages and interest thereon is
disputed by the assessee in the court of law, deduction cannot be
allowed for the interest claimed on such damages. Deduction can be
allowed only when an enforceable liability to pay the same arises
irrespective of the fact that it relates to earlier years.

Facts
For
assessment year 2001-02, the assessee filed its return of income and
the assessment was completed on 27.2.2004 u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During
the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2003-04, a special audit
u/s. 142(2A) was carried out which divulged interalia that the assessee
had claimed deduction for interest payable to M/s Alimenta SA
Switzerland (`Alimenta’) on account of arbitration award, which was
disputed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the
assessee claimed deduction of interest amounting to Rs. 7.92 crore
payable to Alimenta for AY 2001-02. Such interest was not debited to P
& L Account, but was directly reduced in the computation of total
income. He also observed that since tax was not deducted at source,
amount was not allowable u/s. 40(a)(i) as well. Notice u/s. 148 was
issued and duly served on the assessee.

In the course of
assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the claim for deduction was
not backed by any corresponding liability to pay; the liability claimed
by the assessee as deduction was not acknowledged due to ongoing
litigation and proceedings for compromise. He also noticed that the
assessee had not deducted tax and therefore in view of provisions of
section 40(a)(i), as well, the amount was not allowable. He rejected the
assessee’s contention that there was a breach of contract on its part
for which the Delhi High Court held it liable for loss incurred by
Alimenta and also interest @ 18% per annum from the date of award till
the date of realisation; the judgment delivered by Delhi High Court was
binding, the liability was determined and ascertained because of the
decree of the Delhi High Court notwithstanding the assessee filing an
appeal against it.

The AO disallowed the assessee’s claim.
Aggrieved, by the additions made, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO.

Aggrieved,
by the order passed by CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to the
Tribunal. Similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee, by the
Tribunal, for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Division Bench
was not convinced with the reasoning given by the Tribunal in its order
for AY s 2003-004 and 2004- 05 in deleting the disallowance of interest
and made a reference for constitution of a Special Bench.

The President posted the following question for consideration of the Special Bench-

“Whether
on the facts and circumstances of the case, where claim of damages and
interest thereon is disputed by the assessee in the court of law,
deduction can be allowed for the interest claimed on such damages while
computing business income?”

Held
(i) Under the
mercantile system of accounting, an assessee gets deduction when
liability to pay an expense arises, notwithstanding its actual
quantification and discharge taking place subsequently. The relevant
criteria for the grant of a deduction is that the incurring of liability
must be certain. If the liability itself is uncertain, it assumes the
character of a contingent liability and ceases to be deductible. Thus, a
deduction can be allowed only when an assessee incurs liability to pay
an amount in the nature of an expense. The aspect of incurring a
liability needs to be understood in a correct perspective. It is here
that a distinction between a contractual and a statutory liability
assumes significance. A statutory liability is incurred on a mere
issuance of a demand notice against the assessee and becomes deductible
at that point of time. The factum of the assessee raising a dispute
against such a demand does not ruin the incurring of liability. On the
contrary, a contractual liability is not incurred on a mere raising of
demand by a claimant. It arises only when such a claim is either
acknowledged or in a case of non-acceptance, when a final obligation to
pay is fastened coupled with the claimant acquiring a legal right to
receive such an amount. Unless the claimant acquires an enforceable
right to receive, it cannot be said that the first person has incurred a
liability to pay such an amount. To put it simply, in the case of a
contractual dispute between the parties, liability of the assessee to
pay arises only when the claimant against the assessee acquires some
legal right to receive the amount. In the absence of the vesting of any
such right in the claimant, neither he earns any income nor the assessee
incurs a corresponding liability to pay, entitling him to claim
deduction for the same. The crux of the matter is that, except for the
assessee accepting a contractual claim, his liability to pay does not
arise until some legal obligation to pay is fixed on him. A legal
obligation to pay is attached on an assessee when a competent court
passes order and a suit is decreed against him and not during the
pendency of litigation. This difference between a contractual and a
statutory liability has been recognised by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
in assessee’s own case since reported as National Agricultural
Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 338 ITR
36 (Del).

(ii) On facts, the legally enforceable liability
against the assessee to pay interest at the rate of 18% to Alimenta,
which was created by the decree of the ld. Single Judge dated 28.1.2000,
remained suspended from the date of stay granted by the Division bench
of the Hon’ble High Court on 28.2.2001. It is only on the passing of the
consequential judgment and decree by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
September, 2010, subject to certain stays etc. granted against the
operation of this judgment, that the assessee incurred a legally
enforceable liability to pay such interest to Alimenta.

(iii)
Now the moot question is, whether the assessee is entitled to deduction
for interest at the rate of 18% decreed by the ld. Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court in the computation of income for the years under
consideration. The answer will be in affirmative if the assessee had any
legal obligation to pay such interest during the years in question and
vice versa. We can do this by ascertaining if any legally enforceable
liability existed against the assessee to pay interest in the years
under consideration. Per contra, was Alimenta legally entitled to
receive such interest income during the years in question? It is
pertinent that the stay order against the judgment and decree of the ld.
Single Judge was passed by the Division Bench on 28.2.2001, which is
well within the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02
under consideration and remained operative in subsequent years including
the immediately succeeding year in appeal. This shows that the assessee
did not have any legal obligation to pay interest during these two
years. The hitherto obligation which was created by the judgment of the
ld. Single judge against the assessee was eclipsed and frustrated by the
later judgment of the Division bench and such obligation ceased to
exist for the time being.
iv)     Unless     there     is     a     specific     contrary     provision, deduction for an expense can be allowed in the year in which     liability     to     pay     finally     arises.    Once     a     person     has    not voluntarily accepted a contractual obligation and further there subsists no legal obligation to pay qua such contractual claim at a particular time, it cannot be said that the person incurred any liability to pay at that point of time so as to make him eligible for deduction on that count. Not withstanding the fact that obligation relates to an earlier year, the liability to pay arises only in the later  year,    when    a    final    enforceable    obligation    to    pay    is    settled    against that person. In our considered opinion, there is  no qualitative difference between the two situations, viz.,  first,     in    which     no     enforceable     liability     to     pay     is     created    in     the     first     instance,     and     second,     in     which     though     the enforceable liability was initially created but the same stands wiped out by the stay on the operation of such enforceable liability. In both the situations, claimant remains without any legal right to recover the amount and equally the opposite party without any legal obligation to pay the same. neither any income accrues to the claimant, nor any deduction is earned by the opposite party. We are instantly confronted with the second type of situation in which the obligation created against the assessee by the judgment of the ld. Single judge on 28.1.2000 was stayed by the judgment of the  division Bench on 28.2.2001, which position continued till the decree on the judgment dt. 6.9.2010 reviving the judgment of the ld. Single judge, became enforceable. even though the crystallization of liability of the assessee to pay interest pursuant to the developments after 6.9.2010 also covers earlier years including the years under consideration, but such liability of the assessee became due only on the acquisition of right by alimenta to enforce the decree issued on the advent of the judgment dated 6.9.2010. Consequently, the assessee can claim deduction for such interest only at such a later stage and not during the years under consideration.

(v)  The Special Bench answered the question posted before it in negative by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where claim of damages and interest thereon is disputed by the assessee in the court of law, deduction can’t be allowed for the interest claimed on such damages in the computation of business income.

[2015] 173 TTJ (Pune)(UO) 17 Bhavarlal Hiralal Jain & Others vs. DCIT ITA No. 735 to 738 & 778 to 780/Pn/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10. Date of Order: 28th November, 2014

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 2(24)(iv) – In the absence of any material on record to show that the company has paid any amount to its consultant specifically for services rendered by him to the assessee in connection with the individual tax matters of the assessee, no part of the remuneration paid by the company is assessable as a perquisite in his hands.

Facts
The Assessing Officer noticed that a company Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. (JISL) had paid a sum of Rs. 2,79,000 as consultancy fees to Mr. Wohra, a Chartered Accountant. The said Chartered Accountant had also attended various matters of the assessee and his family members. He had filed returns of 5 gentlemen and 4 lady members of the family of the assessee but had not charged any amount for services rendered to the assessee and his family members. Since the assessee was a director of the company JISL, the Assessing Officer regarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as a perquisite taxable u/s. 2(24)(iv) of the Act and included it in the total income of the assessee.

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

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held
It is not mandatory or compulsory for any professional to charge for professional services rendered to any director or relative of a director or close family members of directors when he is getting fees for rendering services to a company. He may do it voluntarily and free of cost as well. The Tribunal observed that there is no material on record to show that the company has paid any amount to the consultant on behalf of the assessee.

In the absence of any material on record to show that the company has paid any amount to its consultant specifically for the services rendered by him in connection with the individual tax matters of the assessee and other family members of the assessee, no part of the remuneration paid by the company was held to be assessable as perquisite in the hands of the assessee.

This ground of appeal of the assessee was allowed.

levitra

[2015] 70 SOT 92 (Mum) Shivalik Venture (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 2008(Mum) of 2012 Assessment Year: 2009-10. Date of Order: 19th August, 2015

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 115JB – An item of receipt which does not fall under the definition of “income” at all and hence falls outside the purview of the computation provisions of Income-tax Act cannot also be included in “book profit” u/s. 115JB of the Act.

Facts
The assessee company, engaged in the business of development and leasing of commercial complexes and rehabilitation of buildings under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme held a parcel of land as its capital asset and the said land was attached with development rights/FSI. The development rights/FSI attached to a portion of the said land were transferred by the assessee to its subsidiary company. In view of the provisions of section 47(iv) being applicable, to the assessee company, the capital gains arising on the said transfer to its subsidiary company were not included in the total income of the assessee company.

While computing the `book profit’ u/s. 115JB also, the assessee company did not offer the said amount on the ground that since the said amount was not income it did not come within the purview of section 115JB. The assessee had attached a note in the Notes forming part of accounts explaining therein that the profits arising on transfer of capital asset to its subsidiary company is, in its opinion, not coming within the purview of section115JB.

The Assessing Officer (AO) did not agree with the contentions of the assessee and he included the amount of profit on transfer of development rights in the `net profit’ for the purpose of computing `book profit’ u/s. 115JB of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal where it contended that the profit and loss account should be read along with the Notes forming part of accounts and the net profit should be understood as the net profit show in the profit and loss account as adjusted by the Notes given in the notes to accounts. It was also contended that since the profit arising on transfer of a capital asset by a company to its wholly owned subsidiary company is not treated as income u/s. 2(24) and since it does not enter into computation provision at all under the normal provision of the Act, the same should not be considered for the purpose of computing book profit u/s. 115JB.

Held
The Tribunal observed that in the instant case the assessee has disclosed an item of income in the profit and loss account, but claimed that the same should be excluded by referring to the Notes to accounts. However, the principle, that the profit and loss account should be read along with Notes to accounts should be applied uniformly in all kind of situations and, hence, due adjustment needs to be done for the effect of items disclosed in the Notes to accounts. The Tribunal held that there is merit in the contention of the assessee that the notes given to Notes to accounts should be read along with the profit and loss account. Hence, the net profit shown in the profit and loss account should be adjusted with the items given in Notes to accounts, meaning thereby, the profits arising on sale of capital asset to its wholly owned subsidiary company should be excluded from the net profit and the net profit so arrived at should be considered as `net profit as shown in the profit and loss account’ used in Explanation I to section 115JB. Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB specifically provides that the amount of income to which any of the provisions of section 10(other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) is to be reduced from net profit, if they are credited to the profit and loss account. The logic of these provisions, is that an item of receipt which falls under the definition of `income’ is excluded for the purpose of computing `book profit’, since the said receipts are exempted under section 10 while computing total income. Thus, it is seen that the Legislature seeks to maintain parity between the computation of `total income’ and `book profit’, in respect of exempted category of income. If the said logic is extended further, an item of receipt which does not fall under the definition of `income’ at all and, hence, falls outside the purview of the computation provisions of the Income tax Act, cannot also be included in `book profit’ u/s. 115JB.

This ground of appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

levitra

[2015] 154 ITD 299 (Guwahati) Assistant CIT vs. Murlidhar Gattani A.Y. 2007-08 Date of Order: 22nd January, 2015

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – ‘Milk’ is an article or thing mentioned in Part-A of Fourteenth Schedule of the Act and profit derived from production of milk is eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IC of the Act.

FACTS
The assessee, a proprietorship concern, was carrying on business of production of milk and milk based products, and had claimed deduction u/s. 80-IC in respect of profit & gains derived from the said business.

The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim holding that the article or thing, viz., milk, mawa, cream against which the assessee had sought deduction u/s. 80-IC were not specified in the Fourteenth Schedule referred to in section 80-IC(2)(b).

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that ‘Milk’ was an article mentioned in Fourteenth Schedule of the Act, and that profit derived from milk was eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IC subject to other conditions laid down in section 80 IC of the Act.

On revenue’s appeal:

HELD

CIT-(A) had held that that Milk is an article mentioned in Fourteen Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that profit derived from Milk is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act by making following observation-

Sl. No.5 of Schedule 14 in respect of North Eastern States reads as under: Milk and milk based product industries manufacturing or producingi.

i. Milk Powder;
ii. Cheese;
iii. Butterghee;
iv. Infant food;
v. Weaning food;
vi. Malted milk food

The point is whether the first word (milk) in the items read independently or in conjunction with the word “based industries”. In order to find the answer, it may be useful to look at some of the other items in Schedule 14. Item 4 is Food & Beverages Industries. This may read as Food Industries and Beverages Industries. Similarly, meat and poultry Product Industries may be read as Meat Product Industries & Poultry Product industries.

The milk and milk based industries were definitely not used in a similar way because had it been so, one of the words “Milk” appearing therein would become superfluous. Therefore, the first “Milk” appearing in item No. 5 must be read separately. Therefore, the milk is an article or thing mentioned in Part A of Schedule XIV.

Also in the case of CIT vs. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444, the Honorable Apex Court while explaining the meaning of the word “production” has observed as under:

‘The expression “produced” was given a wider meaning than the word “manufacture” pointing out that the word “produced” will include an activity of manufacturing the materials by applying human endeavour on some existing raw material, but the word ‘produce’ may include securing certain produce from natural elements, for example, by milching the cow the milkman, produce milk though he has not applied any process on any raw material for the purpose of bringing into existence the thing known as milk’

‘The word “production” or “produce” when used in juxtaposition with the word ‘manufacture’ takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.’

In view of the above decision of the Honorable Apex Court, it is held that “Milk” is an article or thing which can be produced by the assessee and the view taken by the CIT- (A) that “Milk” is an article or thing mentioned in Part-A of Fourteenth Schedule of the Act, and that the profit derived from production of milk is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act is upheld.

levitra

[2015] 154 ITD 161 (Mumbai – Trib.) Assistant CIT vs.Yusuf K. Hamied A.Y. 2009-10 Date of Order: 21st January, 2015

fiogf49gjkf0d

Section 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Where assessee occupies accommodation that belongs to employer as per independent rent agreement by paying standard rent and also receives HRA from his employer for not getting accommodation then no perquisite addition can be made u/s. 17(2)(ii).

FACTS
The assessee was having tenancy agreement with his landlord, M/s CIPLA, who was also employer of assessee.

The assessee was occupying the house in the capacity of a tenant by paying standard rent.

The AO held that the assessee had derived the perquisite benefit u/s. 17(2)(ii), since the property could have fetched the rent much higher than the rent paid by the assessee. Accordingly, he made the addition

On appeal, the CIT-(A) deleted the addition holding that the assessee did not derive any benefit in his capacity of employee.

On appeal by the revenue.

HELD
The findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition made were as follows –

There is no legal authority or principle to deny coexistence of employer-employee relationship and landlord-tenant relationship. Separate contractual relationships can co-exist with independent terms. No law or principle can come in the way of distinct and independent contractual relationships between the very same parties.

Also the assesse is paying standard rent and standard rent cannot be called as nominal rent. In fact, it is a fair rent which is also the measure for calculating income from house property.

The assessee has occupied the accommodation as a tenant of CIPLA, being the landlord of the premises. CIPLA has not recovered any rent from the appellant pursuant to employer-employee relationship; rather CIPLA has received rent from the assessee in terms of contract of tenancy independent of the contract of employment.

Therefore, CIT(A) was of the considered view that the deemed mechanism of computation of value of perquisite u/s. 17(2)(ii) cannot be applied to the facts of this.

The aforesaid findings of CIT-(A) has not been controverted by the Department.

Hence, since the assessee has occupied accommodation that belongs to employer as per independent rent agreement by paying standard rent and has also received HRA from his employer for not getting accommodation no perquisite addition can be made u/s. 17(2)(ii).

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

levitra

Income or capital – A. Y. 2008-09 – Fund allotted to Government Company for a scheme – Specific direction that the interest on the amount should be utilised for the scheme – Interest is not assessable as income

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and export Corporation Ltd.; 277 ITR 496 (Karn):

The assessee is a company fully owned by the Government of Karnataka engaged in trading in agricultural produce. The Government of Karnataka sanctioned Rs. 10 crore for improvement of infrastructure in order to encourage the farmers for development of horticulture sector and to promote exports. The grant of Rs. 10 crore was kept in fixed deposits by the assessee till utilisation for the desired projects. The Government of Karnataka had specifically directed that the interest earned on fixed deposits should be treated as additional grant of the scheme and not to be treated as “income of the assessee”. The Assessing Officer assessed the interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal deleted the addition.

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

“There was no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom from deposits had to be utilized only for the purpose of the scheme originally granted. The whole of the fund belonged to the State exchequer and the assessee had to channelise them to achieve the objects of centrally sponsored scheme of infrastructural development as specified in the Government order. Hence, interest on all these fixed deposits had to be considered as capitalised and not revenue receipts to be treated as income.”

levitra

Income – Mutuality – A. Y. 1986-87 – Co-operative society allotting plots in land to members at premium – Ownership of land remaining with society – Premium to be utilised for development of common facilities and amenities – Co-operative society a mutual concern – Premium received for transfer of plots exempt from tax

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Prabhukunja Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; 377 ITR 13 (Guj)(FB): 279 CTR 466 (GUJ)(FB):

The
assessee is a co-operative housing society. It owned lands for
residential use. Such lands were developed by the society for providing
common amenities such as internal roads, drainage, street lights if need
be, common plot and club house. Individual plots were allotted to
members who enjoy occupational rights but ownership of the land always
remained with the society. On the plot of land so allotted, the member
would be allowed to construct his residential unit. Upon transfer of the
plot by a member, the society would collect 50% of the excess or
premium. The fund so collected would be appropriated in the common fund
of the society to be utilised according to the bye-laws which envisaged
development of common facilities and expenditure for common amenities. A
part of the surplus would be diverted to the reserve fund of the
society. The surplus could also be utilised for waiver of the lease
amount or for the health, education and social activities of the
members. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not a
co-operative society but an association of persons engaged in business
and, accordingly, made an addition to the income of the assessee on
account of the premium received for transfer of plots. The Commissioner
(Appeals) held that the assessee was governed by the principles of
mutuality, and such amount was not taxable in the hands of the assessee
society. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

In appeal by the Revenue, the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i)
Contributions made by the members to the general fund of a co-operative
society in various forms would be governed by the principle of
mutuality. Particularly, in the case of premium collected by the society
from its outgoing member from out of a portion of his profit, the
principle of mutuality would apply and the receipt would not be taxable
as income of the society.

ii) There was total identity of
contributors of the fund and recipients from the fund. The contribution
came from the outgoing member in the form of a portion of the premium
and it was utilised for the common facilities and amenities for the
members of the society. Different modes of application of the funds made
it clear that the funds would be expended for common amenities or for
general benefit of the members or be distributed amongst the members in
the form of dividend or lease rents waiver.

iii) Creation of the
society was primarily for the convenience of the members to create a
housing society where individual members could construct their
residential units and common facilities and amenities could be provided
by the society. It was essential thus that a combined activity be
carried on by a group of persons who would be the members in the
co-operative society.

iv) Merely because upon the winding up of
the society, the surplus fund would be utilised by the Registrar as
provided under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and would
not be returned to the members, that would not break down the
relationship of mutuality since even in the eventuality of winding up,
there was no scope of profiteering by the members. Therefore, the
premium received by the assesses for transfer of plots was exempt from
tax.”

levitra

Income – Deemed profit – Section 41(1) – A. Y. 2007-08 – Amounts shown for several years as due to sundry creditors – Amount not written off in relevant year – Genuineness of credits not doubted – Amount not assessable u/s. 41

fiogf49gjkf0d
Principal CIT vs. Matruprasad C. Pandey; 377 ITR 363 (Guj):

For the A. Y. 2007-08, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 56,96,645/- u/s. 41(1), doubting certain sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 56,96,645 appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee for the past several years. The addition was deleted by the Tribunal.

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

“i) The addition u/s. 41(1) cannot be made unless and until it is found that there was remission or cessation of the liability that too during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question.

ii) The sundry creditors mentioned in the balance-sheet of the assesee were shown as sundry creditors for several years before the relevant assessment year and at no point of time earlier had the Assessing Officer doubted the creditworthiness or identity of the creditors. There was no remission or cessation of the liability during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The deletion of the addition was justified.”

levitra

Presumptive income – Section 44BB – The servicetax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the assessee for the services rendered by it. The assessee is only collecting the service-tax for passing it on to the government. Thus, for the purpose of computing the presumptive income of the assessee u/s. 44BB, the service-tax collected by the assessee on the amount paid for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipt in terms of section 44BB(2) rea<

fiogf49gjkf0d
DIT vs. Mitchell Drilling International (P.) Ltd.: [2015] 62 taxmann.com 24 (Delhi):

The High Court of Delhi framed following question of law:

“Whether the amount of service-tax collected by assessee from its various clients should have been included in gross receipts while computing its income u/s. 44BB?”

The High Court held as under:

“(i) Section 44BB introduces the concept of presumptive income and states that 10% credit of the amounts paid or payable or deemed to be received by the assessee on account of “the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oil in India” shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable to tax. The purpose of this provision is to tax what can be legitimately considered as income of the assessee earned from its business and profession.

(ii) The service-tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the assessee for the services rendered by it. The assessee is only collecting the service-tax for passing it on to the government.

(iii) The position has been made explicit by the CBDT itself in two of its circulars. In Circular No. 4/2008 dated 28th April, 2008 it was clarified that “service tax paid by the tenant does not partake the nature of income of the landlord”. The landlord only acts as a collecting agency for Government for collection of service-tax. Therefore, it has been decided that TDS u/s. 194-I would be required to be made on the amount of rent paid/payable without including the service tax. In Circular No. 1/2014 dated 13th January, 2014, it has been clarified that service-tax is not to be included in the Fees for professional services or technical services and no TDS is required to be made on the service-tax component u/s. 194J.

(iv) Thus, for the purpose of computing the presumptive income of the assessee u/s. 44BB, the service-tax collected by the assessee on the amount paid for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipt in terms of section 44BB(2) read with section 44BB(1).”

levitra

Housing project – Deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) – A. Ys. 2002-03 to 2007-08 – Architect certifying completion of project, application made to municipal corporation for issuance of completion certificate and fees paid therefor within time specified – Delay by municipal corporation for issuance of certificate – Delay cannot be attributed to assessee – Assessee is entitled to deduction

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd.; 377 ITR 150 (Bom):

The assessee was a builder and a developer which undertook a mega housing project on a layout covering an area of about 25 acres. The project was approved in February 2000. The assessee completed part of the project and obtained a completion certificate for that part of the project from the municipal corporation on October 10, 2008. The assessee sought exemption u/s. 80-IB(10) for the A. Ys. 2002-03 to 2007-08 in respect of the profit made in these years from the sale of flats. The claim was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the completion certificate was not issued on or prior to 31st March, 2008. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim and held that in view of the fact that the assessee had made an application seeking a completion certificate prior to 31st March, 2008, the date on which the completion certificate was issued was not material. The delay in issuing the completion certificate was not attributable to the assessee. The delay was beyond its control.

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

“i) The Explanation is quite clear and did not introduce any uncertainty. In other words. The date of completion of a project has to be the date of issuance of completion certificate by the municipal authority. The architect of the project had given a certificate prior to 31st March, 2008. The assessee submitted the application to the municipal authority along with such certificate well in time on 25th March, 2008. The municipal authorities directed the assessee to deposit certain amount for issuance of completion certificate on 27th March, 2008 and the amount was, accordingly deposited on 31st March, 2008.

ii) The delay could not be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, the project for which exemption was sought was completed prior to 31st March, 2008, and entitled to deduction u/s. 80-IB(10).”

levitra

Business expenditure – Capital or revenue expenditure – Section 37 – A. Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 – Development charges on research and testing of components – Revenue expenditure

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. JCB India Ltd.; 376 ITR 621 (Del):

For the A. Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09, the assessee had claimed that development charges on research and testing components is revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim on the ground that in several previous assessment years the plea of the assessee that it was revenue expenditure was accepted.

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

“i) The assessee incurred the development charges on research and testing of components. This did not result in a benefit to it of enduring nature so as to characterize the development charges as capital expenditure. Testing of products and components is essentially a continuous process which permeats different accounting years. It is an integral part of the routine manufacturing and monitoring activity. It can not obviously be a one-time event.

ii) The Revenue had not been able to persuade the Court that an error had been committed in any of the previous assessment years where the assessee’s explanation was accepted and the expenditure on development charges was treated as revenue expenditure.

iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the rule of consistency was adopted and the plea of the revenue to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination was declined.”

levitra

Income or capital receipt – A. Y. 2008-09 – An amount received by a prospective employee ‘as compensation for denial of employment’ was not in nature of profits in lieu of salary. It was a capital receipt that could not be taxed as income under any other head

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Pritam Das Narang; [2015] 61 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi)

In terms of employment agreement, the assessee was to be employed as CEO of M/s ACEE Enterprises (‘ACEE’). The ACEE was unable to take assessee on board due to sudden change in its business plan. The ACEE paid compensation of Rs. 1.95 crore to assessee as a “onetime payment for non-commencement of employment as proposed”. The assessee had not offered such compensation to tax. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that u/s. 17(3)(iii) receipt by the assessee of any sum from any person prior to his joining with such person was taxable. The CIT(A) deleted the addition and held that section 17(3)(iii) had been brought in to account for taxing ‘joining bonus’ received from the prospective employer as profit in lieu of salary. The ITAT upheld the findings of CIT(A).

In appeal by the Revenue, the ld. Counsel of department urged that since the wording of section 17(3)(iii) was that “any amount received from any person”, it was not necessary that the amount had to be received only from an employer in order that such sum be brought to tax in the hands of an assessee under the head ‘profits in lieu of salary’. It was submitted that the expression any person could include a prospective employer in the present case.

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“(i) The interpretation sought to be placed by revenue on plain language of section 17(3)(iii) could not be accepted. The words “from any person” occurring therein have to be read together with the following words in sub-clause (A): “before his joining any employment with that person”. In other words, section 17(3)(iii) pre-supposes the existence of the relationship of employee and employer between the assessee and the person who makes the payment of “any amount’ in terms of section 17(3)(iii).

(ii) Therefore the words in section 17(3)(iii) cannot be read disjunctively to overlook the essential facet of the provision, viz, the existence of ’employment’, i.e., a relationship of employer and employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the assessee.

(iii) The other plea of revenue that said amount should be taxed under some other head of income, including ‘income from other sources’, was also unsustainable. In case of CIT vs. Rani Shankar Mishra [2009] 178 Taxman 324 (Delhi), it was held that where an amount was received by a prospective employee ‘as compensation for denial of employment’, such amount was not in nature of profits in lieu of salary. Thus, it was a capital receipt that could not be taxed as income under any other head.”

levitra

Representation of cases before Authority for Advance Ruling- Instruction F.No.225/261/2015/ITA.II dated 28.10.2015 ( copy available on www.bcasonline.org)

fiogf49gjkf0d

Representation of cases before Authority for Advance Ruling- Instruction F.No.225/261/2015/ITA.II dated 28.10.2015 ( copy available on www.bcasonline.org)

‘Tolerance Range’ For Transfer Pricing Cases For AY 2015-16

fiogf49gjkf0d

Notification No. 86 /2015/F. No. 500/1/2014-APA-II dated 29.10.15

Where the variation between the arm’s length price determined u/s. 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be the arm’s length price for Assessment Year 2015-2016.

The CBDT has instructed all CCITs to strictly follow the time limit of six months as specified in sec. 12AA(2) of the Act for passing an order granting or refusing registration and to take suitable administrative action against those officers not adhering to the time limit – Instruction No. 16 of 2015 dated 06.11.2015

fiogf49gjkf0d

The CBDT has instructed all CCITs to strictly follow the time limit of six months as specified in sec. 12AA(2) of the Act for passing an order granting or refusing registration and to take suitable administrative action against those officers not adhering to the time limit – Instruction No. 16 of 2015 dated 06.11.2015 (copy available on www.bcasonline.org)

CBDT has issued an internal instruction to constitute local committees to deal with taxpayers grievances from high pitched scrutiny assessment – Instruction No. 17/2015 dated 9.11.15 ( copy available on www. bcasonline.org)

fiogf49gjkf0d

CBDT has issued an internal instruction to constitute local committees to deal with taxpayers grievances from high pitched scrutiny assessment – Instruction No. 17/2015 dated 9.11.15 ( copy available on www. bcasonline.org)

Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) – Deduction of tax under Wrong Section

fiogf49gjkf0d
Issue for Consideration
Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for disallowance of 30% of any sum payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source under chapter XVII-B, where such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in section 139(1). Till assessment year 2014-15, the whole of such sum payable was disallowable.

At times, a taxpayer deducts tax at source under a particular section of the Act, while the tax authorities take a view that tax ought to have been deducted under another section of the Act. For example, an assessee while deducting tax on payment deducts tax at 2% u/s. 194C, while the tax authorities take a view that the tax should have been deducted u/s. 194J as in their view the payment represented the payment of fees for the technical services. If the rate at which tax has been actually deducted is lower than the rate at which tax is deductible in the view of the tax authorities, it is usual for them to disallow the claim for deduction on the ground that the tax was not deducted at source leading to a violation of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The question which arises for consideration, under the circumstances, is, whether the tax authorities can disallow the whole or part of the expenditure on the ground that tax has not been deducted at source on such expenditure ignoring altogether the fact that the tax was in fact deducted though under a different provision of the Act .

While the Calcutta High Court has taken the view that no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) could be made in such cases, the Kerala High Court has taken a contrary view and has held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would apply if tax was deducted under a wrong provision of law and the claim for deduction would be disallowed.

S. K. Tekriwal’s case:
The issue first arose for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal, 361 ITR 432.

In this case, the assessee had deducted tax at source from payments made to a machinery contractor u/s. 194C as payment to a sub-contractor at the rate of 1%. The assessing officer took a view that the payments were in the nature of machinery hire charges, which amounted to rent under the provisions of section 194-I, and that tax therefore ought to have been deducted u/s. 194-I at the rate of 10%. The assessing officer therefore, disallowed proportionate payments (90%) by invoking section 40(a)(ia).

In the appeal, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that section 40(a)(ia) had 2 limbs – one requiring deduction of tax, and the second requiring payment of the tax into the government account. There was nothing in that section, treating the assessee as a defaulter where there was a shortfall in deduction. According to the Tribunal, it could not be assumed that on account of the shortfall, there was a default in the deduction. If there was any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201, and no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia).

The Calcutta High Court, on an appeal by the Revenue, after noting the observations of the Tribunal, held that no substantial question of law was involved in the case before it, and therefore refused to admit the appeal.

PVS Memorial Hospital’s case:
The issue again came up before the Kerala High Court recently in the case of CIT vs. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd, 60 taxmann.com 69. The 2 years involved in this appeal were assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

In this case, the assessee was a hospital, which had entered into an agreement with another hospital, where that other hospital had undertaken to perform various professional services in the assessee’s hospital. The assessee, on payment to the other hospital for its services, deducted tax at source at 2% u/s. 194C by treating the payments as the payment for carrying out the work in pursuance of the contract.

The assessing officer took the view that the payment was in the nature of fees for technical services and the tax was deductible at 5% u/s. 194J, and therefore disallowed the entire payment u/s. 40(a)(ia) in both the years. For assessment year 2005-06, the Commissioner(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal confirmed the addition and rejected the appeals.

For assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal allowed the appeal following the Calcutta High Court’s decision in S. K. Tekriwal’s case(supra). According to the Tribunal, the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) could be made only if both the conditions were satisfied, i.e. tax was deductible at source and such tax had not been deducted. The Tribunal took the view that where tax was deducted by the assessee, even if it was under a wrong provision of law, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked. The Kerala High Court, while examining the issue, noted that in the case before it, tax was deductible u/s. 194J and not u/s. 194C.

The Kerala High Court on examination of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), expressed the view that the section was not a charging section but was a machinery section, and that such a provision should therefore be understood in such a manner that it was made workable. For this proposition, it relied on the Supreme Court observations in the case of Gurusahai Saigal vs. CIT 48 ITR 1, where the Supreme Court had observed that the provisions in a taxing statute dealing with machinery for assessment have to be construed by the ordinary rules of construction, that was to say, in accordance with the clear intention of the Legislature, which was to make effective a charge that was levied .

According to the Kerala High Court, if section 40(a)(ia) was to be understood in the manner as laid down by the Supreme Court, the expression “tax deductible at source under chapter XVII-B” had to be understood as a tax deductible at source under the appropriate provision of chapter XVII-B. Therefore, if tax was deductible u/s. 194J but was deducted u/s. 194C, according to the Kerala High Court, such a deduction did not satisfy the requirements of section 40(a)(ia). The latter part of the section that ‘such tax had not been deducted’, in the view of the Kerala High Court, again referred to the tax deducted under the appropriate provision of chapter XII-B.

The Kerala High Court held that a cumulative reading of the provision showed that deduction under a wrong provision of law would not save an assessee from the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) expressly dissenting from the Calcutta High Court’s decision in S. K. Tekriwal’s case(supra), and confirmed the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia).

Observations
On a bare reading of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), it is gathered
that the said provision requires a disallowance in a case where there
is a failure to deduct tax at source,where it was deductible, or after
deduction the same has not been paid on or before the due date specified
u/s. 139(1). It does not, at least expressly, cover a case of a partial
non-deduction on the lines similar to the one provided u/s. 201 which
provides for the consequences of the failure to deduct tax at source.
Section 201 by express language using the specific terms,“ wholly or
partly” seeks to rope in the cases of partial or a complete failure and
makes an assessee liable for the consequences. The legislature by not
including the above terms “ wholly or partly” in section 40(a)(ia) have
sought to cover the cases of the absolute failure to deduct tax and not
the case of the partial failure to deduct. Importantly section 201, as
it originally stood, did not provide for the cases of partial deduction
and hence did not seek to penalise an assessee in a case where there was
a short deduction of tax by him. Section 201 has since been amended to
rope in the cases of even a partial failure to pay the deducted taxes.

Further,
section 201 of the Income-tax Act clearly brings out that a failure in
whole or in part, would result in an assessee being treated as in
default. Similarly, section 271C clearly specifies that the penalty can
be levied for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as
required by chapter XVII-B. Unlike both the sections, section 40(a)(ia)
uses the term “has not been deducted”, without specifying whether it
applies to deduction in whole or in part.

Secondly, even in
cases of acknowledged failure, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, followed
by many high courts, in the case of P. V. Rajagopal vs. Union of India
99 Taxman 475, held, in the context of the provisions of section 201 as
it then stood [the language of which was similar to the language used in
section 40(a)(ia)], that if there was any shortfall due to any
difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item, the employer
could not be declared to be an assessee in default. The Tribunal in the
cases of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Bom), Apollo
Tyres vs. DCIT 60 SOT 1 (Coch) and Three Star Granites (P) Ltd vs. ACIT
32 ITR (Trib) 398, held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would
be attracted only in the case of total failure to deduct tax at source,
and where tax had partly been deducted at source, it could not be said
that tax had not been deducted at source. In all these cases, the
tribunal noted the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case
of P. V. Rajagopal vs. Union of India(supra) with approval.

The
enormous litigation on the subject of TDS clearly indicate that there
is a lack of clarity on the applicability of the appropriate provision
of chapter XVIIB for deducting tax at source on a particular payment,
which needs to be interpreted and settled by the courts alone. Over a
period of time, certain clarity has emerged on various types of
payments, but there are still various types of payments where the
position is still not so clear, some of which ultimately have to be
resolved by the Supreme Court.

In such a situation, where a tax
deductor has taken a bona fide view in respect of tax deductible from a
particular type of payment, adopting one of the two possible views on
the matter, should he be penalised by disallowance of the expenditure,
besides being asked to pay the tax short deducted, as well as interest
on such short deduction? Can a tax deductor be expected to have the same
legal competence in interpreting a legal provision as a High Court or a
Supreme Court?

In the context of penalty for concealment, the
Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322
ITR 58 held that where a taxpayer based on a possible view of a matter,
claimed a deduction, a penalty for concealment could not be levied on
him even where his claim for deduction of such payment was disallowed in
assessment of his total income. The Supreme Court held that if the
contention of the revenue was accepted, then in case of every return
where the claim made was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any
reason, the assessee would invite penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). That was
clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.

The disallowance
u/s. 40(a)(ia) is a form of penalty on a tax deductor for failing to
perform an onerous duty, and therefore where a taxpayer makes a genuine
mistake, taking a possible interpretation of the provision under which
tax should be deducted, he should not be penalised for it.

Undoubtedly,
the intention was to ensure that a deductor on payment did deduct tax
at source from payments on which tax was deductible at source and in
doing so he should tax at the rate applicable under a specific provision
which in his bona fide belief is the provision that is applicable to
such a payment. The intention of the Legislature certainly could not
have been to penalise actions taken under a bona fide belief of a
deductor, particularly when the view taken by him is a possible one.

The
better view therefore seems to be that taken by the Calcutta High
Court, that no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) where tax has
been deducted at source at a lower rate under a particular section,
though the rate of tax under the correct section under which tax is
deductible at source may be higher, particularly in cases where there is
a genuine dispute as to the appropriate section under which tax is
deductible at source. In our opinion, the mistake if any of deducting
under a wrong provisions of law, if based on a bona fide belief, is a
case of trivial mistake and should not even lead to holding the assessee
as in default as has been held by the apex court in the case of
Hindustan Steels Ltd., 83 ITR 26 (SC). The question of disallowance
should not arise at all.

Cancellation of registration upon violation of section 13(1) – section 12AA(4)

fiogf49gjkf0d
1. Background

Section 12AA (3) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) deals with cancellation of
registration of a charitable institution in circumstances specified in
the said section. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] has
consistently held in a number of cases that registration of an
institution cannot be cancelled u/s. 12AA (3) merely because section
13(1) of the Act applies to it. [Krupanidhi Educational Trust vs. DIT,
(2012) 27 taxmann.com 11 (Bang); Cancer Aid and Research Foundation vs.
DIT, (2014) 34 ITR (Trib) 56 (Mum); Parkar Medical Foundation vs. DCIT,
(2014) 34 ITR (Trib) 286 (Pune), TS-469-ITAT -2014 (Pune)]. In order to
overcome this position in law, the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 inserted
section 12AA (4) with effect from 1-10-2014 to provide for cancellation
of registration of a charitable institution upon operation of section
13(1). This article attempts to explain and analyse the provisions of
section 12AA(4).

2. Text

Section 12AA(4) reads as follows:

“(4)
Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust
or any institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section
12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996]
and subsequently it is noticed that the activities of the trust or the
institution are being carried out in a manner that the provisions of
section 11 and 12 do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of
the income such trust or institution due to operation of sub-section (1)
of section 13, then, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may
by an order in writing cancel the registration of such trust or
institution:

Provided that the registration shall not be
cancelled under this sub-section, if the trust or institution proves
that there was a reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out
in the said manner.”

3. Summary

Preconditions for applicability of section 12AA(4)

(a) A charitable institution been granted registration u/s. 12AA(1)(b) or section 12A.
(b) After the registration, it is noticed that
(i) section 13(1) applies to the charitable institution;
(ii)
the activities of the charitable institution are being carried out in a
manner that section 11/12 do not apply to whole or any part of the
income due to operation of section 13(1)
(c) The charitable
institution cannot prove that there was reasonable cause for the
activities to be carried out in the said manner.

Consequences of applicability of section 12AA94)

(a) The Principal Commissioner (“PCIT”) or the Commissioner (“CIT”) may cancel the registration of such charitable institution.
(b) Such cancellation shall be done by an order.
(c) Such cancellation order shall be in writing.

4. Rationale/Purpose

4.1 The relevant passage in Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014 reads as follows:

“There
have been cases where trusts, particularly in the year in which they
have substantial income claimed to be exempt under other provisions of
the Act, deliberately violate provisions of section 13 by investing in
prohibited mode etc. Similarly, there have been cases where the income
is not properly applied for charitable purposes or has been diverted for
benefit of certain interested persons. Due to restrictive
interpretation of the powers of the Commissioner under section 12AA,
registration of such trusts or institutions continues to be in force and
these institutions continue to enjoy the beneficial regime of
exemption. …

Therefore, in order to rationalise the provisions
relating to cancellation of registration of a trust, it is proposed to
amend section 12AA of the Act to provide that where a trust or an
institution has been granted registration, and subsequently it is
noticed that its activities are being carried out in such a manner
that,—
(i) its income does not enure for the benefit of general public;
(ii)
it is for benefit of any particular religious community or caste (in
case it is established after commencement of the Act);
(iii) any income or property of the trust is applied for benefit of specified persons like author of trust, trustees etc.; or
(iv)
its funds are invested in prohibited modes, then the Principal
Commissioner or the Commissioner may cancel the registration if such
trust or institution does not prove that there was a reasonable cause
for the activities to be carried out in the above manner.”

4.2 The relevant paragraphs in Circular explaining the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 read as follows:

“9.2
There have been cases where trusts, particularly in the year in which
they had substantial income claimed to be exempt under other provisions
of the Income-tax Act though they deliberately violated the provisions
of section 13 of the said Act by investing in prohibited modes other
that specified modes, etc. Similarly, there have been cases where the
income is not properly applied for charitable purposes or is diverted
for the benefit of certain interested persons. However, due to
restrictive interpretation of the powers of the Commissioner under the
said section 12AA, registration of such trusts or institutions continued
to be in force and these institutions continued to enjoy the beneficial
regime of exemption.
…

9.4 Therefore, in order to
rationalise the provisions relating to cancellation of registration of a
trust, section 12AA of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide
that where a trust or an institution has been granted registration, and
subsequently it is noticed that its activities are being carried out in
such a manner that,—
(i) its income does not enure for the benefit of general public;
(ii)
it is for benefit of any particular religious community or caste (in
case it is established after commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961);
(iii)
any income or property of the trust is used or applied directly or
indirectly for benefit of specified persons like author of trust,
trustees etc.; or
(iv) its funds are not invested in specified modes,

then
the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may cancel the
registration, if such trust or institution does not prove that there was
a reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out in the above
manner.”

[CBDT Circular No. 1 / 2015, dated 21.01.2015]

5. Violation of section 13 cannot be used as a ground to deny registration

Courts/Tribunal have held that violation of section 13 is not a ground on which registration can be denied to a charitable institution [see CIT vs. Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 181 (Guj), (2014) 221 Taxman 75 (Guj); Malik Hasmullah Islamic Educational and Welfare Society vs. CIT, (2012) 24 (taxmann.com 93 (Luck), (2012) 138 ITD 519 (Luck), (2013) 153 TTJ 635 (Luck); PIMS Medical & Education Charitable Society vs. CIT, (2013) 31 taxmann.com 371 (Chd)(Trib), (2013) 56 SOT 522 (Chad)(Trib), (2012) 150 TTJ 891 (Chd)(Trib); Chaudhary Bishambher Singh Education Society vs. CIT, (2014) 48 taxmann.com 152 (Del)(Trib); Kurni Daivachara Sangham vs. DIT, (2014) 50 taxmann.com 53 (Hyd)(Trib); Modern Defence Shikshan Sanstha vs. CIT, (2008) 26 SOT 21 (Joh)(URO); Ashoka Education Foundation vs. CIT, (2014) 42 CCH 0090 (Pune)(Trib)]. On a plain reading, there is no change in this position even after amendment. This is because section 12AA(4) provides that “where a trust or any institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [asit stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996] and subsequently it is noticed that …”. Thus, the section is triggered only subsequent to the registration.

6.    Is cancellation independent of assessment? Can CIT suo moto take cognisance of the violation of section 13(1) prior to assessment by AO?

The section states that “if it is noticed that the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner …” It does not state that the violation of section 13(1) is noticed only upon assessment. If the CIT can independently come to a conclusion that there has been a default u/s. 13(1) and the provisions of section 11 and 12 do not apply as a result of the default, then, on a literal reading, he can suo moto take cognisance of the violation of section 13(1) prior to assessment by AO. Thus, the action u/s.er section 12AA(4)

     a. could precede the assessment; or

     b. be concurrent with the assessment; or

     c. succeed the assessment.

To illustrate :

Suppose, a search and seizure action u/s. 132 is taken against a charitable institution and during the proceedings, it is found that the Managing Trust has siphoned off certain funds of the institution. In that case, section 13(1)(c) could apply and the PCIT or CIT could initiate proceedings u/s. 12AA(4).

However, it appears that the ultimate outcome of cancellation would, inter alia, depend on the position taken or finally accepted in assessment proceedings vis-à-vis the operation of section 13(1). Hence, if the assessment order is reversed at the appellate stage, then the cancellation order cannot survive.

     7. Cancellation only in respect of operation of section 13(1)

7.1    The provision applies pursuant to operation of section 13(1). Thus, it does not apply pursuant to operation of the following sections :

     Section 13(7) – anonymous donations

     Section 13(8) – exemption not available on account of first proviso to section 2(15) becoming applicable to the institution.
7.2    The position vis-à-vis other sub-sections of sectio     13 is explained in the following paragraphs :

     Section 13(2)

The said sub-section provides for situations when the income or property of an institution is deemed to have been used or applied for the benefit of an interested party. This sub-section is an “extension of section 13(1)(c) / (d)” and hence a violation of section 13(2) could also trigger the proceedings for cancellation of registration u/s. 12AA(4).

     Section 13(4) and 13(6)

Section 13(4) provides that if the investment in a concern in which an interested person referred to in section 13(3) does not exceed 5% of the capital of that concern, then, subject to its provisions, the exemption u/s. 11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income arising to the trust or the institution from such investment.

Section 13(6) provides that if a trust has provided educational or medical facilities to an interested person referred to in section 13(3), the exemption u/s. 11 or 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income referred to in section 12(2).

It appears that the above sections are not independent sections : both are in connection with violation u/s. 13(1)(c) or section 13(1)(d). They merely give a concession and relax the rigors of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(1)(d) apply. Income is not excluded from section 11 by reason of application of section 13(4) or (6), The breach would be only be on account of section 13(1)(c) or (d). Hence, it appears that, on a literal interpretation, the provision covers cases where section 13(4) and section 13(6) are applicable.

     8. General principles for interpretation of section 12AA(4)

Section 186 (1) of the Act, prior to its omission with effect from 01.04.1993, read as follows:
“(1) If, where a firm has been registered or is deemed to have been registered, or its registration has effect under sub-section (7) of section 184 for an assessment year, the Assessing Officer is of opinion that there was during the previous year no genuine firm in existence as registered, he may, after giving the firm a reasonable opportunity of being heard cancel the registration of the firm for that assessment year:”

It is noticed that both, section 186(1) and section 12AA(4), refer to cancellation of registration and both use the term ‘may’, that is, the Assessing Officer (in section 186) and the PCIT or CIT [in section 12AA(4)] may cancel the registration.

Hence, the principles laid down by Courts in section 186 could be applied for interpreting section 12AA(4), to the extent applicable. Now, in the context of section 186, it has been held that withdrawal of the benefit of registration in respect of an assessment year results in serious consequences; it is penal in nature in that the consequences are very serious to the assessee and that is why discretion is conferred on the authority by requiring him to give a second opportunity [CIT vs. Pandurang Engg. Co., (1997) 223 ITR 400 (AP)]. Likewise, it is submitted that section 12AA(4) is also a penal provision and the principles applicable in interpretation of penal proceedings, including the following, could ordinarily apply in interpreting section 12AA(4):

    A penal provision must be interpreted strictly and in favour of the assessee [CIT vs. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P) Ltd. (TV), (1975) 101 ITR 764 (SC); Jain (NK) vs. Shah (CK), AIR 1991 SC 1289 and CIT vs. Pandurang Engg. Co., (1997) 223 ITR 400 (AP) (in the context of section 186 of the Act)]

    If two views are possible, the benefit should go to the assessee. [CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) (in the context of section 271 of the Income-tax Act); CIT vs. Pandurang Engg. Co., (1997) 223 ITR 400 (AP) (in the context of section 186 of the Act)]. In other words if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. A court is not competent to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the Legislature in order to carry out the intention of the Legislature. [Associated Tubewells Ltd. vs. Gujarmal Modi (RB), AIR 1957 SC 742]
 

    9. Does a default u/s. 13 automatically lead to cancellation of registration?

For the following reasons, it appears that a mere default u/s. 13(1) would not automatically result in cancellation of registration:

    Section 12AA(4) provides that the PCIT/CIT may by an order in writing cancel the registration. The use of the word “may” shows that it is discretionary, and the PCIT/CIT has a discretion not to cancel registration even in spite of the default of the assessee. [see J. M. Sheth vs. CIT, (1965) 56 ITR 293 (Mad); CIT vs. Standard Mercantile Co., (1986) 157 ITR 139 (Pat), (1985) 49 CTR 139 (Pat), (1985) 23 TAXMAN 452 (Pat) (both in the context of section 186)].

    A similar term is used in section 271(1)(c), where the AO “may” levy penalty on an assessee upon the assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. Courts have held that in view of the word “may”, the penalty is not automatic [Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, (2007) 161 Taxman 218 (SC), (2007) 191 ITR 519 (SC)]. Now, section 12AA(4) is also a penal provision. Hence, applying the same principle, the cancellation u/s. 12AA(4) is also not automatic.

    Section 12AA(3) provides that if the Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of trusts are not genuine, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration. The use of the word “may” in section 12AA(4) as against “shall” in section 12AA(3) clearly shows that the power in section 12AA(4) is discretionary.

    The proviso to section 12AA(4) states that the registration shall not be cancelled if the charitable institution proves that there was a reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out in the manner provided in the section. Hence, a mere default does not trigger cancellation, if there is a reasonable cause for the default.

    The relevant passage in section 12AA(4) reads as follows:

“… it is noticed that the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner that the provisions of section 11 and 12 do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income such trust or institution due to operation of sub-section (1) of section 13, then, the Principle Commissioner or the Commissioner may by an order in writing cancel the registration …”

Suppose the expression “the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner” (hereinafter referred to as “the relevant expression”) is removed from the language. In that case, the provision (hereinafter referred to as “modified provision”) would read as follows:

“It is noticed that … the provisions of section 11 and 12 do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income such trust or institution due to operation of sub-section (1) of section 13, then, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may by an order in writing cancel the registration.”

A plain reading of modified provision shows that if provisions of section 11 and 12 do not apply due to operation of section 13(1), then it could trigger cancellation of registration. Thus, if mere default in section 13(1) triggered cancellation, then the modified provision without the relevant expression would have been sufficient and the relevant expression would be superfluous!

It is now very well settled that redundancy should not be attributed to the legislature and no part of a statute should be read in a manner that it becomes superfluous. [CWT vs. Kripashankar Dayashanker Worah, (1971) 81 ITR 763 (SC)] If a mere default in section 13(1) could result in the CIT exercising his power, then the entire expression “the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner ” would not have been required and it would have been sufficient if the section had been worded as “it is noticed that the provisions of section 11 and 12 …”. In view of this, some meaning has to be attributed to the relevant expression. The point for consideration is what meaning should be attributed to the said phrase? It is submitted as follows:

    i)“Activities”

The relevant expression refers to “activities”. Now ordinarily, section 13 of General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that singular includes plural and vice versa, unless the context otherwise requires. It could be argued that in this case, depending on facts, the expression “activities” in plural may not include singular “activity” especially because cancellation of registration is an onerous provision and a single default should not result in such harsh consequences.

    ii)“Are being carried out”

The relevant expression uses the phrase “are being carried out”. The terms ‘is’ (singular of ‘are’) and “being” have been judicially interpreted as follows:

    In F. S. Gandhi vs. CWT, (1990) 51 Taxman 15 (SC), (1990) 184 ITR 34 (SC), (1990) 84 CTR 35 (SC), the Supreme Court had to interpret the expression “any interest in property where the interest is available to an assesssee for a period not exceeding six years…” The Court observed as follows:

The word ‘available’ is preceded by the word ‘is’ and is followed by the words ‘for a period not exceeding six years’. The word ‘is’, although normally referring to the present often has a future meaning. It may also have a past signification as in the sense of ‘has been’ (See Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edn., p. 745). We are of the view that in view of the words ‘for a period not exceeding six years’ which follow the word ‘available’ the word ‘is’ must be construed as referring to the present and the future. In that sense it would mean that the interest is presently available and is to be available in future for a period not exceeding six years.

    The term “being” has been interpreted as follows:

    “In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (fourth edition) the expression “being” is explained thus at page 267 of volume I:

“Being — ‘Being as used in a sense similar to that of the ablative absolute, has sometimes been translated as, ‘having been’; but it properly denotes a state or condition existent at the time when the conclusion of law or fact has to be ascertained.”

In other words, it is clear that the phrase “the business of such company is not being continued” must be interpreted to mean the company whose business is non-existent at a time when the requisite opinion contemplated by the section is formed by the Central Government and if at such time the business is not continued or has stopped, the case would fall within that phrase.”

[UOI vs. Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd., (1975) 45 Comp. Cas 613 (Bom)] [for the purpose of: section 15A of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951] In  Harbhajan  Singh  vs.  Press  Council  of India, AIR 2002 SC 135, the Supreme Court observed as follows :

“In Maradana Mosque (Board of Trustees) vs. Badi-ud-Din Mahmud and Anr.- (1966) 1 All ER 545, under the relevant Statute the Minister was empowered to declare that the school should cease to be an unaided school and that the Director should be the Manager of it, if the Minister was satisfied that an unaided school “is being administered” in contravention of any provisions of the Act. Their Lordships opined, “Before the Minister had jurisdiction to make the order he must be satisfied that ‘any school. is being so administered in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act’. The present tense is clear. It would have been easy to say ‘has been administered’ or ‘in the administration of the school any breach of any of the provisions of this Act has been committed’, if such was the intention of the legislature; but for reasons which common sense may easily supply, it was enacted that the Minister should concern himself with the present conduct of the school, not the past, when making the order.

This does not mean, of course, that a school may habitually misconduct itself and yet repeatedly save itself from any order of the Minister by correcting its faults as soon as they are called to its attention. Such behaviour might well bring it within the words ‘is being administered’ but in the present case no such situation arose. There was, therefore, no ground on which the Minister could be

‘satisfied’ at the time of making the order. As appears from the passages of his broadcast statement which are cited above, he failed to consider the right question. He considered
 

only whether a breach had been committed, and not whether the school was at the time of his order being carried on in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. Thus he had no jurisdiction to make the order at the date on which he made it”.

On a combined reading of the term “are” as a plural of “is” and “being”, as interpreted above, it could be argued that the defaulting activities should continue to be carried out or at least they have been carried out in near past. The CIT cannot invoke the provision for a default committed before many years and especially in a re-assessment when the default u/s. 13 was completed much earlier and was not detected or was held as not being applicable in the original assessment.

    10. Proceedings before PCIT/CIT

10.1    Cancellation of the registration should only be after complying with the principles of natural justice, which necessarily implies that –

    if the PCIT/CIT is satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee, he must drop the proposal to cancel the registration. [see CIT vs. Pandurang Engg. Co., (1997) 223 ITR 400 (AP) (in the context of section 185)]

    a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the assessee;
    the PCIT/CIT shall not use any material without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rebut such material.

10.2    The PCIT/CIT should exercise his power not arbitrarily or capriciously but judicially in a manner consistent with judicial standards and after a consideration of all relevant circumstances. [see Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1970) 25 STC 11 (SC), (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC); J.M Sheth vs. CIT, (1965) 56 ITR 293 (Mad) (in the context of section 186)].

10.3    For the purpose of section 271(1) it has been held that the regular assessment order is not the final word upon the pleas which can be taken at the penalty stage. The assessee is entitled to show-cause in penalty proceedings and to establish by the material and relevant facts which may go to affect his liability or the quantum of penalty. He cannot be debarred from taking appropriate pleas simply on the ground that such a plea was not taken in the regular assessment proceedings. [Jaidayal Pyarelal vs. CIT, (1973) Tax LR 880 (All)]

Applying the same principle an assessee cannot be debarred from taking appropriate pleas in the cancellation proceedings simply on the ground that such a plea was not taken in the regular assessment proceedings.

10.4    For the purpose of section 271 it has been held that the findings given in assessment proceedings, though relevant and admissible material in penalty proceedings, cannot operate as res judicata. [CIT vs. Gurudayalram Mukhlal, (1991) 95 CTR 198 (Gau), (1992) 60 Taxman 313 (Gau), (1991) 190 ITR 39 (Gau).] Similarly, the findings in respect of section 13(1) given in assessment proceedings cannot operate as res judicata.

10.5    It has been held that additional evidence is admissible in penalty proceedings and it is possible for the parties to bring on record additional material for determining if the penalty should be imposed. [CIT vs. Babu Ram Chander Bhan, (1973) 90 ITR 230 (All)]. Applying the same principle it appears that additional evidence is admissible in the cancellation proceedings.

    11. Order passed by CIT/PCIT

Section 12AA(4) requires the CIT/PCIT to pass an order ‘in writing’.

It is now well settled that a quasi-judicial order has to be a speaking order containing

    a) submissions of the assessee;

    b) detailed reasons why the submissions are not acceptable. [Associated Tubewells Ltd. vs. Gujarmal Modi (RB), AIR 1957 SC 742; Travancore Rayons vs. UOI, AIR 1971 SC 862; Appropriate Authority  vs.  Hindumal  Balmukand  Investment Co. P. Ltd., (2001) 251 ITR 660 (SC)] or a mere statement that after hearing the assessee and perusing the record, he did not find any substance in the submissions is not enough [see Sanju Prasad Singh vs. Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1970 Pat 288 explaining the meaning of “speaking order”].

    12. Reasonable cause

12.1    Registration cannot be cancelled if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out in a particular manner.

12.2    Institution to prove reasonable cause

The institution has to prove that a reasonable cause existed for the activities being carried out in the particular manner. The term “proved” is defined in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as follows:

“A fact is said to be ‘proved’ when after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.”

In view of the above, the test of proof is that there is such a high degree of probability that a prudent man would act on the assumption that the thing is true. [Pyare Lal Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094, (1963) 1 SCR Supl. 689 (SC)]

12.3    Reasonable cause – meaning

Courts have explained the term “reasonable cause” as follows:

    ‘Reasonable cause’ as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. It can be described as a probable cause. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that the same was the right thing to do. The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the prescribed consequences will follow. [Woodward Governors India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 745 (Del) (For the purpose of section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961)]

    In Oxford English Dictionary (first edn. published in 1933 and reprinted in 1961, Volume VIII), the expression ‘reasonable’ has been defined to mean ‘fair, not absurd, not irrational and not ridiculous’. Likewise, the expression ‘good’ has been defined in the said Dictionary in Volume IV to mean ‘adequate, reliable, sound’. Similarly, the expression ‘sufficient’ has been defined under the same very Dictionary in Volume X to mean ‘substantial, of a good standard’.

From the definitions referred to above, it would appear that reasonable cause or excuse is that which is fair, not absurd, not irrational and not ridiculous … if a reason is good and sufficient, the same would necessarily be a reasonable cause. [Banwarilal Satyanarain vs. State of Bihar, (1989) 46 TAXMAN 289 (Pat), (1989) 179 ITR 387 (Pat), (1989) 80 CTR 31 (Pat) (for the purpose of section 278AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961)]

    Reasonable cause, as correctly observed by the Administrative Tribunal, is a cause that a prudent man accepts as reasonable. The test to assess the reasonableness of the cause for default is, therefore, to find whether in the judgment of a common prudent man the cause is such that any normal man would, in the same or similar circumstances be also a defaulter. [Eknath Kira Akhadkar vs. Administrative Tribunal, AIR 1984 Bom 144 [for the purpose of section 22(2)(a) and section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease , Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 19968]]

The Bombay High Court has held that the expression ‘reasonable cause’ in section 273B for non-imposition of penalty u/s. 271E would have to be construed liberally depending upon the facts of each case. [CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (India) Ltd., (2012) 22 taxmann. com 138 (Bom), (2012) 208 TAXMAN 299 (Bom), (2012) 345 ITR 270 (Bom), (2012) 251 CTR 253 (Bom)]

12.4    Some illustrations/principles regarding reasonable cause

a)    Ignorance of law

It has been held that ignorance of law can constitute a reasonable cause [see ACIT vs. Vinman Finance & Leasing Ltd., (2008) 115 ITD 115 (Visk)(TM), para 13; Kaushal Diwan vs. ITO (1983) 3 ITD 432 (Del)(TM) (in the context of 285A of the Income-tax Act, 1961)]. Hence, in a given situation, the ignorance of the provisions of section 13(1) may constitute a reasonable cause.
 

    b) Bonafide belief

It has been held that penalty is not justified where the breach flows from a bonafide belief of the offender that he is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. [see

    Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1970) 25 STC 211 (SC), (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC);
    DCIT vs. Dasari Narayana Rao, (2011) 15 taxmann.com 208 (Chennai Trib) (in the context of section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1971);

    ACIT vs. Dargapandarinath Tuljayya & Co. (1977) 107 ITR 850 (AP) followed in Thomas Muthoot vs. ACIT, (2014) 52 taxmann.com 114 (Coch Trib) (in the context of section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961);

    IL & FS Maritime Infrastructure Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2013) 37 taxmann.com 297 (Mum Trib), para 8 (in the context of section 271BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961)].

Applying the aforesaid principle, a mistaken bonafide belief that section 13(1) is not applicable can constitute a reasonable cause.

(c) Expert opinion

It has been held that if a particular action is bonafide taken on the basis of an opinion from a senior counsel, then, it constitutes a reasonable cause and merely because it turns out to be wrong, a penalty cannot be levied on the assessee. [CIT vs. Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 122 (Mad)] Applying the same principle, if a charitable institution has relied upon an expert opinion, then, merely because the expert had held a different view, it does not mean that there is no reasonable cause for the default.

(d) Bonafide mistake

It has been held that registration of an assessee firm cannot be cancelled upon a bonafide mistake which was not intentional.[see CIT vs. Pawan Sut Rice Mill, (2004) 136 Taxman 640 (Pat) (in the context of section 186 of the Act)]. Applying the principle, the registration may not be cancelled if there is unintentional, bonafide mistake as a result of which section 13(1) became applicable to an assessee.

    13. No penalty upon technical or venial breach

It has been held that the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose the penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. [Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1970) 25 STC 211 (SC), (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)]. Applying the same principle, the registration may not be cancelled when there is technical or venial breach upon application of section 13(1).

    14. Whether registration can be cancelled in certain situations involving quantum assessment

For the purpose of section 271(1)(c), it has been held that penalty cannot be levied in the following situations :

    a. the assessee’s appeal against the quantum assessment has been admitted as substantial question of law (because this shows that the issue is debatable) [CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co., ITA No. 240/Del/2009, dated 05.10.2010].

    b. where two views are possible in respect of a particular addition in the quantum assessment and the issue is debatable.

    c. where the position adopted by the assessee is supported by a Tribunal or High Court judgment in another case.

Likewise, if the applicability of section 13(1) has been admitted by the High Court as a substantial question of law or if two views are possible regarding operation of section 13(1) or there is a case u/s. 13(1) supporting the view adopted by the assessee, it is a point for consideration as to whether the PCIT/CIT should not cancel the registration on the ground that the discretionary power u/s. 12AA(4) entails him to use the discretion in favour of the assessee in such matters and/or their exists a reasonable cause for the activity to be carried out by the assessee in the manner it has done.

    15. Wilful default

The registration can be cancelled if the default is a wilful default. [See CIT vs. Standard Mercantile Co., (1986) 157 ITR 139 (Pat), (1985) 49 CTR 139 (Pat), (1985) 23 TAXMAN 452 (Pat) (in the context of section 186)]
    
16. Cancellation – whether with retrospective effect?

16.2    There are two views on the issue :

    a. Registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively

    b. Registration can be cancelled retrospectively

16.3    Registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively

    For the purpose of section 35CC/CCA, Courts have held that an approval granted could not be withdrawn with retrospective effect.

[see B. P. Agarwalla & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT, (1993) 71 Taxman 361 (Cal), (1994) 208 ITR 863 (Cal)

CIT vs. Bachraj Dugar, (1998) 232 ITR 290 (Gau), (1999) 152 CTR 367 (Gau)

Jai Kumar Kankaria vs. CIT, (2002) 120 Taxman 810 (Cal)]

Applying the aforesaid principle, registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect.

    For the purpose of sales tax, it has been held that the registration certificate of a dealer could not be cancelled with retrospective effect. [M. C. Agarwal vs. STO, (1986) 11 TMI 372 (Ori), (1987) 64 STC 298 (Ori)]

    Section 12AA(4) does not refer to cancellation with retrospective effect. In the absence of such specific provision, registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect.

16.4    Registration can be cancelled retrospectively

    In Mumbai Cricket Association vs. DIT, (2012) 24 taxmann.com 99 (Mum), the Tribunal held that registration of a charitable institution could be cancelled u/s. 12AA(3) with retrospective effect. Applying the same principle, registration could be cancelled u/s. 12AA(4) with retrospective effect.

    The judgments for section 35C/CCA and under sales tax are distinguishable since a retrospective cancellation in those cases prejudicially affected the counterparty. However, in retrospective cancellation of certificate u/s. 12AA(4), it is primarily the charitable institution which is affected.

16.5    Even if registration can be cancelled retrospectively it can not be before 1st October 2014

Even if registration could be cancelled with retrospective effect, it could not be retrospective before 1st October, 2014 being the date of insertion of section 12AA(4). This is supported by the following arguments:

    In Mumbai Cricket Association vs. DIT, (2012) 24 taxmann.com 99 (Mum), it was held that the registration to a charitable institution could not be cancelled beyond 1st October, 2010, being the date on which the provision became applicable.

    It is now well settled that law that a person, who has complied with the law as it exists, cannot be penalised by reason of the amendment to the law effected subsequently, unless such intention is expressly stated and the imposition of such penalty is not contrary to any of the provisions of the Constitution.[CIT vs. Kumudam Endowments, (2001) 117 Taxman 716 (Mad)]

Again, it is now well settled that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily imply, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. [CED vs. Merchant (MA), (1989) 177 ITR 490 (SC); CWT vs. Hira Lal Mehra, (1994) 205 ITR 122 (P&H); A fiscal statute will not therefore be regarded as retrospective by implication, particularly a penal provision therein. [CWT vs. Ram Narain Agarwal, 1976 TLR 1074 (All); Thangalakshmi vs. ITO, (1994) 205 ITR 176 (Mad)]

16.6    Summary

The matter is not free from doubt. However, even if it is held that the registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect, the retrospectivity cannot be prior to 1.10.2014.

To illustrate, suppose an assessee commits a default in financial year 2013-14; the CIT notices the default in June 2015 and cancels the registration in July 2015. In this case, the cancellation can have effect from 1st October 2014, and not for the period prior to 1st October, 2014.
 


16.7    Impact of cancellation of registration upon past years if registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect. (view 1)

Suppose a charitable institution violates section 13(1) during financial year 2015-16 and its registration is cancelled in financial year 2018-19. If there is no default u/s. 13(1) in financial year 2016-17 and 2017-18, can it avail of the benefit of section 11 and 12 during these years?

Section 12A(1)(a)/(aa) provide that the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of a charitable institution unless such trust is registered u/s. 12AA. Thus, in order to avail of the benefit of exemption, an institution is required to be registered u/s. 12AA. It appears that if the registration is valid throughout the previous year and if it is cancelled after 31st March of the relevant previous year, then, so far as the said previous year is concerned, it ought to be regarded as registered u/s. 12AA for the purposes of aforesaid section 12A(1) (a)/(aa). Thus, in the aforesaid illustration, the institution should be regarded as registered for financial year 2016-17 and financial year 2017-18, that is, assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19; the registration should be regarded as cancelled only from financial year 2018-19 onwards.

17    Writ

Like any other order, in an appropriate case, a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie against the cancellation order before the jurisdictional High Court and the Court may stay the operation of the cancellation order; or quash the cancellation order; or set aside the order directing the PCIT/CIT to pass a fresh order after complying with the directions of the Court.

18    Appeal against the cancellation order

An assessee aggrieved by the order passed by PCIT or CIT, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. [see section 253(1)(c)]

Dual appeal

An assessee whose registration has cancelled will now have to pursue two appeals, one against the assessment order with the CIT(A) and another against the cancellation order with the Tribunal.
    
19.On cancellation, whether the charitable institution is debarred from making fresh application for registration?

Suppose the registration is cancelled for a default which no longer exists. To illustrate, an institution made an investment contrary to the mode specified in section 11(5). It has liquidated the investment and there is no continuing default u/s. 11(5). In such circumstances, even if the CIT cancels the registration, it appears that the institution can immediately reapply for fresh registration and the CIT has to deal with such application in accordance with the provisions of section 12AA(1).

20. Impact on cancellation order upon deletion of operation of section 13(1) in merits

The Supreme Court has authoritatively laid down that where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. [K. C. Builders vs. ACIT, (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC)]

Likewise, if it is held in the appellate proceedings that there is no violation of section 13(1) then, the cancellation order cannot survive. Further, such reversal of the cancellation order should be regarded to have retrospective effect ab initio and all the actions taken on the basis of the cancellation order would no longer survive.

21    Implications under other sections

21.2    Section 56(2)(vii)

Section 56(2)(vii) provides that if an individual or HUF receives any sum of money or property without consideration, then, the sum of money so received or the value of property so received shall be regarded as income
of the individual. The proviso to the said section provides that the provision will not apply in respect of any sum of money or property received from a charitable institution registered u/s. 12AA. Hence, if the institution supports any individual after the cancellation of registration, then such donation or contribution/aid would be regarded as income of the individual and shall be taxable beyond the basic exemption of Rs.50,000.

21.3    Section 80G

Section 80G(5)(i) provides that an institution is eligible for approval u/s. 80G if its income is not liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of sections 11 and

    Now, if the registration is cancelled, the exemption u/s. 11 and 12 would not be available to the institution and the income would be liable to inclusion in total income. In such circumstances, the institution would not be eligible to obtain an approval u/s. 80G(5) or its existing approval would be liable for cancellation.

21.4    Exemption u/s. 10

Where an institution has been granted registration u/s. 12AA or 12A and the said registration is in force for any previous year, then the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s. 10 except exemption in respect of agricultural income or u/s. 10(23C) [section 11(7)]. By implication once the registration is cancelled, the assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under section 10 e.g. dividend income u/s. 10(34) or long term gains u/s. 10(38).

22    Conclusion

Section 12AA(4) is another measure by the Government to tighten the law relating with charitable institutions. While the tax department may invoke it in many cases involving operation of section 13(1), it is felt that the ultimate cancellation of registration hinges on fulfilment of many conditions and restrictions and would lead to protracted litigation.

Charitable and religious trust – Anonymous donations – Special rate of tax – Section 115BBC – A. Y. 2009-10 – Exception – Religious trust – Overall activities of trust to be seen – Charitable activity part of religious activity – Assessee is a public religious trust – Special rate not attracted

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Narayandham Trust; 378 ITR 222 (Del): 280 CTR 335 (Del):

The assessee was a public religious trust. For the A. Y. 2009-10 the assessee had received anonymus donations to the extent of Rs. 27,25,306/-. The Assessing Officer applied the provisions of section 115BBC of the Incometax Act, 1961 and levied tax at the special rate. The Tribunal held that the Revenue had incorrectly applied section 115BBC to the facts of the assessee’s case.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) T he question of receipt of anonymus donations could not be addressed within the narrow scope of the specific wordings of some of the clauses of the trust deed but in the overall context of the actual activities in which the trust was involved in including imparting spiritual education to persons of all casts and religions, organizing samagams, distribution of free medicine and cloths to the needy and destitute, provision of free ambulance service for needy and destitute patients and so on.

ii) What can constitute religious activity in the context of Hindu religion need not be confined to the activities incidental to a place of worship like a temple. A Hindu religious institution like the assessee is also engaged in charitable activities which were very much part of the religious activity. In carrying on charitable activities along with organizing of spiritual lectures, the assessee by no means ceased to be religious institution. The activities described by the assessee as having been undertaken by it during the assessment year in question could be included in the broad conspectus of Hindu religious activity when viewed in the context of objects of the trust and its activities in general.

iii) Thus, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that for the purpose of section 115BBC(2)(a) anonymus donations received by the assessee would qualify for deduction and it can not be included in its assessable income.”

Capital gain – Short term capital gain or business income – A. Y. 2008-09 – Purchase and sale of shares – Entire investment in shares consistently treated as investment in shares and not stock-intrade – Transactions not of high volume – Own funds used for the purposes of investment in shares – Transactions delivery based – Income to be treated as short term capital gains and not business income

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah (Bom)

In the A. Y. 2008-09, the assessee claimed Rs. 9.25 crores as short term capital gain. The Assessing Officer held that it was business income. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee had been an investor in shares and had consistently treated her entire investment in shares as investment and not stock-intrade. The assessee was dealing in 35 scrips, involving 59 transactions for the entire year could not be considered for high volume so as to be classified as trading income. The assesee had not borrowed any funds but had used her own funds. He held the income to be treated as shortterm capital gains. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

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

“(i) T he Commissioner (Appeals) considered all the facts including the stand taken by the Revenue as found in the Assessing Officer’s order. On examination of all the facts he came to the conclusion that the activities carried out by the assesee could not be classified under the head “business income” but more appropriately as claimed by the assessee under the head “shortterm capital gains”. This was particularly so on application of the CBDT circular.

(ii) In view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal no substantial question of law would arise.”

Business expenditure – Section 37(1) – A. Y. 2009- 10 – Payment made by the assessee law firm to the Indian branch of the International Fiscal Association towards the cost of constructing one of its meeting halls on the understanding that the hall would be named after the assessee firm was deductible as business expenditure

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Vaish Associates; 280 CTR 605 (Del): The assessee, a law firm, had agreed to contribute Rs. 50 lakh to the Indian branch of the International Fiscal Association (IFA) on progressive basis towards the cost of constructing one of its meeting halls on the understanding that the hall would be named after the asessee firm. In the relevant year, i.e. A. Y. 2009-10, the assessee had paid Rs. 19 lakh and the same was claimed as business expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim. However, he allowed 50% deduction u/s. 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal allowed the full claim u/s. 37(1) of the Act.

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

“i) T he Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the assessee that the IFA is a professional body and a non-profit organization engaged in the study of international tax laws and policies. It, inter alia, undertakes research, holds conferences and publishes materials for the use of its members. Mr. Ajay Vora, one of the partners of the assessee firm, was also a member of the executive body of the IFA.

ii) T he contribution made by the assessee to the IFA was held to be for inter alia creating greater awareness of the assessee firm’s activities and therefore an expenditure incurred for the purposes of the profession of the assessee. It was accordingly held to be allowable as a deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act.”

Business expenditure – Disallowance u/s. 14A – A. Y. 2007-08 – Disallowance u/s. 14A is not automatic upon claim to exemption – AO’s satisfaction that voluntary disallowance made by assessee unreasonable and unsatisfactory is necessary – In the absence of such satisfaction the disallowance cannot be justified

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. I. P. Support Services India (P) Ltd.; 378 ITR 240 (Del):

In the A. Y. 2009-10, the assessee had earned dividend income which was exempt. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish an explanation why the expenses relevant to the earning of dividend should not be disallowed u/s. 14A. The assessee submitted that as no expenses had been incurred for earning dividend income, this was not a case for making any disallowance. The assessing Officer held that the invocation of section 14A is automatic and comes into operation, without any exception. He disallowed an amount of Rs. 33,35,986/- u/s. 14A read with rule 8D and added the amount to the total income. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that no interest expenditure was incurred and that the investments were done by using administrative machinery of PMS, who did not charge any fees. He deleted the addition. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

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

“i) The Assessing Officer had indeed proceeded on the erroneous premise that the invocation of section 14A is automatic and comes into operation as soon as the dividend income is claimed as exempt. The recording of satisfaction as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was unreasonable or unsatisfactory, is a mandatory requirement of the law.

ii) N o substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.”

Business expenditure – Disallowance u/s. 14A – A. Y. 2007-08 – Higher disallowance under rule 8D agreed before AO – Assessee could not be bound by such offer – Tribunal justified in reducing the amount of disallowance

fiogf49gjkf0d

CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd.; 378 ITR 57 (Bom):

For the A. Y. 2007-08, the assessee and the Assessing Officer worked out the amount disallowable u/s. 14A read with rule 8D at Rs.20,27.896/- Before the Tribunal the assessee pointed out that the disallowance is on a higher side and claimed that a reasonable amount should be disallowed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1 lakh.

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

“The Tribunal had gone into the factual aspects in great detail and interpreted the law as it stood on the relevant date. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal restricting the disallowance to Rs. 1 lakh u/s. 14A was justified.”

Housing Project – Special Deduction – Law before 1st April, 2002 – There was no limit fixed in section 80-IB(10) regarding built-up area to be used for commercial purpose in a housing project and it could be constructed to the extent provided in local laws under which local authority gives sanction to the housing project.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Veena Developers [SLP (c) No.22450 of 2011 dated 30-4-2015]

The assessees had undertaken construction projects which were approved by the municipal authorities/local authorities as housing projects. On that basis, they claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act.

However, the income tax authorities rejected the claim of deduction on the ground that the projects were not “housing project” inasmuch as some commercial activity was also undertaken in those projects. This contention of the Revenue was not accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court. The High Court interpreted the expression “housing project” by giving grammatical meaning thereto as housing project is not defined under the Income-tax Act insofar as the aforesaid provision is concerned. The High Court held that since sub-section (10) of section 80-IB very categorically mentioned that such a project which is undertaken as housing project is approved by a local authority, once the project is approved by the local authority it is to be treated as the housing project. The High Court had made observations in the context of Development Control Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCRs’ in short) under which the local authority sanctions the housing projects and noted that in these DCRs itself, an element of commercial activity is provided but the total project is still treated as housing project. The Supreme Court noted that on the basis of this discussion, after modifying some of the directions given by the ITAT , the conclusions arrived at by the High Court were as follows:-

a) Upto 31/3/2005 (subject to fulfilled other conditions), deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under DC Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority.

b) I n such a case, where the commercial user permitted by the local authority is within the limits prescribed under the DC Rules/Regulation, the deduction u/s. 80- IB(10) upto 31/3/2005 would be allowable irrespective of the fact that the project is approved as ‘housing project’ or ‘residential plus commercial’.

c) I n the absence of any provision under the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that upto 31/3/2015 deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user upto 10% of the total built-up area of the plot.

d) Since deductions u/s. 80-IB(10) is on the profits derived from the housing projects approved by the local authority as a whole, the Tribunal was not justified in restricting section 80-IB(10) deduction only to a part of the project. However, in the present case, since the assessee has accepted the decision of the Tribunal in allowing section 80-IB(10) deduction to a part of the project, the findings of the Tribunal in that behalf were not disturbed.

e) Clause (d) inserted to section 80IB(10) with effect from 1/4/2005 was prospective and not retrospective and hence could not be applied for the period prior to 1/4/2005.

The Supreme Court agreed with the aforesaid answers given by the High Court to the various issues. The Supreme Court however, clarified that in so far as answer at para (a) was concerned, it would mean those projects which were approved by the local authorities as housing projects with commercial element therein.

There was much debate on the answer given in para (b) above before the Supreme Court. It was argued by learned senior counsel, for the Revenue that a project which was cleared as “residential plus commercial” project could not be treated as housing project and therefore, this direction was contrary to the provisions of section 80-IB(10) of the Act. However, according to the Supreme Court reading the direction in its entirety and particularlly the first sentence thereof, the commercial user which was permitted was in the residential units and that too, as per DCR.

The Supreme Court clarified that direction (b) was to be read in the context where the project was predominantly housing/residential project but the commercial activity in the residential units was permitted.

Housing Project – Special Deduction- Section 80IB(10) – Change of Law with effect from 1st April, 2005 – Cannot be applied to those projects which were sanctioned and commenced prior to 1st April, 2005 and completed by the stipulated date though such stipulated date is after 1st April, 2005.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392(SC)

The question of law that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was formulated by it as under:

“Whether section 80-IB(10)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies to a housing project approved before March 31, 2005, but completed on or after April 1, 2005”?

The Supreme Court observed that sub-section (10) of section 80IB stipulates certain conditions which are to be satisfied in order to avail of the benefit of the said provision. Further, the benefit is available to those undertakings which are developing and building “housing projects” approved by a local authority. Thus, this section is applicable in respect of housing projects and not commercial projects. At the same time, it is a fact that even in the housing projects, there would be some are for commercial purposes as certain shops and commercial establishments area needed even in a housing project.

That has been judicially recognised while interpreting the provision that existing before 1st April, 2005 in CIT vs. Veena Developers [SLP (c) No.22450/2011 dated 30-4- 2015], and there was no limit fixed in section 80-IB(10) regarding the built-up area to be used for commercial purpose in the said housing project. The extent to which such commercial area could be constructed was as per the local laws under which local authority gave the sanction to the housing project. However, vide clause (d), which was inserted by the aforesaid amendment and made effective from 1st April, 2005, it was stipulated that the built-up area of the shops and other commercial establishments in the housing projects would not exceed 5 % of the aggregate built-up area of the housing project or 2,000 square feet, whichever is less (there is a further amendment whereby 5 % is reduced to 3 % and instead of the words “2,000 square feet, whichever is less” the words “5,000 square feet, whichever is higher” have been substituted). According to the Supreme Court, the question, thus, that required for consideration was as to whether in respect of those housing projects which finished on or after 1st April, 2005, though sanctioned and started much earlier, the aforesaid stipulation contained to clause (d) also has to be satisfied. The Supreme Court noted that all the High Courts have held that since this amendment is prospective and has come into effect from 1st April, 2005, this condition would not apply to those housing projects which had been sanctioned and stared earlier even if they finished after 1st April, 2005.

The Supreme Court noted that with effect from 1st April, 2001, section 80-IB(10) stipulated that any housing project approved by the local authority before 31st March, 2001, was entitled to a deduction of 100 % of the profits derived in any previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project, provided—(i) the construction/ development of the said housing project commenced on after 1st October, 1998, and was completed before 31st March, 2003; (ii) the housing project was on a size of a plot of land which had a minimum area of one acre; and (iii) each individual residential unit had a maximum built-up area of 1,000 square feet, where such housing project was situated within the cities of Delhi or Mumbai or within 25 kms. from municipal limits of these cities, and a maximum built-up area of 1,500 square feet at any other place. Therefore, for the first time, a stipulation was added with reference to the date of approval, namely, that approval had to be accorded to the housing project by the local authority before 31st March, 2001. Before this amendment, there was no date prescribed for the approval being granted by the local authority to the housing project. Prior to this amendment, as long as the development/ construction commenced on or after 1st October, 1998, and was completed before 31st March, 2001, the assessee was entitled to the deduction. Also by this amendment, the date of completion was changed from 31st March, 2001, to 31st March, 2003. Everything else remained untouched.

Thereafter, by the Finance Act, 2003, further amendments were made to section 80-IB(10). The only changes that were brought about were that with effect from 1st April, 2002: (i) the housing project had to be approved before 31st March, 2005; and (ii) there was no time limit prescribed for completion of the said project. Though these changes were brought about by the Finance Act, 2003, the Legislature thought it fit tht these changes be deemed to have been brought into effect from 1st April, 2002. All the remaining provisions of section 80-IB(10) remained unchanged.

Thereafter, significant amendment, with which the Supreme Court was directly concerned, was carried out by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, with effect from 1st April, 2005. The Legislature made substantial changes in subsection (10). Several new conditions were incorporated for the first time, including the condition mentioned in clause (d). This condition/restriction was not on the statute book earlier when all these projects were sanctioned. Another important amendment was made by this Act to sub-section (14) of section 80-IB with effect from 1st April, 2005, and for the first time under clause (a) thereof the words “built-up area” were defined.

Prior to the insertion of section 80-IB(14)(a), in many of the rules and regulations of the local authority approving the housing project “built-up area” did not include projections and balconies. Probably, taking advantage of this fact, builders provided large balconies and projections making the residential units far bigger than as stipulated in section 80-IB(10), and yet claimed the deduction under the said provision. To plug this lacuna, clause (a) was inserted in section 80-IB(14) defining the words “built-up area” to mean the inner measurements of the residential unit at the floor level, including the projections and balconies, as increased by the thickness of the walls but did not include the common areas shared with other residential units.

According to the Supreme Court, the only way to resolve the issue was to hold that clause (d) is to be treated as inextricably linked with the approval and construction of the housing project and an assessee cannot be called upon to comply with the said condition when it is not in contemplation either of the assessee or even the Legislature, when the housing project was accorded approval by the local authorities.

The Supreme Court held that by way of an amendment in the form of clause (d), an attempt is made to restrict the size of the said shops and/or commercial establishments. Therefore, by necessary implication, the said provision has to be read prospectively and not retrospectively. As is clear from the amendment, this provision came into effect only from the day the provision was substituted. Therefore, it cannot be applied to those projects which were sanctioned and commenced prior to 1st April, 2005, and completed by the stipulated date, though such stipulated date is after 1st April, 2005. According to the Supreme Court, these aspects were dealt with by various High Courts elaborately and convincingly in their judgments and had taken a correct view that the assesses were entitled to the benefit of section 80-IB(10). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue.

Surtax – Exemption – Agreements with foreign companies for services or facilities for supply of ship, aircraft, machinery and plant to be used in connection with the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils – Chargeable profits are liable to tax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 – Exemption vide Notification No.GSR 370(E) dated 31-3-1983 u/s. 24AA not available.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 117(SC)

Section 24AA of the Surtax Act, vests in the Central Government the power to make exemption, reduction in rate or other modification in respect of surtax in favour of any class of foreign companies which are specified in s/s. (2), in regard to the whole or any part of the chargeable profits liable to tax under the Surtax Act. Sub-section (2) of section 24AA refers to two categories of foreign companies. The first is foreign companies with whom the Central Government has entered into agreements for association or participation, including participation by any authorised person, in any business consisting of the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. The second category of foreign companies mentioned in s/s. (2) is foreign companies that may be providing services or facilities or supplying any ship, aircraft, machinery or plant in connection with any business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils carried on by the Central Government or any authorised person. Specifically the section states that mineral oils will include petroleum and natural gas.

The exemption notification bearing No. G. S. R. 307(E), dated 31st March, 1983, specifically grants exemption in respect of surtax in favour of foreign companies with whom the Central Government has entered into agreements for association or participation of that Government or any authorised person in the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils.

The ONGC had executed agreements with different foreign companies for services or facilities or for supply of ship, aircraft, machinery and plant, as may be, all of which were to be used in connection with the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. Such agreements did not contemplate a direct association or participation of the ONGC in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils but involved the taking of services and facilities or use of plant or machinery which is connected with the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils.

In the above situation, the primary authority took the view that the agreements executed by the ONGC with the foreign companies being for services to be rendered and such agreements not being for association or participation in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils, would not be covered by the exemption notification in question which by its very language granted exemption only to foreign companies with whom there were agreements for participation by the Central Government or the person authorised in the business of prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils. The agreements in question, according to assessing authority, were, therefore “service agreements” and, hence, covered by sub-section (2)(b) of section 24AA of the Surtax Act and were, accordingly, beyond the purview of the exemption modification.

The said view was reversed by the learned Appellate Commissioner and upheld by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal u/s. 260A of the Act, the High Court of Uttarakhand overturned the view taken by the Appellate Commissioner and the learned Tribunal.

The Supreme Court held that section 24AA of the Surtax Act vests power in the Central Government, inter-alia, to grant exemption to foreign companies with whom agreements have been executed by the Central Government for association or participation in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils and also to foreign companies who are providing support services or facilities or making available plant and machinery in connection with the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils in which the Central Government or an authorised person is associated. In other words, the power to grant exemption is two-fold and covers agreements directly associated with the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils or contracts facilitating or making available services in connection with such a business. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act which could have debarred the Central Government from granting exemptions to both categories of foreign companies mentioned above or to confine the grant of exemption to any one or a specified category of foreign companies. The Notification No. G. S. R. 307(E), dated 31st March, 1983, however grants exemption only to foreign companies with whom the Central Government had executed agreements for direct association or participation by the Central Government or the person authorised by it (ONGC) in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. In other words, the exemption notification confines or restricts the scope of the exemption to only one category of foreign companies which has been specifically enumerated in sub-section (2)(a) of section 24AA of the Surtax Act. The Second category of foreign companies that may be providing services as enumerated in sub-section (2)(b) of section 24AA is specifically omitted in the exemption notification. The power u/s. 24AA of the Surtax Act, is wide enough to include even this category of foreign companies. The omission of this particular category of foreign companies in the exemption notification, notwithstanding the wide amplitude and availability of the power u/s. 24AA, clearly reflects a conscious decision on the part of the Central Government to confine the scope of the exemption notification to only those foreign companies that are enumerated in and covered by sub-section 2(a) of section 24AA of the Surtax Act.

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the High Court and dismissed the appeals.

Non-Resident – Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils – Presumptive Tax – If the works or services mentioned under a particular agreement was directly associated or inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils, payments made under such agreement to a non-resident/foreign company would be chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 44BB and not section 44D of the Act.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 376 ITR 306 (SC)

The appellant – ONGC and a non-resident/foreign company one M/s. Foramer France had entered into an agreement by which the non-resident company had agreed to make available supervisory staff and personnel having experience and expertise for operation and management of drilling rigs Sagar Jyoti and Sagar Pragati for the assessment year 1985-86 and the drilling rig Sagar Ratna for the assessment year 1986-87.

The appellant – ONGC has been assessed in a representative capacity on behalf of the foreign company with whom it had executed agreements for services to be rendered by such company in connection with prospecting extraction or production of mineral oils by ONGC. The primary/assessing authority took the view that the assessments should be made u/s. 44D of the Act and not section 44BB of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the views of the assessing authorities leading to the institution of appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court overturned the view taken by the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal and held the payments made to be liable for assessment u/s. 44D of the Act.

The High Court took the view that under the agreement, payment to M/s. Foramer France was required to be made at the rate of 3,450 $ per day and that the contract clearly contemplated rendering of technical services by personnel of the non-resident company as the contract did not mention that the personnel of the non-resident company were also carrying out the work of drilling of wells and as the company had received fees for rendering service, the payments made were liable to be taxed under the provisions of section 44D of the Act.

Aggrieved, the ONGC has filed appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that a careful reading of the provisions of the Act goes to show that u/s. 44BB(1) in the case of a non-resident providing services or facilities in connection with or supplying plant and machinery used or to be used in prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils the profit and gains from such business chargeable to tax is to be calculated at a sum equal to 10 per cent of the aggregate of the amounts paid or payable to such non-resident assessee as mentioned in s/s. (2). On the other hand, section 44D contemplates that if the income of a foreign company with which the Government or an Indian concern had an agreement executed before 1st April, 1976, or on any date thereafter but before April, 2003 the computation of income would be made as contemplated under the aforesaid section 44D. Explanation (a) to section 44D, however, specifies that “fees for technical services” as mentioned in section 44D would have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of section 9(1). The said Explanation, defines “fees for technical services” to mean consideration for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services. However, the later part of the Explanation excludes from consideration for the purposes of the expression, i.e., “fees for technical services” any payment received for construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be chargeable under the head “Salaries”. Fees for technical services, therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid Explanation would not include payments made in connection with a mining project.

The Supreme Court noted that the Income-tax Act does not define the expressions “mines” or “minerals”. The said expressions however were found defined and explained in the Mines Act, 1952, and the Oil Fields (Development and Regulations) Act, 1948. The Supreme Court having regard to the said definition and to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, held that drilling operations for the purpose of production of petroleum would clearly amount to a mining activity or a mining operation. Viewed thus, it was the proximity of the works contemplated under an agreement, executed with a non-resident assessee or a foreign company, with mining activity or a mining operation that would be crucial for the determination of the question whether the payments made under such an agreement to the non-resident assessee or the foreign company is to be assessed u/s. 44BB or section 44D of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had accepted the said test and had in fact issued a Circular as far back as 22nd October, 1990, to the effect that mining operations and the expressions “mining projects” or “like projects” occurring in Explanation 2 to section 9(1) of the Act would cover rendering of service like imparting of training and carrying out drilling operations for exploration of and extraction of oil and natural gas and, hence, payments made under such agreement to a non-resident/foreign company would be chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 44BB and not section 44D of the Act.

According to the Supreme Court, it was not possible to take any other view if the works or services mentioned under a particular agreement was directly associated or inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils. Keeping in mind the above provisions and looking into each of the contracts involved in the group of cases before it, it found that the pith and substance of each of the contracts/agreements was inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil. The dominant purpose of each of such agreement was for prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils though there would be certain ancillary works contemplated thereunder. The Supreme Court therefore held that the payments made by ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the said contracts was more appropriately assessable under the provisions of section 44BB and not section 44D of the Act.

Capital Gains – Exemption u/s. 54G – Transfer of Unit from Urban Area to Non-Urban Area – Advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of the assets would certainly amount to utilisation by the assessee of the capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/ or acquiring the aforesaid assets.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Fire Boards (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 376 ITR 596 (SC)

The assessee, a private limited company, had an industrial unit at Majiwada, Thane, which was notified urban area as per notification dated 22nd September, 1967 issued u/s. 280Y(d) for the purpose of Chapter XXII-B. With a view to shift its industrial undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area at Kurukumbh Village, Pune District, Maharashtra, it sold its land, building and plant and machinery situated at Majiwada, Thane to Shree Vardhman Trust for a consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000, and after deducting an amount of Rs.11,62,956, had earned a capital gain of Rs.1,08,33,044. Since it intended to shift its industrial undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area, out of the capital gain so earned, the appellant paid by way of advances, various amounts to different persons for purchase of land, plant and machinery, construction of factory building, etc. Such advances amounted to Rs.1,11,42,973 in the year 1991-92. The appellant claimed exemption u/s. 54G of the Income-tax Act on the entire capital gain earned from the sale proceeds of its erstwhile industrial undertaking situated in Thane in view of the advances so made being more than the capital gain made by it. Section 54G was introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from assessment year 1988-89.

The Assessing Officer imposed a tax on capital gains, refusing to grant exemption to the appellant u/s. 54G. According to the Assessing Officer, non-urban area had not been notified by the Central Government and therefore the plea of shifting the non-urban area could not be accepted. Further, it could not be said that giving advance to different concerns meant utilisation of money for acquiring the assets. Hence, failure to deposit the capital gain in the Capital Gains Deposit Account by the assessee the claim could not be allowed.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal however, allowed the assessee’s appeal stating that even an agreement to purchase is good enough and that the Explanation to section 54G being declaratory in nature would be retrospective.

The High Court reversed the judgment of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal and held that as the notification declaring Thane to be an urban area stood repealed with the repeal of the section under which it was made, the appellant did not satisfy the basic condition necessary to attract section 54G, namely, that a transfer had to be made from an urban area to a non-urban area. Further, the expression “purchase” in section 54G could not be equated with the expression “towards purchase” and, therefore, admittedly as land, plant and machinery had not been purchased in the assessment year in question, the exemption contained in section 54G had to be denied.

The Supreme Court held that on a conjoint reading of the Budget Speech, Notes on clauses and Memorandum Explaining the Finance Bill of 1987, it was clear that the idea of omitting section 280ZA and introducing on the same date section 54G was to do away with the tax credit certificate scheme together with the prior approval required by the Board and to substitute the repealed provision with the new scheme contained in section 54G. It was true that section 280Y(d) was only omitted by the Finance Act, 1990, and was not omitted together with section 280ZA. However, this would make no material difference inasmuch as section 280Y(d) was a definition section defining ‘urban area” for the purpose of section 280ZA only and for no other purposes. It was clear that once section 280ZA was omitted from the statute book, section 280Y(d) had no independent existence and would for all practical purposes also be “dead”. Quite apart from this, section 54G(1) by its Explanation introduced the very definition contained in section 280Y(d) in the same terms. Obviously, both provisions were not expected to be applied simultaneously and it was clear that the Explanation to section 54G(1) repealed by implication section 280Y(d). Further, from a reading of the Notes on Clauses and the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 1990, it was clear that section 280Y(d) which was omitted with effect from 1st April 1, 1990, was so omitted because it had become “redundant”. It was redundant because it had no independent existence, apart from providing a definition of “urban area” for the purpose of section 280ZA which had been omitted with effect from the very date that section 54G was inserted, namely, 1st April, 1988.

The Supreme Court further held that the idea of section 24 of the General Clauses Act is, as its marginal note shows, to continue uninterrupted subordinate legislation that may be made under a Central Act that is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification. It being clear in the present case that section 280ZA which was repealed by omission and re-enacted with modification in section 54G, the notification declaring Thane to be an urban area dated 22nd September, 1967, would continue under and for the purposes of section 54G. It was clear, therefore, that the impugned judgment in not referring to section 24 of the General Clauses Act at all had thus fallen into error.

The Supreme Court for all the aforesaid reasons was therefore, of the view that on omission of section 280ZA and its re-enactment with modification in section 54G, section 24 of the General Clauses Act would apply, and the notification of 1967, declaring Thane to be an urban area, would be continued under and for the purposes of section 54G. The Supreme Court held that a reading of section 54G makes it clear that the assessee is given a window of three years after the date on which transfer has taken place to “purchase” new machinery or plant or “acquire” building or land. The High Court had completely missed the window of three years given to the assessee to purchase or acquire machinery and building or land. This is why the expression used in section 54G(2) is “which is not utilised by him for all or any of the purposes aforesaid.” According to the Supreme Court, it was clear that for the assessment year in question all that was required for the assessee to avail of the exemption contained in the section was to “utilize” the amount of capital gains for purchase and acquisition of new machinery or plant and building or land. It was undisputed that the entire amount claimed in the assessment year in question had been so “utilized” for purchase and/or acquisition of new machinery or plant and land or building. If the High Court was right, the assessee had to purchase and/or acquire machinery, plant, land and building within the same assessment year in which the transfer takes place. Further, the High Court missed the key words “not utilized” in sub-section (2) which would show that it was enough that the capital gain made by the assessee should only be “utilized” by him in the assessment year in question for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, that is towards purchase and acquisition of plant and machinery, and land and building. Advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of the aforesaid assets would certainly amount to utilisation by the assessee of the capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets.

Power of High Court to Review – High Courts being courts of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would inherent in them and section 260A(7) does not purport in any manner to curtail or restrict the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2015] 377 ITR 112 (SC)

In the first judgment of the High Court dated 16th September, 2010, various points on the merits were gone into, inter alia, as to whether deductions to be made u/s. 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were allowable on facts and whether transport subsidies were or were not available together with other incentive. Ultimately, the High Court after stating in paragraph 2 that two substantial questions of law arose u/s. 260A of the Income-tax Act went on to answer the two questions. The first question so framed was answered in the negative, that is in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee. However, the second question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee, and against Revenue, and the appeal was disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Against the aforesaid judgment dated 16th September, 2010, a Review Petition was filed by the assessee before the very Division Bench. In a long judgement dated 8th April, 2013, the Division Bench recalled its earlier order dated 16th September, 2010 for the reason that there was an omission to formulate the substantial questions of law. Before the Supreme Court Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, assailed the aforesaid judgment dated 8th April, 2013, stating that it was factually incorrect that no substantial question of law have been framed and that such questions were to be found in the very beginning of the judgment dated 16th September, 2010, itself. He further argued, referring to section 260A(7), that only those provisions of the Civil Procedure Code could be looked into for the purposes of section 260A as were relevant to the disposal of appeals, and since the review provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure were not so referred to, the High Court would have no jurisdiction u/s. 260A to review such judgment.

The Supreme Court noted that by the review order dated 8th April, 2013, the Division Bench felt that it should not have gone into the matter at all given the fact that on an earlier occasion, before 16th September, 2010, it had reserved the judgment on whether substantial questions of law in fact exist at all or not. This being the case, in a lengthy order the Division Bench has thought it fit to recall its own earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court in such circumstances was not inclined to interfere with the judgment in view of what had been recorded in the impugned judgment dated 8th April, 2013. The Supreme Court further held that High Courts being courts of record under article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact be inherent in them. Also on reading of section 260A(7), it was clear that the said section did not purport in any manner to curtail or restrict the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals u/s. 260A. That does not in any manner suggest either that the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are necessarily excluded or that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is in any manner affected.

Wealth Tax – Valuation of Asset – “Price that asset would fetch in market” – Valuation of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit could only be valued at the amount of maximum compensation under the Ceiling Act.

fiogf49gjkf0d
S. N. Wadiyar (Decd. Through L. R.) vs. CWT [2015] 378 ITR 9 (SC)

The appellant was assessed to wealth-tax under the Act for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1986-87. The valuation of the property which was the subject matter of wealth-tax under the Act was the urban land appurtenant to the Bangalore Palace (hereinafter referred to as “the property”). The total extent of the property was 554 acres or 1837365.36 sq. mtrs. It comprised of residential units, non-residential units and land appurtenant thereto, roads and masonry structures along the contour and the vacant land. The vacant land measured 11,66,377.34 sq.mtrs. The aforesaid property was the private property of the late Sri Jaychamarajendra Wodeyar, the former ruler of the princely State of Mysore. He died on 23rd September, 1974. After the death of Sri Jaychamarajendra Wodeyar, his son Sri Srikantadatta Wodeyar, the assessee applied to the Settlement Commission to get the dispute settled with regard to valuation of property and lands appurtenant thereto for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1976-77.

The application of the assessee before the Settlement Commission for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1976- 77 was disposed of on 29th September, 1988 laying down norms for valuation of the property. The Wealthtax Officer adopted the value as per the Settlement Commission for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977- 78 and 1978-79 at Rs.13.18 crore (for both land and buildings). For the assessment year 1979-80, since there was no report of the Valuation Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) worked out the value of the property at Rs.19.96 crore for the assessment year 1979- 80, which was adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment year 1980-81 as well. For the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Wealth-tax Officer fixed the value of land and building at Rs.18.78 crore, Rs.29.85 crore and Rs.29.85 crore, respectively. For the assessment year 1984-85, the Wealth-tax Officer took the value at Rs.31.22 crore on the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for earlier years.

The orders of the Wealth-tax Officer passed under the Act fixing the value of the land for different assessment years for the purpose of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals). In these appeals, the contention of the assessee was that the value of the property was covered by the Ceiling Act for which maximum compensation that could be received by the assessee was only Rs.2 lakh. The appeals filed for the assessment years, namely, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1983- 84 were disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by a common order dated 9th January, 1990, in which he made slight modifications to value adopted for the assessment year 1981-82 and confirmed the valuation of the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. However, in respect of appeals relating to the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the orders dated 31st July, 1990, accepting that the urban land appurtenant to the property be valued at Rs.2,00,000. Similar orders came to be passed by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 also. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), both the assessee as well as the Revenue/ Department went up in appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.

The issue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was only with regard to the valuation of vacant land attached to the property since the assessee had accepted the valuation in regard to residential and non-residential structures within the said property area and appurtenant land thereto.

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, passed the order directing the vacant land be valued at Rs.2 lakh for each year from the assessment years 1977-78 to 1985-86. Its reasoning was that the competent authority under the Ceiling Act had passed an order determining that the vacant land was in excess of the ceiling limit, and had ordered that action be taken to acquire the excess land under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1901. And under the Land Ceiling Act, an embargo was placed on the assessee to sell the subject land and exercise full rights. The assessee was only eligible to maximum compensation of Rs.2 lakh under the Ceiling Act. Hence, given these facts and circumstances the subject land could only be valued at Rs.2 lakh for wealthtax purposes on the valuation date for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1985-86.

Against the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax sought reference before the Karnataka High Court in respect of the assessment years, namely, 1977-78 to 1985-86 arising out of the consolidated order of the Tribunal.

The High Court, vide the impugned order dated 13th June, 2005 holding that although the prohibition and restriction contained in the Ceiling Act had the effect of decreasing the value of the property, still the value of the land cannot be the maximum compensation that is payable under the provision of the Ceiling Act. Thus, the question referred had been answered against the assessee.

The Supreme Court observed that the valuation of the asset in question has to be in the manner provided u/s. 7 of the Act. Such a valuation has to be on the valuation date which has reference to the last day of the previous year as defined u/s. 3 of the Income-tax Act, if an assessment was to be made under that Act for that year. In other words, it is 31st March, immediately preceding the assessment year. The valuation arrived at as on that date of the asset is the valuation on which wealth-tax is assessable. It is clear from the reading of section 7 of the Act that the Assessing Officers has to keep hypothetical situation in mind, namely, if the asset in question is to be sold in the open market, what price it would fetch. The Assessing Officer has to form an opinion about the estimation of such a price that is likely to be received if the property were to be sold. There is no actual sale and only a hypothetical situation of a sale is to be contemplated by the Assessing Officers. The tax officer has to form an opinion about the estimated price if the asset were to be sold in the assumed market and the estimated price would be the one which an assumed wiling purchaser would pay for it. On these reckoning, the asset has to be valued in the ordinary way.

The Supreme Court noted that the effect of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in the context of instant appeals was that the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit was not acquired by the State Government as notification u/s. 10(1) of the Ceiling Act had not been issued. However, the process had started as the assessee had filed statement in the prescribed form as per the provisions of section 6(1) of the Ceiling Act and the competent authority had also prepared a draft statement u/s. 8 which was duly served upon the assessee. The fact remained that so long as the Act was operative, by virtue of section 3 the assessee was not entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Order was also passed to the effect that the maximum compensation payable was Rs.2 lakh.

The Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer took into consideration the price which the property would have fetched on the valuation date, i.e., the market price, as if it was not under the rigours of the Ceiling Act. Such estimation of the price which the asset would have fetched if sold in the open market on the valuation date(s), would clearly be wrong even on the analogy/rationale given by the High Court as it accepted that restrictions and prohibitions under the Ceiling Act would have depressing effect on the value of the asset. Therefore, the valuation as done by the Assessing Officer could not have been accepted. The Supreme Court observed that it was not oblivious of those categories of buyers who may buy “disputed properties” by taking risks with the hope that legal proceedings may ultimately be decided in favour of the assessee and in such a eventuality they were going to get much higher value. However, as stated above, hypothetical presumptions of such sales are to be discarded as one has to keep in mind the conduct of a reasonable person and “ordinary way” of the presumptuous sale.

The Supreme Court held that when such a presumed buyer is not going to offer more than Rs.2 lakh, the obvious answer is that the estimated price which such asset would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date(s) would not be more than Rs.2 lakh. The Supreme Court having held so pointed out one aspect which was missed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal as well while deciding the case in favour of the assessee. The compensation of Rs.2 lakh was in respect of only the “excess land” which was covered by sections 3 and 4 of the Ceiling Act. The Supreme Court held that the total vacant land for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act is not only excess land but other part of the land which would have remained with the assessee in any case. Therefore, the valuation of the excess land, which was the subject matter of the Ceiling Act, would be Rs.2 lakh. To that market value of the remaining land would have to be added for the purpose of arriving at the valuation for payment of wealth-tax. 

Reassessment beyond Reasons

fiogf49gjkf0d
Issue for Consideration
Quite often, one comes across orders of reassessment wherein additions are made in respect of items that are not listed in the reasons recorded for reopening at the time of issue of notice u/s. 147, for reopening an assessment.

In many a case, no additions are made for the issues that formed part of the reasons for reopening, while passing an order of reassessment, and instead, additions are made on altogether new issues that are not part of the reasons recorded.

There has been an ongoing conflict concerning the scope of reassessment. Should the scope extend to cover issues not recorded in the reasons and, if yes, should such extension be denied, at least in cases where the reasons for which the reopening was made, have been found to be invalid on final reassessment. An additional issue that arises is whether a fresh notice u/s. 148 is required to be issued for covering the new issue in reassessment.

The issue about including new issues where additions are also made in respect of the recorded reasons is settled in favour of sustenance of addition on account of a new or additional issues. What appears however, to be open is the issue where addition is made on account of an issue that has not been found in the reasons recorded and where no addition is made for the reasons recorded. Conflicting decisions are delivered on the subject by High Courts with some upholding the right of the Assessing Officer, and some dismissing it.

N. Govindaraju’s case
The issue recently came up for consideration of the Karnataka High court in the case of N. Govindaraju vs. ITO, 60 taxmann.com 333 (Karnataka).In that case, the assessee, an individual, had income from house property, transport business, capital gains and other sources, and had filed the return of income, which was processed u/s. 143(1) and accepted. A notice u/s. 148 was issued for reopening the assessment for the purpose of assessing the income from the sale of property u/s. 45(2) and also for denying the benefit of indexation. The reassessment was completed on total income of Rs.29.91 lakh. No addition was made u/s. 45(2), nor was indexation denied to him in reassessment. Additions were however made for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the reassessment and the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified in law.

On appeal to the High Court, the assessee raised the following questions for consideration of the court; “Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding reassessment proceedings, when the reason recorded for re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of Act itself does not survive. Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding levy of tax on a different issue, which was not a subject matter for re-opening the assessment and moreover the reason recorded for the re-opening of the assessment itself does not survive.”

On behalf of the assessee, it was submitted that the order u/s. 147 of the Act had to be in consonance with the reasons given for which notice u/s. 148 had been issued, and once it was found that no tax could be levied for the reasons given in the notice for reopening the assessment, independent assessment or reassessment on other issues would not be permissible, even if subsequently, in the course of such proceedings some other income chargeable to tax was found to have escaped assessment; the reason for which notice was given had to survive, and it was only thereafter that ‘any other income’ which was found to have escaped assessment could be assessed or reassessed in such proceedings; the reopening of assessment should first be valid (which could be only when reason for reopening survived) and once the reopening was valid, then u/s. 147 of the Act, the entire case could be reassessed on all grounds or issues; if reopening was valid and reassessment could be made for such reason, then only the AO could proceed further and not doing so, without even the reason for reopening surviving, it could lead to fishing and roving enquiry and would give unfettered powers to the AO.

The Revenue submitted that under the old section 147 (as it stood prior to 1989), grounds or items for which no reasons had been recorded could not be opened, and because of conflicting decisions of the High Courts, the provisions of the said section had now been clarified to include or cover any other income chargeable to tax which might have escaped assessment and for which reasons might not have been recorded before giving the notice; that the said section 147 was in two parts, which had to be read independently, and the phrase “such income”, in the first part, was with regard to which reasons had been recorded and the phrase “any other income” in the second part was with regard to where no reasons were recorded in the notice and had come to notice of the AO during the course of the proceedings. Both being independent, once the satisfaction in the notice was found sufficient, addition could be made on all grounds, i.e., for which reason had been recorded and also for which no reason had been recorded. All that was necessary was that during the course of the proceedings u/s. 147, income chargeable to tax must be found to have escaped assessment. Strong reliance was placed by the Revenue on the insertion of Explanation 3 in support of its contentions.

The court, on hearing the contentions of the parties, held that once the notice for reopening of a previously closed assessment was held to be valid, the assessment proceedings as well as the assessment order already passed would be deemed to have been set aside and the AO would then have the power to pass fresh assessment order with regard to the entire income which escaped assessment and to levy tax thereon. and doing so was his duty .

The court observed that the issue was whether the latter part of the section relating to ‘any other income’ was to be read in conjunction with the first part (relating to ‘such income’) or not; if it was to be read in conjunction, then without there being any addition made with regard to ‘such income’ (for which reason had been given in the notice for reopening the assessment), the second part could not be invoked; however, if it was not to be so read in conjunction, the second part could be invoked independently even without the reason for the first part surviving.

In the opinion of the court, from a plain reading of section 147, it was clear that its latter part provided that ‘any other income’ chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment and which had come to the notice of the AO subsequently in the course of the proceedings, could also be taxed. It further noted that the sole purpose of Chapter XIV of the Act was to bring to tax the entire taxable income of the assessee and, in doing so, where the AO had reason to believe that some income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, he might assess or reassess such income. In doing so, it would be open to him to also independently assess or reassess any other income which did not form the subject matter of notice.

The court took note of the conflicting decisions of the high courts on the subject, noting that some had held that the second part of section 147 was to be read in conjunction with the first part, and some had held that the second part was to be read independently.

It held that the insertion of Explanation 3 could not be but for the benefit of the revenue, and not the assessee. In that view of the matter, on reading section 147, it was clear that the phrase ‘and also’ joined the first and second parts of the section; the phrase ‘and’ was conjunctive which was to join the first part with the second part, but ‘also’ was for the second part and was disjunctive; it segregated the first part from the second. Upon reading the full section, the phrase ‘and also’ could not be said to be conjunctive. It was thus clear to the court that once satisfaction of reasons for the notice was found sufficient, i.e., if the notice u/s. 148(2) was found to be valid, then addition could be made on all grounds or issues (with regard to ‘any other income’ also) which might come to the notice of the AO subsequently during the course of proceedings u/s. 147, even though reason for notice for ‘such income’ which might have escaped assessment, did not survive.

Importantly, the court held that Explanation 3 was inserted to address the ambiguity in the main provision of the enactment that had arisen because of the different interpretation of different High Courts about the issue whether the second part of the section was independent of the first part, or not. To clarify the same, Explanation 3 was inserted, by which it had been clarified that the AO could assess the income in respect of any issue which had escaped assessment and also ‘any other income’ (of the second part of section 147) which came to his notice subsequently during the course of the proceedings under the section. After the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147, it was clear that the use of the phrase ‘and also’ between the first and the second parts of the section was not conjunctive and assessment of ‘any other income’ (of the second part) can be made independent of the first part (relating to ‘such income’ for which reasons were given in notice u/s. 148), notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue (‘any other income’) had not been given in the reasons recorded u/s. 148(2).

Considering the provision of section 147 as well as its Explanation 3, and also keeping in view that section 147 was for the benefit of the revenue and not the assessee, and was aimed at garnering the escaped income of the assessee, and also keeping in view that it was the constitutional obligation of every assessee to disclose his total income on which it was to pay tax, it was held by the court that the two parts of section 147 (one relating to ‘such income’and the other to ‘any other income’) were to be read independently. In doing so, it observed that the phrase ‘such income’ used in the first part of section 147 was with regard to which reasons had been recorded u/s. 148(2), and the phrase ‘any other income’ used in the second part of the section was with regard to a case where no reasons had been recorded before issuing notice and a reason had come to the notice of the AO subsequently during the course of the proceedings, which could be assessed independent of the first part, even when no addition could be made with regard to ‘such income’, once the notice on the basis of which proceedings had commenced, was found to be valid.

The Karnataka High Court took note of the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236( Bom.) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, 336 ITR 136(Dl.) and CIT vs. Adhunik Niryat Ispat Ltd.(Del.) and CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, 355 ITR 172 (Del.). and noted that, with due respect to the view taken in the aforesaid cases, it was unable to persuade itself to follow the same.

The court concurred with the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Majinder Singh Kang vs. CIT, 344 ITR 358 which was delivered after noticing that the earlier judgments in the cases of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act, wherein it was held that “a plain reading of Explanation 3 to section147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make additions even on the ground that reassessment notice might not have been issued in the case during the reassessment proceedings, if he arrives at a conclusion that some other income has escaped assessment which comes to his notice during the course of proceedings for reassessment u/s.148 of the Act. The provision nowhere postulates or contemplates that it is only when there is some addition on the ground on which reassessment had been initiated, that the Assessing Officer can make additions on any other grounds on which the income has escaped assessment”.

The court further noted that the same view was reiterated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mehak Finvest (P.) Ltd,.367 ITR 769 wherein it was also noticed that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in the case of Majinder Singh (supra ) had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Mohmed Juned Dadani’s case
The issue had arisen in the case of CIT-II vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, 30 taxmann.com 1 (Gujarat). In this case, the assessment was completed allowing assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80HHC. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings taking a view that if two export incentives, i.e., DEPB licence income and excise duty refund were excluded from the income of the assessee, there would be a loss from export business and, consequently, assessee would not be entitled to deduction u/s. 80HHC. In the reassessment, the AO made additions of cash credit u/s. 68 and on account of some unverifiable purchases. However, the AO did not disturb the deduction u/s. 80HHC, previously claimed by the assessee.

The assessee carried such order in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) where he contended that the AO had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the reasons for reopening the assessment, which appeal however, was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, finding that in the reassessment proceedings, no disallowance had been made towards assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80HHC, which was the reason on the basis of which notice for reopening of the assessment was issued, held that the order of reassessment was without jurisdiction and bad in law.

On revenue’s appeal to the Gujarat High Court, the court addressed the following substantial question of law. “Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that when on the ground on which the reopening of assessment is based, no additions are made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, he cannot make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him.” .

On behalf of the revenue, it was submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in interpreting the provisions contained in section 147 of the Act ; the section as amended w.e.f. 01.04.1989, gave ample authority to an AO to assess or reassess any income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment, as long as the requirements of a valid reopening of the assessment were satisfied; once an assessment was reopened, by virtue of valid exercise of powers u/s. 147 of the Act, thereafter, there would be no further limitation on the AO framing assessment on all or any of the grounds mentioned in the reasons recorded or even on the grounds not so mentioned; that the position was clear even before Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act was added with retrospective effect from 01.04.1989; in any case, by virtue of such Explanation being introduced in section 147, the issue had been put beyond any pale of controversy. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Majinder Singh Kang vs. CIT 344 ITR 358 was relied upon by the revenue.

On the other hand, the assessee drew attention to the statutory provisions contained in section 147 of the Act, as amended w.e.f. 01.04.1989, and the explanatory memorandum clarifying the background in which Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act was enacted. It was submitted that section 147 of the Act, prior to introduction of Explanation 3, permitted the AO to assess or reassess any income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment and also any other income which had escaped assessment and which came to the notice of the AO subsequently in the course of the proceedings for reassessment; that the words “and also any other income” must be understood as to be referring to such income which had escaped assessment but the ground for which had not been mentioned in the reasons recorded, in addition to income which had escaped assessment and for which mention had been made in the reasons recorded; that Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act did not change the basic proposition, nor it was meant to do so, as would be clear from the explanatory memorandum explaining the reasons for introduction of the said explanation; that power to reopen the assessment which had been previously closed was peculiar in nature and was available to the AO under the Income-tax Act which was not normally available to an officer exercising judicial or quasi judicial powers; such powers, therefore, must be strictly construed, authorising an AO to assess income under any head even if the same was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, would give wide powers which were possible of arbitrary exercise; that for an AO to assess income on any ground not mentioned in the reasons recorded, it was essential that there was a valid reopening of assessment; if the grounds, on which the reopening of the assessment failed, there would thereafter be no longer a valid reopening of an assessment in which the AO could make any additions on some other grounds.

The Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that when on the ground on which the reopening of assessment was based, no additions were made by the AO in the order of assessment, he could not make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. It was not in dispute that once an assessment was reopened by a valid exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 147, it was open for the AO to assess or reassess any income which had escaped assessment which came to his light during the course of his assessment proceedings which was not mentioned in the reason for issuing notice u/s. 148, provided the ground on which the notice was issued for reopening survived.

Significantly, the court supplied an interesting dimension by noting that in a notice for reassessment which had been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the condition that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts for the purpose of assessment must also be established. If in such a situation, the stand of the revenue was accepted, a very incongruent situation would come about, if ultimately the AO were to drop the ground on which notice for reopening had been issued, but to chase some other grounds not so mentioned for issuance of the notice. In such a situation, even if a case where notice for reopening had been issued beyond a period of four years, the assessment would continue even though on all the grounds on which the additions were being made, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and full material facts. In such a situation, an important requirement of failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts would be totally circumvented. Thus, it was apparent that Explanation 3 to section 147 does not change the situation insofar as the present controversy was concerned.

In deciding the case, the High court approved the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 in which the Bombay High Court considering an identical situation, interpreting the provisions contained in section 147 of the Act, held that the situation would not be different by virtue of introduction of Explanation 3 to the said section. The High Court, placing heavy reliance on the explanatory memorandum, held that if upon issuance of a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO did not assess the income which he had reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice u/s.148, it was not open to him to assess independently any other income which did not form the subject matter of the notice.

In addition, the Gujarat High Court approved the decisions in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT , 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) wherein the court besides approving the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways, held that sub-section (2) of section 148 mandated reasons for issuance of notice by the AO and s/s. (1) thereof mandated service of notice to the assessee before the AO proceeded to assess, reassess or recompute the escaped income and those conditions were required to be fulfilled to assess or reassess the escaped income chargeable to tax. The Gujarat High court also approved the observations of the Delhi High Court to the effect that the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the AO such that on assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of the escaped income, he could keep on making roving inquiry, and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction, and also the finding of the Delhi High Court, that for every new issue coming before the AO during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intended to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice u/s. 148. The ratio of the decision in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta, 344 ITR 641 (Chhattisgarh) was also approved by the court.

The Gujarat High Court, relying on the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Explanation 3, held that it was meant to be clarificatory in nature and to put the issue beyond any legal controversy; when the Legislature found that in face of the provisions contained in section 147 of the Act post 01.04.1989, some of the courts had taken a view that the AO was restricted to the reassessment proceedings only on issues in respect of which the reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment, such explanation was introduced in the statute; thus, the explanation was meant to be merely clarificatory in nature and was introduced with the purpose of putting at rest the legal controversy regarding the true interpretation of section 147 of the Act which had arisen on account of certain judicial pronouncements especially in the cases of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries, 180 ITR 319 (P&H), Travancore Cements Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT 305 ITR 170 (Kerala).

The Gujarat High Court did not agree with the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Majinder Singh Kang (supra) by noting that all other courts had uniformly taken a view that Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act did not change the situation insofar as the present controversy was concerned, and for the reason that the explanatory memorandum to Explanation 3 to section of the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court in the said case.

Observations
On a bare reading of the main provision, it is gathered that section 147, as is substituted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 01.04.1989, enables inclusion of any other income that has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice subsequently in the course of proceedings. Accordingly, it should be possible for an AO to also include any new item while making reassessment, though such item was not included in recorded reasons. This main provision was found to be deficient, in the past by the courts, on the following two counts;

The substituted provision while permitting the AO to rope in a new issue in the scope of reassessment, did not override the specific provisions of section148(2), which required an AO to record reasons before issue of a notice u/s. 148 for doing so.

The substituted provision permitted the AO to rope in a new issue in the scope of reassessment only where the original issue on which the reassessment was reopened has been found to be valid.

One of the above referred deficiencies has been expressly cured by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f 01.04.1989 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, whereunder the requirement of the new issue being recorded in reasons for reopening as per section 148(2), before a notice is issued, has been dispensed with. As regards the other deficiency concerning the need for survival of the recorded issue, some courts recently have found that the AO is empowered to expand the scope of reassessment either by virtue of Explanation 3 or independent of it, while a few other courts have found that the deficiency continued in spite of Explanation 3.

The issue that has attracted conflicting views therefore is narrowed down to whether the word ‘and also’ used in the main proviso are conjunctive and cumulative or they are disjunctive and detach the latter part of the provision from the earlier part. In the alternative, whether, with insertion of Explanation 3, the AO is authorised to rope in a new issue, even where no addition is made in respect of the issue recorded in reasons for reopening.

The question is that when the reason recorded for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 itself does not survive, can tax be levied for a totally different reason or issue, which was not the subject matter of reopening the assessment. In other words, if reasons for reopening are (a) and (b) and during reassessment proceedings , income is found to have escaped from assessment for some other reason say, (c) and (d), then, if reasons (a) and (b) do not survive, and no addition can be made for such reasons, can additions be made on the basis of reasons or grounds (c) and (d) that did not find place in the reasons recorded. The related questions are whether the main provision permits such an assessment and whether the insertion of the Explanation 3 has made such an assessment possible.

Section 147 of the Act, even without the aid of Explanation 3, enabled the AO while framing an assessment section 147 of the Act, to assess or reassess such income for which he had recorded his reasons to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income which escaped assessment which came to his notice subsequently in the course of the assessment proceedings.

Insertion of Explanation in a section of an Act is for a different purpose than insertion of a ‘Proviso’. Explanation gives a reason or justification and explains the contents of the main section, whereas ‘Proviso’ puts a condition on the contents of the main section or qualifies the same. ‘Proviso’ is generally intended to restrain the enacting clause, whereas Explanation explains or clarifies the main section. ‘Proviso’ limits the scope of the enactment as it puts a condition, whereas Explanation clarifies the enactment as it explains and is useful for settling a matter or controversy. In the instant case, insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 does not in any manner override the main section and has been added with no other purpose than to explain or clarify the main section so as to also bring in ‘any other income’ (of the second part of section 147) within the ambit of tax, which may have escaped assessment, and comes to the notice of the AO subsequently during the course of the proceedings.

Circular 5 of 2010 issued by the CBDT also makes this position clear. There is no conflict between the main section 147 and its Explanation 3. This Explanation has been inserted only to clarify the main section and not to curtail its scope, even though it is for the benefit of the revenue and not the assessee.

Explanation 3 thus does not, in any manner, even purport to expand the powers of the AO u/s. 147 of the Act. In any case, an explanation cannot expand the scope and sweep of the main body of the statutory provision. In case of S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V. R. Pattabiraman AIR 1985 (SC) 582 the Supreme Court observed that, an explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision, but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows, it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision.

An explanation cannot override the scope of the main provision nor can it extend the scope. An explanation can only explain the scope of the main provision by eliminating the ambiguity.

The Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries, 180 ITR 319 had interpreted the words ‘and also’, used in the main section itself, in a cumulative and conjunctive sense and held that to read these words as being in the alternative, would be to rewrite the language used by the Parliament. The said decision was delivered before insertion of Explanation 3.

Parliament must be regarded as being aware of the interpretation that was placed on the words “and also”. Parliament however has not taken away the basis of that decision while it was open to the Parliament, having regard to the plenitude of its legislative powers, to do so. It could have clearly provided in Explanation 3 that power to deal with a new issue would be irrespective of survival of the old issues for which reasons were recorded. It was not so done, and in view of that, the provisions of section 147 as they stood after the amendment of 1st April, 1989, continue to hold the field.

The fluid state of law on the issue prevailing up to 31.03.1988, was sought to be addressed by insertion of substituted provision w.e.f. 01.04.1989. This insertion was found inadequate by the courts for addressing the issue under consideration and to meet the concerns of the courts, Explanation 3 is claimed to have been inserted witnesses cannot be procured for various other reasons, like death of both attesting witness, out of jurisdiction, physical incapacity, insanity etc. Section 69 should apply and can be extended to such cases. Hence, the word “not found” occurring in section 69 of Evidence Act should receive a wider purposive interpretation than its literal meaning and should take in situation where the presence of the attesting witness cannot be procured. This view gets its support from Venkataramayya vs. Kamisetti Gattayya (AIR 1927 Madras 662) and Ponnuswami Goundan vs. Kalyanasundara Ayyar (AIR 1930 Madras 770).

It is settled that mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed by section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Section 69 imposes a twin fold duty on the propounder. It provides that if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting and also that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. Hence, to rely on a Will propounded in a case covered by section 69 the propounder should prove i) that the attestation is in the handwriting of the attesting witness and ii) that the document was signed by the executant. Both the limbs will have to be cumulatively proved by the propounder. Evidently, the section demands proof of execution in addition to attestation and does not permit execution to be inferred from proof of attestation. However, section 69 presumes that once the handwriting of attesting witness is proved he has witnessed the execution of the document. The twin requirement of proving the signature and handwriting has to be in accordance with section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Transfer of immovable property – TDS under section 194-IA: Analysis and Issues

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction
Section 194-IA has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 (FA, 2013) with effect from 1st June, 2013. Section 194-IA provides for deduction of tax at source in respect of payment, by any person, being a transferee, to a resident transferor, of any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property. The Explanation to the section defines the terms `agricultural land’ and `immovable property’.

Object of introducing section 194-IA
In case the language of the provision is capable of two interpretations then the one which advances the object of introducing the provision will have to adopted. The Memorandum explaining the salient features of the Finance Bill, 2013 classified this provision under the caption `Widening of Tax Base and Anti Tax Avoidance Measures’. The Heydon’s Mischief Rule of Interpretation states that while interpreting a provision that interpretation has to be adopted which removes the mischief which was prevalent before the introduction of the provision. The Object of introducing the provision and the Mischief which the Legislature sought to remove can be better understood from the following extracts from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill:

“E. WIDENING OF TAX BASE AND ANTI TAX AVOI DANCE MEASURES
Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on transfer of certain immovable properties (other than agricultural land)

…………. However, the information furnished to the department in Annual Information Returns by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar indicate that a majority of the purchasers or sellers of immovable properties, valued at Rs. 30 lakh or more, during the financial year 2011-12 did not quote or quoted invalid PAN in the documents relating to transfer of the property.

……… In order to have a reporting mechanism of transactions in the real estate sector and also to collect tax at the earliest point of time, it is proposed to insert a new section 194-IA to provide that every transferee, at the time of making payment or ………”

A perusal of the above, clearly indicates that the difficulty faced was that the Annual Information Return, furnished to the Department, by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar, in a majority of the cases, did not have a PAN or had an invalid PAN in the documents relating to transfer of property. This is what is sought to be curbed by introducing the provisions of section 194-IA.

The two objects of introducing the provisions of section 194-IA are:-

(i) to have a reporting mechanism of transactions in the real estate sector; and
(ii) to collect tax at the earliest point of time.

These objectives will have to be kept in mind while interpreting some of the provisions, the language whereof is capable of two interpretations.

Text of Section 194-IA:
For the sake of convenience, the provisions of section194- IA are reproduced hereunder:

“194-IA. (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible for paying (other than the person referred to in section 194LA) to a resident transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other than agricultural land), shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon.

(2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees.

(3) The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this section.

Explanation.–– For the purposes of this section,––

(a) “agricultural land” means agricultural land in India, not being a land situated in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2;

(b) “immovable property” means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.”

Analysis of Section 194-IA:
Conditions for applicability of the section:
(i) there is a transferee;
(ii) there is a transferor;
(iii) the transferor is a resident;
(iv) there is a transfer of an immovable property, as defined, from the transferor to the transferee;
(v) the transferee is responsible for paying any sum;
(vi) such sum is by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property;
(vii) the amount of consideration is Rs. 50 lakh or more;
(viii) the transferee is not a person referred to in section 194LA;
(ix) the transferee either :
(a) credits such sum referred to in (vi), or
(b) makes a payment of such sum;
(x) the payment referred to in (ix)(b) is made either by

(a) cash, or
(b) by issue of cheque, or
(c) by issue of draft, or
(d) by any other mode.

Consequences if the above conditions apply:
(i) The transferee becomes liable to deduct tax at source;
(ii) such deduction shall be of an amount;
(iii) the amount of deduction shall be equal to 1% of the sum referred to in (vi) above;
(iv) such a liability arises upon credit of such sum or at the time of making the payment, whichever is earlier;
(v) provisions of section 203A shall not apply to the transferee.

Exceptions: This section would not apply if –
(i) The transferee is a person covered by section 194LA; or
(ii) the transferor is a non-resident; or
(iii) consideration for transfer of immovable property is less than Rs. 50 lakh; or
(iv) the immovable property transferred is an agricultural land as explained subsequently.

Analysis of certain terms used in section 194-IA:
Immovable Property has been defined in Explanation (a) to section 194-IA to mean:
• any land [including land described in section 2(14) (iiia) and 2(14)(iiib) i.e. land which is commonly known as urban agricultural land];
• any building; and
• any part of a building;
• but does not include `agricultural land’.

Agricultural land has been defined in Explanation (b) to section 194-IA – Agricultural land situated in India not being land referred to in section 2(14)(iiia) and 2(14)(iiib). Transferee: The obligation to deduct tax is on the transferee of any immovable property, as defined. The transferee may be any person. He may be an individual, Hindu undivided family, firm, LLP, company, AOP, BOI, cooperative society. He could even be a builder / developer. However, where Government is the purchaser, the section may not apply since Government is not a person (CIT vs. Dredging Corporation of India) (174 ITR 682) (AP). Residential status of the transferee is immaterial. The section applies even to a non-resident buyer or even to a buyer who is an agriculturist. Other conditions being satisfied, the section will apply even when the purchaser / transferee is a family member / relative of the seller / transferor. However, the purchaser / transferee should not be a person referred to in section 194LA. If the purchaser / transferee is a person referred to in section 194LA, such a person is not required to deduct tax under this section. Joint transferee: In case of joint transferee each coowner will be liable for compliance with this section. Transferor: The transferor / seller may be any person. The transferor should be a resident. He may even be Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident. If the transferor / seller happens to be a non-resident the provisions of section 195 may apply but certainly not the provisions of this section.

Any sum: The section states that the purchaser / transferee should be responsible for paying to the seller / transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of immovable property. The term `sum’ has not been defined in the Act.

The expression “any sum paid” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.H. Sri Rama Verma vs. CIT (187 ITR 308) (SC) to mean only amount of money given as donations and not to donations in kind.

In the context of section 194-IA an issue would arise as to whether the section applies when the consideration is in kind e.g. in cases of exchange. This issue has been dealt with, in detail, subsequently under the caption `Issues’.

Consideration: The term `consideration’ has not been defined in the Act. The term is also not defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The Patna High Court in Rai Bahadur H.P. Banerjee vs. CIT ([1941] 9 ITR 137)(Pat) held that the word ‘consideration’ is not defined in the Transfer of Property Act and must be given a meaning similar to the meaning which it has in the Indian Contract Act. Similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CGT vs. Smt. C K Nirmala (215 ITR 156)(Ker) and by the Bombay High Court in the case of Keshub Mahindra vs. CGT (70 ITR 1)(Bom). Section 2(b), of the Indian Contract Act defines `consideration’ as under:

“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.”

An issue which arises for consideration is whether the amount of service tax, VAT payable by the transferee to the transferor constitutes part of consideration and therefore tax is required to be deducted even on these amounts. By virtue of Circular No. 1/2014 dated 13.1.2014, tax is not required to be deducted at source on the amount of service tax. The question of deduction of tax at source, therefore, survives only in respect of VAT . Looked at it from a common man’s perspective the amount of service tax and VAT agreed to be paid by the transferee to the transferor would certainly form part of consideration for transfer of immovable property. The liability to pay these amounts under the respective statutes is of the transferor. Accordingly, it appears that VAT amount constitutes consideration and tax will have to be deducted even on the amount of VAT . In addition, these amounts may also attract stamp duty under the stamp law of a State. However, in cases where the transferee is faced with a show cause notice for failure to deduct tax at source on the amount of VAT , the transferee may contend that the analagoy of excluding service tax would apply equally to VAT as well.

Immovable Property: This term is defined exhaustively to mean land (other than agricultural land) or any building or a part of a building. Agricultural land is not immovable property. Agricultural land is defined for this purpose. Urban agricultural land is immovable property. Immovable property could be land, agricultural land outside India, urban agricultural land, office, flat, shop, godown, theatre, hotel, hospital, etc. Immovable property could be stock-intrade of the developer. Immovable property could be held as either stock-in-trade or as capital asset.

Meaning of ‘transfer’: The section applies to consideration for transfer. The question which arises is whether the term `transfer’ would mean only transfer by way of conveyance under general law through a registered instrument or it would even cover the transactions / agreements referred to in section 2(47)(v) and (vi) i.e. in cases where possession is given in part performance of the contract u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or a transaction of becoming a member of a co-operative society, company, etc. Also, would the provisions be applicable to part payments made but not in the year of transfer (conditions of 2(47)(v) not being satisfied)?

Immovable Property located outside India: The section does not mention that the immovable property should be situated in India. Therefore, a literal interpretation would be that the immovable property could be situated any where may be in India or may be outside India. Further, the term `agricultural land’ has been defined to mean agricultural land situated in India. The fact that agricultural land in India is excluded from immovable property could be understood in two ways – one that from the immovable property in India exclusion is to be made of agricultural land in India and the other could be that from the immovable property wherever situated only the agricultural land in India is excluded. Thus, two interpretations are possible. However, if a view is taken that the section applies even in respect of immovable property situated outside India then the position will be that a buyer who is outside India and who is neither a citizen of India nor a resident of India who is buying immovable property located outside India from a resident of India, will be required to deduct income-tax under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it would mean that it is expected of every person dealing with a resident of India to be aware of the provisions of the Indian laws. Assuming that such a buyer is aware of these provisions and decides to comply with the provisions of this section, he will have to obtain a PAN so as to be able to make payment of the amount of TDS. A question would arise as to whether the Government of India can cast an obligation on a non-resident to deduct tax from payments made by him for purchase of a property which is situated outside India. The only nexus which such a transferor has with India being that he is buying immovable property from a person who is a resident of India. In case of default in complying with the provisions of this section, the buyer would be regarded as an assessee-in-default and would be liable to pay interest and penalty as well. Such an interpretation may not be upheld by Courts. Therefore, it appears that the section would apply to only immovable property situated in India.

Threshold for non-deduction: Sub-section (1) of section 194-IA casts an obligation on the transferee to deduct tax at source. S/s. (1) does not have a threshold limit. S/s. (2) provides that no deduction under subsection (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. The issue for consideration is whether the limit of fifty lakh rupees is qua the immovable property or is it qua the transferee. This issue is dealt with, in detail, subsequently under the caption `Issues’.

Quantum of tax to be deducted: Deduction is to be of an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as incometax. Surcharge and cess on this amount are not to be deducted. If the transferor / seller does not provide PAN, technically, the rate of tax could be 20% by virtue of provisions of section 206AA. However, the challan for payment of tax deducted u/s. 194-IA requires PAN as a compulsory field and it does not proceed without PAN having been filled in. Challan No. 281 which is applicable for payment of TDS other than TDS u/s. 194-IA, does not have a field to make payment of TDS u/s. 194-IA, though the same may have been deducted at the rate mentioned in section 206AA. It seems that the procedure has been so designed so as to further the objective stated in the Memorandum explaining the salient features of the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2013 viz. to overcome the difficulty which was being faced viz. the PAN Nos. not being quoted or invalid PAN Nos. being quoted in the AIR.

At this stage, it would be relevant to note the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Kowsalya Bai vs. UOI (346 ITR 156)(Kar) has read down the provisions of section 206AA and has held it to be inapplicable to persons whose income is less than the taxable limit.

The deduction is with reference to consideration and not with reference to valuation as done by stamp valuation authorities though in the case of transferor / seller section 50C / section 43CA may be attracted.

No deduction / Deduction at lower rate: There is no provision of either the transferor giving a declaration to the transferee asking him not to deduct tax at source or to deduct tax at lower rate. Transferor cannot even obtain an order from the Assessing Officer authorizing the transferee / buyer not to deduct tax or to deduct it at a lower rate. Thus, tax is deductible at source even in cases where the transferor is entitled to exemption u/s. 54, 54EC, 54F. Similar is the position where the transferor is to suffer a loss as a result of transfer or has brought forward losses which are available for set off against gain on transfer of immovable property.

Consequences of non-deduction: Failure to deduct tax under this section may result in the person i.e. the transferee being deemed to be an assessee in default. Failure to deduct tax will attract interest and penalty. Also, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) will be attracted with effect from assessment year 2015-16.

No requirement to obtain TAN / file quarterly returns: The transferee is not required to obtain TAN if he does not have one. Also, he is not required to file quarterly returns / statements.

Obligation to pay tax so deducted and issue certificate: The tax deducted by the transferee has to be paid to the credit of the Central Government within 7 days from the end of the month in which the deduction is made. TDS payment shall be accompanied by a challancum- statement in Form 26QB. Payment is to be made by remitting it electronically to RBI or SBI or any authorised bank or by paying it physically in any authorised bank. Payer / Transferee is required to issue TDS certificate in Form 16B, to be generated online from the web portal. The TDS certificate is to be issued within 15 days from the due date for furnishing challan-cum-statement in Form 26QB.

Issues: Various issues arise in day to day practice on the applicability of the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act. The author does not necessarily have an answer to all the issues which may arise. Some of the important and more common issues are as under: –

(a) Amounts paid before the provision coming into effect – Provisions of section 194-IA have been introduced in the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.6.2013. The obligation to deduct tax under this section arises at the time of payment or at the time of credit of the amount to the account of the transferor, which ever is earlier. Therefore, in a case where either the payment or the credit has been made before 1.6.2013, the question of deduction of tax at source under this section should not arise. While this position may appear to be quite obvious interpretation of the provision, if an authority is required for this proposition a reference can be made to the order dated 3rd June, 2015 of the Karnataka High Court while deciding the Writ Petition in the case of Shubhankar Estates Private Limited vs. The Senior Sub-Registrar, The Union Bank of India and the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Writ Petition No. 57385/2013). The Karnataka High Court in this case directed the Registrar to complete the registration without insisting on the deduction of tax at source and to release the document to the petitioner. The Court has, in para 5 of the order, held as under –

“5. In that light, if the provision contained in Section 194-IA as extracted above is noticed, the obligation on the transferee to deduct 1% of the sale consideration towards TDS had come into effect only on 1.6.2013. If that be the position, as on 2.3.2012 when the petitioner in the instant case as the transferee had paid the amount to the transferor, there was no obligation in law on the petitioner to deduct the said amount. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, even though the provision had come into force as on the date of presentation of the sale certificate for registration, the petitioner having parted with the sale consideration much earlier, was not expected to deduct the amount and produce proof in that regard to the Sub-Registrar. It is no doubt true that in respect of the said amount the third respondent would have the right to recover the taxes due. But, in the instant case, the communication as addressed from the third respondent to the first respondent could not have been held against the petitioner in the circumstances stated above. In the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, where the petitioner being an auction purchaser had paid the entire sale consideration much earlier to the provision coming into force, the endorsement dated 4.12.2013 requiring the petitioner to deduct the income-tax and indicating that the registration would be made thereafter cannot be sustained.”

(b) Applicability of section 206AA – Section 194-IA requires deduction of tax at source at the rate of one per cent. In a case where the transferor does not provide the payer with his PAN, technically, the provisions of section 206AA would be attracted and the deduction would have to be made at the rate of 20%. However, such a situation seems to be quite unlikely since the challan by which the tax is required to be paid by the deductor, transferee, requires the PAN of the transferor as a compulsory field. Hence, in the event that the deduction has to be made, it will have to be made at the rate mentioned in section 194- IA i.e. one per cent.

(c) Applicability to composite transactions where both land and building are subject matter of transfer – Under provisions of section 194-IA tax is required to be deducted, subject to satisfaction of other conditions mentioned in the section, on the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property. The term `immovable property’ is defined in Explanation (a) to the section as meaning any land or any building or part of a building. Provisions of sections 43CA, 50C and 56(2)(vii) use the term land or building or both. The word `both’ is absent in section 194-IA. Therefore, in cases where tax has not been deducted (not deliberately as a planning measure) on amount of consideration for transfer of a composite transfer comprising of land and building both, one may contend that the Legislature has consciously used a different language in section 194-IA and has left out composite transactions of both land and building e.g. purchase of a bungalow comprising of building and also the land beneath it.

(d) Payment of consideration by a Bank / Housing Finance Institution to a transferor on behalf of the transferee – In a case where the transferee has taken a loan for discharge of consideration to the transferor, the bank / housing finance institution disburses the loan by issuing a cheque / pay order to the transferor towards consideration due to him from the transferee. In such a case, a question arises as to how does a transferee comply with his obligation to deduct tax at source under this section. The banks / financial institutions in such a case issue a cheque / pay order in favour of the transferor of the net amount and the amount equivalent to tax deductible at source under this section is given to the transferee upon his producing a challan evidencing the amount deposited by him towards tax deducted at source. The alternative to this could be that the transferee requests and authorises the bank / financial institution, in writing, to disburse the net amount to the transferor and to deposit the amount required to be deducted at source under this section to the credit of the Central Government on behalf of the transferee i.e. in such a case, the bank / financial institution will deposit tax at source as an agent of the transferee and the challan will contain the PAN and other particulars of the transferee. In actual practice, it is understood that, the first option is what the banks / financial institutions have been following.

(e) Limit of Rs. 50 lakh – whether it is qua an immovable property or qua the transferee / transferor – Threshold for non-deduction: Sub-section (1) of section 194-IA casts an obligation on the transferee to deduct tax at source. S/s. (1) does not have a threshold limit. S/s. (2) provides that no deduction under subsection (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. The issue for consideration is whether the limit of fifty lakh rupees is qua the immovable property or is it qua the transferee. The following paragraphs attempt to address this issue :-

(i) The Memorandum explaining the salient provisions of Finance Bill, 2013 says the Annual Information Returns filed by sub-registrars often indicate that in majority of the cases purchaser or sellers of immovable property did not quote or quoted an invalid PAN in the documents relating to transfer of immovable property. The Sub-Registrar in terms of Rule 114E read with section 285BA is required to report each transaction involving purchase or sale of an immovable property valued at Rs. 30 lakh or more in the Annual Information Return.

(ii) Thus it is clear that the purpose of the newlyinserted section 194-IA is to augment what is already being reported by the Sub-Registrar.

(iii) It may be noted that the Sub-Registrar has got to report a transaction even if the share of each buyer, in case of joint ownership, is below Rs. 30 lakh.

(iv) Following the purpose for which the section 194-IA was inserted, one may conclude that the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakh for applicability of Section 194-IA is to be determined property-wise and not transferee-wise. This is so because the buyers of immovable properties can’t be allowed to do what the sub-registrar couldn’t do i.e. split up the sale consideration buyer-wise and claim immunity from deduction of TDS since consideration attributable to each buyer is below Rs. 50 lakh.

(v) Thus, the provisions of section 194-IA will apply to a property transaction involving more than one buyer though the share of each buyer in the property is less than Rs. 50 lakh, but the consideration for transfer of the immovable property, in aggregate, is more than Rs. 50 lakh. In such case, tax will be deducted and deposited by each buyer in respect of their respective share in the immovable property.

(vi) Similarly, in case of a transaction involving more than one seller, tax will be deducted in respect of amount paid to each seller and their respective PAN will be quoted in Form 26QB while making payment.

(vii) Judicial pronouncements under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Chapter XX-C) propose a similar philosophy that immovable property which is the subject matter of the transfer has to be seen in real light and provisions of Chapter XX-C shall apply when by a single agreement of transfer, co-owners of a property agreed to sell the property to the respondent which was above the limit prescribed for application of 269C.

(viii) Chapter XX-C dealt with purchase by Central Government of immovable properties in certain cases of transfer and provided for pre-emptive right of purchase of immovable property by the Government in a case where the apparent consideration for transfer of such property exceeded the specified limit mentioned under Section 269UC.

(ix) Section – 269-UC (1) read as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), or in any other law for the time being in force, no transfer of any immovable property in such area and of such value exceeding five lakh rupees, as may be prescribed, shall be effected except after an agreement for transfer is entered into between the person who intends transferring the immovable property (hereinafter referred to as the transferor) and the person to whom it is proposed to be transferred (hereinafter referred to as the transferee) in accordance with the provisions of s/s. (2) at least four months before the intended date of transfer.”

(x) The Bombay High Court in the case of Jodharam Daulat Ram Arora vs. M. B Kodnanai (120 CTR 166)(Bom) wherein there was one vendor and three purchasers, held as under:

‘The agreement in question before it was a composite agreement in respect of the flat and there was nothing in the agreement which indicate that the purchasers had agreed to buy individually an undivided 1/3rd share of the flat from the vendor. All the concerned parties had filed Form No.37-I and therefore it was not open to them to contend that section 269UD had no application and the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction.’

(xi) However, the Madras High Court took a contrary view in the case of K. V. Kishore vs. Appropriate Authority (189 ITR 264)(Mad). The Court held that –

‘What is sold, is the individual undivided share in the property and the value of each such share in the said immovable property was less than Rs. 25 lakh. The transferors were co-owners and each coowner was getting an apparent consideration that was less than the limit prescribed i.e less than Rs. 25 lakh. The provisions of Chapter XX-C was not attracted even though the amount that all the coowners received exceeded Rs. 25 lakh.’

(xii) Other High Courts in various judgments also upheld the above stated view of the Madras High Court.

(xiii) However, in Appropriate Authority vs. Smt. Varshaben Bharatbhai Shah (248 ITR 342)(SC), where two co-owners entered into an agreement to transfer immovable property, situated in Ahmedabad, to a seller for a sum of Rs. 47 lakh which was above the limit prescribed for application to appropriate authority u/s. 269UC of the Act, the Supreme Court reversing the decision of Gujarat High Court in Varshaben Bharatbhai Shah vs. Appropriate Authority (221 ITR 819)(Guj) and various judgments of other High Courts held that :

‘What, in our opinion, has to be seen for the purposes of attracting Chapter XX-C is: what is the property which is the subject-matter for such transfer and what is the apparent consideration for such transfer. This has to be seen in a real light with due regard to the object of the Chapter and not in an artificial or technical manner. Looked at realistically, it was the immovable property which was the subject matter of transfer. If the apparent consideration for the transfer is more than the limit prescribed for the relevant area under Rule 48K, what has then to be seen is whether the apparent consideration for the property is less than the market value thereof by 15 % or more. If so, the notice for pre-emptive purchase can be issued and it is then for the parties to the transaction to satisfy the appropriate authority that the apparent consideration is the real consideration for the transfer.’

‘In the present case the said agreement is for the sale of the immovable property and that the equal shares of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein were to be transferred to Respondent No. 1 is a necessary incident of such sale. The parties had also in Form 37-I correctly stated that what was being sold was the property and not the onehalf shares of the transferors and that the total apparent consideration for the transfer was Rs. 47 lakh. It was of no consequence that Respondents owned the property as tenants-in-common or that that was how they had shown their ownership in their income-tax returns. The provisions of Chapter XX-C applied.’

(xiv) The Supreme Court further added that: ‘Even if the agreement had been so drawn so as to show the transfer of the equal shares of the second and third respondents in the said immovable property, our conclusion would have been the same for, looked at realistically, it was the said immovable property which was the subject of transfer.’

‘We are of the opinion that the judgments of the Madras, Karnataka, Delhi and Calcutta High Courts referred to above are based on a wrong approach and are erroneous. We approve of the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Jodharam Daulatram Arora’s Case [1996]’

(xv) From the above judgment of the Apex Court, it is the law of the land that even if the property is owned by more than one persons and the apparent consideration in relation to the interest of each co-owner in the property is less than the ‘specified limit’, the provisions of Chapter XXC would be applicable if such property is transferred under a single agreement and the apparent consideration for the property as a whole exceeds the ‘specified limit’.

(xvi) Therefore, u/s. 194-IA also, if the consideration for the purchase of an immovable property shoots beyond 49,99,999/-, one has to withhold tax @ 1 per cent. The number of buyers signing up the agreement for transfer will not make a difference nor would the number of sellers make any difference either.

(f) Applicability of the section to a transaction of transfer by way of an exchange / where the consideration is in kind – The section requires deduction of tax at source by the transferee to a resident transferor out of any sum paid by way of consideration for the transfer of any immovable property (other than agricultural land). Questions do arise as to whether the provisions of this section are to be complied with, in cases, where the consideration is in kind eg., transactions of exchange or cases where the agreement is for joint development of the land belonging to the transferor by the transferee and the transferor is entitled to receive from the transferee a portion of the developed area i.e. a certain percentage of flats. There is no monetary consideration involved in such transactions. Assuming that the other conditions of the section are satisfied, the question being examined in this paragraph is whether the section contemplates the deduction only in cases where the consideration is in monetary terms or even in cases where the consideration is in kind. This controversy arises because of the words `any other mode’ used in sub-section (1) of section 194-IA.

The following arguments can be considered to support the proposition that the provisions of section 194-IA would apply only when the consideration is fixed in monetary terms:-

As has been stated earlier, the expression “any sum paid” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. H. Sri Rama Verma vs. CIT (187 ITR 308) (SC) to mean only amount of money given as donations and not to donations in kind.

The provision contemplates `deduction’ – in cases where consideration is paid in kind ‘deduction’ is not possible.

Section 194B which deals with deduction from payment of any income by way of winnings from any lottery or cross word puzzle or card game or other game of any sort. This section has a specific proviso which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1997, w.e.f. 01.06.1997 which specifically deals with winnings wholly in kind or partly in cash and partly in kind, but the part in cash not being sufficient to meet liability of tax. Prior to the insertion of the proviso the CBDT had in Circular No. 428 dated 8.8.1985 stated that the section does not apply where the prize is given only in kind. The relevant portion of the circular is reproduced hereunder –

Circular : No. 428 [F. No. 275/30/85-IT(B)], dated 8-8-1985.

“3. The substance of the main provisions in the law insofar as they relate to deduction of income-tax at source from winnings from lotteries and crossword puzzles, is given hereunder :

(1) No tax will be deducted at source where the income by way of winnings from lottery or crossword puzzle is Rs. 1,000 or less.

(2) Where a prize is given partly in cash and partly in kind, income-tax will be deductible from each prize with reference to the aggregate amount of the cash prize and the value of the prize in kind. Where, however, the prize is given only in kind, no income-tax will be required to be deducted. ………..” U/s. 194B deduction is out of specified income.

U/s. 194-IA deduction is out of consideration for transfer of immovable property. Like consideration, income could be in cash or in kind. Following the above mentioned circular it can be safely argued that tax is not deductible when consideration is in kind. Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chief Accounts Officer, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) (ITA NO. 94 of 2015 and ITA No. 466 of 2015; order dated 29th September, 2015), was dealing with a case where BBMP had taken over certain lands which were reserved and in lieu thereof it had allotted CDR (Certificate of Development Rights) to the persons who were the owners of the land so taken over. The owners of land were allotted CDR rights in the form of additional floor area, which shall be equal to one and a half times of area of land surrendered. The AO treated the BBMP as an assessee in default for not having deducted TDS u/s. 194LA. The language of section 194LA is materially similar to the language of section 194-IA. The Court has in para 9 held that where there is neither any quantification of the sum payable in terms of money nor any actual payment is made in monetary terms, it would not be fair to burden a person with the obligation of deducting tax at source and exposing him to the consequences of such default.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, it appears that the tax will be required to be deducted at source only in those cases where consideration is fixed in monetary terms. The consideration having been fixed by the parties in monetary terms the same may be discharged in kind. In cases, where the consideration is fixed in monetary terms but is discharged in kind, it is possible to argue that the provisions of the section may apply. In cases where consideration is fixed in kind (e.g. exchange transactions or cases of development agreement where the land owner is entitled to a share in the developed area and no monetary consideration), the better view appears to be that tax will not be required to be deducted at source. (f) Applicability of the section to rights in land or buildings or to reversionary rights -The section applies to consideration for transfer of immovable property (other than agricultural land). Immovable property has been defined to mean land or building or part of a building. Questions do arise as to whether tax is required to be deducted at source when the subject matter of transfer is not land or building or part of a building but rights in land or rights in building e.g. transfer of tenancy rights, grant of lease, etc. In the context of section 50C which applies to cases of transfer of land or building or both, the Tribunals have in the following cases taken a view that the provisions of section 50C do not apply to cases of transfer of rights in land or building but applies only when there is a transfer of land or building:
Kishori Sharad Gaitonde (ITA No. 1561/M/2009) (Mum SMC)(URO)
DCIT vs. Tejinder Singh [2012] 50 SOT 391 (Kol.)(Trib.)
Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO [2011] 58 DTR 208 (Mum.)(Trib.)
ITO vs. Yasin Moosa Godil [2012] 18 ITR 253 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

Following the ratio of the above decisions, it is possible to take a view that the provisions of section 194-IA do not apply to transfer of rights in land or building.

However, when reversionary rights are transferred by the landlord, the consideration paid for acquiring reversionary rights would be subject to deduction of tax at source in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(g) Applicability of the section to introduction of an immovable property by a partner of a firm into a firm – When a partner of a firm introduces land or building into a partnership firm where he is a partner, question arises whether tax is required to be deducted at source. If yes, who will deduct tax at source and on what amount? In a case where a partner of a firm introduces immovable property into a firm as his capital contribution, there is undoubtedly a transfer. Supreme Court has in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) (156 ITR 509) (SC) held that what was the exclusive interest of a partner in his personal asset is, upon its introduction into the partnership firm as his share to the partnership capital, transformed into a shared interest with the other partners in that asset. Qua that asset, there is a shared interest. For the purposes of computing capital gains, the amount credited to the capital account of the partner is deemed to be full value of consideration by virtue of the deeming fiction created by section 45. The deeming fiction had to be introduced to overcome the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai (supra) where the SC held that the interest of a partner in the partnership firm is an interest which cannot be evaluated immediately. It is an interest which is subject to the operation of future transactions of the partnership, and it may diminish in value depending on accumulating liabilities and losses with a fall in the prosperity of the partnership firm. The evaluation of a partner’s interest takes place only when there is a dissolution of the firm or upon his retirement from it. While it may be an arguable proposition, to contend that the deeming fiction is only for the purposes of computation of capital gain and cannot be extended to provisions of section 194-IA of the Act, it would certainly be safer for the partnership firm to deduct tax at source u/s. 194-IA by considering the amount credited to the partner’s capital account as the amount of consideration.

Conclusion:
The above are some of the issues which arise in connection with the applicability of the provisions of section 194-IA. There are several other issues which are not covered here e.g. Applicability to cases of slump sale, amalgamation, amount paid by builder to a co-operative housing society/member thereof on redevelopment of property, applicability to acquisition of shares with occupancy rights attached to them, assignment of booking rights, etc. It would now be worthwhile to remind the reader of the golden rule applicable while interpreting the provisions of TDS i.e. when in doubt – Deduct. The arguments stated above can be resorted to in the event of any inadvertent slip in complying with the provisions.

Co-operative Society – Special Deduction – Matter remanded to the Commissioner to decide as to whether the society is entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) and whether benefit earned under Sampath Incentive Scheme, 1997 was a capital receipt

fiogf49gjkf0d
DCIT vs. Budhewal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 35 (SC)

For the assessment year 1993-94, the appellant , a co-operative sugar mill engaged in the business of manufacturing sugar and allied products from the sugarcane supplied to it by its member farmers (sugarcane growers), claimed deduction of Rs.16,75,462 under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the following two additional grounds were sought to be taken under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963:

“1. That the appellant was entitled to claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act being co-operative society engaged in marketing of agriculture produce of its members. Hence, its total income was not liable to be taxed.

2. That in the alternative, the appellant was entitled to be allowed claim for deduction amounting to Rs.1,74,64,478 representing benefit earned under the Sampath Incentive Scheme, 1997, being the capital receipt in contradistinction to revenue receipt as wrongly returned while computing the total income.”

The Hon’ble Tribunal, vide judgment dated 24th September, 2002, declined the request of the appellant to raise the abovementioned two additional grounds on the ground that the entire material was not before the subordinate authorities and detailed investigation of facts for want of facts would not be possible.

The High Court held that the appellant sugar-mill was engaged in the manufacturing of sugar products from the sugarcane supplied by members, who were admittedly sugarcane growers. Since the appellant sugar-mill was engaged in the marketing of agricultural produce of its members, therefore, it was entitled for the exemption as provided u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.

The High Court drew support from its Full Bench judgment in the case of the Budhewal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 351 (P&H) [FB], wherein it was held that co-operative society engaged in the manufacturing and sale of sugar out of the sugarcane grown by its members is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2) (a)(iii) of the Act.

The High Court noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held that keeping in mind the object behind the payment of the incentive subsidy, that the payment received by the assessee under the Scheme was not in the course of a trade but was of capital nature. According to the High Court in the present case also, the grant was not for the purpose of bringing into existence new assets but was for the purpose of making payment to the sugarcane growers, therefore, same should be treated as capital receipt.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in view of the order passed by it in Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 354 ITR 230 (SC).

The Supreme Court however clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the assessee was entitled to raise the contention before the Commissioner that in so far as the second issue was concerned, it was covered in its favour by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC)].

levitra

Appeal to the Supreme Court – No question of law arises from the finding of fact that the sale and lease back transactions was a sham

fiogf49gjkf0d
Avasarala Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 373 ITR 34 (SC)

The assessee claimed depreciation on certain machinery allegedly purchased from Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB), vide sale deed dated 29-9-1995, which, as per the assessee, was given to the APSEB itself on lease. All the authorities found, as a fact, that there was no such purchase of machinery and the transaction in question was sham. On that basis, it was concluded that since the machinery was not purchased by the assessee, it never became the owner of the machinery and therefore could not claim any depreciation thereof. The Supreme Court held that these were pure findings of facts recorded by the authorities below and did not give rise to any question of law.

levitra

Appeal to the High Court – Circular No. 3 of 2011 (which stipulates monetary limit for appeals by Department) should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has cascading effect.

fiogf49gjkf0d

CIT vs. Century Park (2015) 373 ITR 32 (SC)

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable without going into merits since the net tax effect in respect of the subject matter of the appeal was less than Rs.10,00,000 in view of the Circular No.3 of 2011. On appeal by the Revenue, the Supreme Court [vide order dated 1st April, 2015] granted liberty to the Department to move the High Court to point out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. The Supreme Court observed that there are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. According to the Supreme Court, in such cases if the attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court would not apply the Circular ipso facto.

levitra

Depreciation – Once the assessee proves the ownership of the assets and its use for the business purpose, he is entitled to depreciation u/s. 32

fiogf49gjkf0d
K. M. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 42 (SC)

The appellant-assessee had set up its unit some time in September, 1985 to carry on the business of manufacturing and compressing oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen amonis, carbonic acid, action (including dissolved) argon, cooking gas and other types of industrial gases or kind substances etc. For running the aforesaid plant, the assessee had also bought 1,250 gas cylinders. However, since the unit had not started functioning, these gas cylinders were leased out to M/s. Saraveshwari Gases (P) Limited, Ghaziabad and M/s. Malik Industries. In the return filed by the assessee, he claimed depreciation on those gas cylinders at the rate of 100 %, as provided under the rules on the aforesaid item.

The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the claim of depreciation on the ground that hiring business was not proved. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was accepted on the ground that the income received from leasing the aforesaid equipments would be treated as business income and on that basis he allowed the depreciation.

The aforesaid order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was upheld by the High Court. The High Court has concurred with the opinion of the Tribunal on the ground that the cylinders were not purchased for leasing business and one of the parties to whom the cylinders were leased out is the manufacturer and seller of the cylinders. It was further stated that the cylinders were dispatched to the other party only a day before the closing of the accounting period.

On an appeal by the Appellant-assessee, the Supreme Court held that the aforesaid reasons given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court in denying the depreciation did not appear to be valid reasons in law. Insofar as the purchase of gas cylinders by the assessee was concerned, this fact was not disputed. It was also not disputed that these gas cylinders were purchased for business purpose. In fact, the plea of the assessee that the manufacturing unit had not started functioning and this had necessitated the assessee to lease out these gas cylinders to the aforesaid two parties to enable it to earn some income, rather than keeping those cylinders idle, was also not in dispute. On the contrary, the income which was generated from leasing out those gas cylinders was treated as “business income”. Once the income from leasing those gas cylinders was accepted as the “business income”, which was taxed at the hands of the assessee as such, there was no reason how the depreciation on these gas cylinders could have been disallowed on the ground that the cylinders were not purchased for “leasing business”.

According to the Supreme Court, the aforesaid facts clearly demonstrated that the assessee had proved ownership of these gas cylinders and use of these gas cylinders for business purpose. Once these ingredients were proved, the assessee was entitled to depreciation u/s. 32 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation as claimed for the assessment year in question.

levitra

Order for Levy of Fees u/s. 234E and Intimation u/s. 200A

fiogf49gjkf0d
Issue for Consideration
A person deducting tax at source is
required, u/s. 200(3), to prepare and furnish a statement in the
prescribed form (Form No.s 24 Q, 26B, 26Q,27A and 27Q) with
DGIT(Systems) or NSDL in accordance with Rule 31A within the prescribed
time. Likewise, section 206 C requires a person responsible for
collection of tax at source to prepare and furnish a statement in Form
27C in accordance with Rule 37C within the prescribed time.

Section
234E of the Income tax Act, with effect from 1st January, 2012, makes
an assessee liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of Rs. 200 for every day
of default in filing a statement within the time prescribed in section
200(3) or section 206C(3). However, the fee shall not exceed the amount
of tax deductible or collectible. The amount of fee payable is required
to be paid before filing the statements. The constitutionality of that
levy of fees has been upheld by various high courts. A delay in
furnishing the statement is thus made liable to a fee u/s. 234E.

Section
200A inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2010,
provides for the processing of a statement of TDS, furnished u/s 200(3),
to enable the processor to ascertain the correctness of TDS and in
doing so carry out permissible adjustments and levy interest for delay
in payment of the deducted tax. The processor is also required to
prepare and generate an intimation of the sum payable or refundable to
the deductor, and send the same to him. These provisions of the
processing and issue of intimation are modified w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to
provide for the computation of the fee payable u/s. 234E while issuing
an intimation. Simultaneously, section 206 CB is inserted by the Finance
Act, 2015 to provide for processing of the statement of TCS and issue
of intimation w.e.f. 01.06.2015, for the first time.

In recent
times, a number of intimations are issued by the processor u/s 200A,
inter alia levying the fee payable u/s. 234E of the Act and demanding
the same vide such intimations. An aspect common to such intimations is
that all of them are issued before 1st June, 2015.

The
intimations issued before 1st June, 2015, levying and demanding fee u/s
234E, are being challenged by the tax deductors on the ground that the
processor had no authority to demand, under an intimation, any fee prior
to 1st June, 2015 – as such authority is available only from 1st June,
2015. In addition, it is also contended that the processor and/or an AO
in any case had no authority to pass any orders for computing and
levying such fee u/s. 234E of the Act in as much as no power is vested
in them for doing so.

The Amritsar bench of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, under the circumstances held that an intimation,
issued u/s. 200A, demanding the fees u/s 234E, was not valid in law
where it was issued on or before 1st June, 2015. The Chennai bench of
the Tribunal, while concurring with the view, held that the AO was
empowered to pass a separate order for levy of such fee outside the
intimation u/s. 200A of the Act.

Sibia Healthcare’s case
The
issue first arose in the case of the Sibia Healthcare Private Limited,
171 TTJ 145(Asr.). The AO in that case, had processed the statement of
TDS filed for the third quarter of the financial year 2012-13 by the
assessee and had in the process thereof levied the fees u/s. 234 E for
the default of delay in filing the statement. The assessee in the appeal
before the tribunal had called into question the correctness of the
order of the CIT(A) upholding levy of fees, u/s 234 E of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 and challenged such levy by way of intimation dated 11th
January 2014 issued u/s. 200A.

The Tribunal noted that it was a
case in which there was admittedly a delay in filing of the TDS returns,
and the AO(TDS), in the course of the processing of the TDS return, had
raised a demand under an intimation issued u/s. 200A of the Act, for
levy of fees u/s. 234 E for delayed filing of TDS statement. Aggrieved
by the levy of fees, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before
the CIT(A), but without any success. The assessee, not being satisfied,
filed a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on the above
facts, concerned itself with the question as to whether or not, for the
period prior to 1st June 2015, fees u/s. 234 E of the Act in respect of
defaults in furnishing TDS statements, could be levied in issuing
intimation u/s. 200A of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that there
was no enabling provision for raising a demand in respect of levy of
fees u/s. 234E prior to 1st June, 2015 . It noted that at the relevant
point of time, section 200A permitted computation of amount recoverable
from, or payable to, the tax deductor after making the adjustments on
account of “arithmetical errors” and “incorrect claims apparent from any
information in the statement ” and for “interest, if any, computed on
the basis of sums deductible as computed in the statement”. No other
adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax
deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at
that point of time.

In the considered view of the Tribunal; the
adjustment in respect of levy of fees u/s. 234E was beyond the scope of
‘permissible adjustments’ contemplated u/s. 200A; as an intimation was
an ‘appealable order’ u/s. 246A(a), the CIT(A) ought to have examined
legality of the adjustment made under the said intimation in the light
of the scope of section 200A which the CIT(A) had not done and instead
he had justified the levy of fees on the basis of the provisions of
section 234E. The answer to the question whether such a levy could be
effected in the course of intimation u/s. 200A. was clearly in the
negative.

Importantly, the Tribunal noted that no other
provision enabling a demand in respect of the levy had been pointed out
to the Tribunal, and it was thus an admitted position that in the
absence of the enabling provision u/s. 200A, no such levy could be
effected. The Tribunal also held that the said intimation was issued
beyond the time permissible in law by noting that a demand u/s. 200A, in
the facts of the case, was to be issued latest by 31st March 2015 and
the defect of delay in issuing the intimation thus was not curable.
Bearing in mind the entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees u/s.
234 E was found by the tribunal to be unsustainable in law. The
Tribunal therefore, upholding the grievance of the assessee, deleted the
levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act.

G. Indhirani & Other cases
The
issue again came up before the Chennai bench of the Income tax
Appellate Tribunal in the case of G. Indhirani in ITA No. 1020
&1021/Mds./2015 and other cases. The appeals of the different
assessees directed against the respective orders of the CIT(A), Salem
were heard together and disposed of by a common order as the issue
involved was common. The only issue for consideration of the Tribunal
was with regard to the levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income-tax Act, while
processing the statement furnished by the assessees, u/s. 200A of the
Act.

On behalf of the assessees, it was submitted that the statement filed by the assessee has to be processed only in the manner in which it was laid down u/s. 200A of the Act; levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act could not be a subject matter of processing the statement u/s. 200A of the Act; such an adjustment was permissible only vide an amendment made in section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, with effect from 01.06.2015, whereby the parliament empowered the AO to levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act while processing a statement u/s. 200A of the Act; prior to 01.06.2015, the AO had no authority to levy fee, if any, u/s. 234E of the Act; the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2015 vide order dated 09.06.2015, held that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A for raising a demand in respect of levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act. It was further contended that the fee levied u/s. 234E of the Act, while processing the statement filed u/s. 200A of the Act was not justified in as much as such a levy of fee, while processing the statement, was beyond the scope of section 200A of the Act.

Attention was invited to section 234E of the Act to highlight that when an assessee failed to deliver the statement within the prescribed time, he was liable to pay by way of fee a sum of Rs. 200/- for every day during the period of the failure. Referring to the words used in the section 234E “he shall be liable to pay”, it was pointed out that the assessee was liable to pay fee and the section did not empower the AO to levy the fee which was clear by reading of section 234E(3) of the Act that provided for payment of the fee before delivery of statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act. It was thus clear that the fee had to be paid by the assessee voluntarily before filing the statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act and the AO had no power to levy the fee before the amendment.

On the contrary,on behalf of the Income tax Department, it was submitted that section 234E of the Act provided for payment of fee in cases where the assessee failed to deliver the statement as prescribed in section 200(3) of the Act and therefore, the AO had every authority to levy fee either by a separate order or while processing the statement u/s. 200A of the Act.

On consideration of the rival submissions on either side and perusal of the relevant material on record, the Tribunal noted that section 200A of the Act provided for processing of the statement of tax deducted at source by making adjustment as provided therein; the AO could not make any adjustment other than the one prescribed in section 200A of the Act; it was obvious that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee u/s. 234E of the Act; the parliament for the first time enabled the AO to make adjustment by levying fee u/s. 234E of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015.

The Tribunal accordingly held that while processing the statement u/s. 200A of the Act, the AO could not make any adjustment by levying fee u/s. 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in the following words; “In the case before us, the Assessing Officer levied fee u/s. 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source u/s. 200A of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the fee levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source is beyond the scope of adjustment provided u/s. 200A of the Act. Therefore, such adjustment cannot stand in the eye of law.”

The assessee next contended that the AO had no authority to levy the fee u/s. 234E in view of the language of the said section 234E which provided that ‘the assessee’ “shall be liable to pay” ‘by way of fee’. The language in the assessee’s opinion clearly conveyed that the assessee had to voluntarily pay the fee and the AO had no authority to levy fee. This argument was found to be very attractive and fanciful by the Tribunal, but was also found to be devoid of any substance.

The Tribunal held that;

  •    the assessee shall pay the fee as provided u/s. 234E(1) of the Act before delivery of the statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act when section 234E clearly stated that the assessee was liable to pay fee for the delay in delivery of the statement with regard to tax deducted at source,

  •     if the assessee failed to pay the fee for the periods of delay, then the assessing authority had all the powers to levy fee while processing the statement u/s. 200A of the Act by making adjustment after 01.06.2015,
  •    prior to 01.06.2015, the AO had every authority to pass an order separately levying fee u/s. 234E of the Act,

  •    what was not permissible was levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source and making adjustment before 01.06.2015, it did not mean that the AO could not pass a separate order u/s. 234E of the Act levying fee for the delay in filing the statement as required u/s. 200(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal proceeded to examine the contention of the assessee that the AO had no power to levy fee u/s. 234E in the light of the provisions of Indian Penal Code and in particular section 396 of the Code that provided for punishment for dacoity with murder as also for the liability to fine. It also examined section 408 of the said Code which provided for payment of fine in addition to the punishment in cases of criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant. Similarly, the other provisions of the Code that provided for fine were referred to by the Tribunal to observe as follows; “The language used by the Parliament in Indian Penal Code is “shall also be liable to fine”. This means that the Magistrate or Sessions Judge, who tries the accused for an offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, in addition to punishment of imprisonment, shall also levy fine. If the contention of the Ld. counsel for the assessees is accepted, then the Magistrate or Sessions Judge, as the case may be, who is trying the accused for the offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, may not have authority to levy fine. .. It is well known principle that the fine prescribed under the Indian Penal Code has to be levied by the concerned Magistrate or Sessions Judge who is trying the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. counsel that merely because the Parliament has used the language “he shall be liable to pay by way of fee”, the assessee has to pay the fee voluntarily and the Assessing Officer has no authority to levy fee could not be accepted. No one would come forward to pay the fee voluntarily unless there is a compulsion under the statutory provision. The Parliament welcomes the citizens to come forward and comply with the provisions of the Act by paying the prescribed fee before filing the statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act. However, if the assessee fails to pay the fee before filing the statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act, the assessing authority is well within his limit in passing a separate order levying such a fee in addition to processing the statement u/s. 200A of the Act. In other words, before 01.06.2015, the assessing authority could pass a separate order u/s. 234E levying fee for delay in filing the statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act. However, after 01.06.2015, the assessing authority is well within his limit to levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act even while processing the statement u/s. 200A and making adjustment.”

The Tribunal, in the facts of the case however, was of the considered opinion that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee u/s. 234E while processing the statement and making adjustment u/s. 200A of the Act and therefore, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee u/s. 234E of the Act could not be sustained in law. At the same time while holding so in the assessee’s favour, it was made clear by the Tribunal that it was open to the AO to pass a separate order u/s. 234E of the Act for levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy had not expired.

Observations

The constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act has been examined by the Bombay High Court in the case of and Rashmikant Kundalia (Bom.), 373 ITR 248 and is upheld by the court. However, in a series of the decisions of the court in the cases of Narath Mapila LP School, [WP (C)    31498/2013(J)](Ker.), Adithya Bizor P. Solutions(Karn.) [WP No. 6918-6938/2014(T-IT), Om Prakash Dhoot (Raj.) [WP No. 1981 of 2014], a stay has been granted on the recovery of the demands raised in respect of fees u/s. 234E.

The power of the AO, while processing the statement of TDS u/s. 200A, to levy fee u/s. 234E and demand the same vide an intimation issued on 1st June, 2015 or thereafter is not in dispute. Also not in dispute is the fact that such fee cannot be demanded under an intimation that is issued before that date. The amendment of section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015 has made up for the deficiency, if any, by enabling the levy of the fee while processing the statement of TDS and demanding the payment of such levy under an intimation. The dispute appears to be about the power of the AO to levy a fee u/s. 234E outside the intimation u/s. 200A of the Act. Can an income-tax authority levy and demand the fee prescribed u/s. 234E on the basis of provisions of section 234E alone? Can it pass an order outside the provisions of section 200A for demanding the levy of fee? Is it prevented from demanding such fee in view of specific language of section 234E that require an assessee to pay the fee and pay the same before filing the statement u/s. 200(3) of the Act? These are the questions that require Section 234E of the Act, was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 brought into effect from 1st July 2012 reads as under:

234E. Fee for defaults in furnishing Statements

(1)    Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues.

(2)    The amount of fee referred to in s/s. (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be.

(3)    The amount of fee referred to in s/s. (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a    statement    in    accordance    with    sub-section    (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C.

(4)    The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012

On a bare reading of the provisions of section 234E, one gathers that the liability to pay the fee is that of the assessee who had defaulted in filing the statement of TDS within the time prescribed u/s. 200(3). It is also clear that the fee is to be paid before the filing of the statement of TDS u/s. 200 by the assessee. It is further clear from a bare reading of the amended provisions of section 200A, in particular clauses (c) and (d), that with effect from 1st June 2015, the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E while processing the statement of TDS and the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount computed under clause (b) and clause (c) against any amount paid u/s. 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee and an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d) and the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (d) shall be granted to the deductor.

It is true that there was no express or specific provisions on or before 1st June, 2015 that empowered an authority to levy such fee and demand the payment of the same. However, such an interpretation would mean that the provisions of section 234E, though introduced w.e.f 1st July, 2012 has no teeth and are redundant till 31st May, 2015. Such an interpretation shall also render many provisions of the Act redundant where they provide for a levy or payment for an offence specified in the respective provision without express provision for levy and demand thereof. It also would mean that for each provision for any tax, interest, fee, levy, fine there should be an express and corresponding provision authorising an income-tax authority to effectively levy the same and demand the same from the assessee failing which the charge would remain ineffective.

The Chennai bench of the Tribunal in G. Indrihani’s case is right in holding that the AO or the authority is empowered to pass an appropriate order for levy of the fees u/s 234E and to demand the same under such an order. The effect of the amendment in section 200A is limited to authorising the AO or any other authority to levy the fee or ascertain the correctness of the fee paid while processing the statement of TDS and demand the same vide an intimation, a power which was not hitherto available till 31st May, 2015. An independent power to pass an order had always been vested in the AO or other authority once a liability to fee for the default was imposed under the Act.

Income Computation & Disclosure Standards – Some Issues

fiogf49gjkf0d
The 10 Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) which have been notified on 31st March 2015 u/s. 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have significant implications on the computation of income for assessment years beginning from assessment year 2016-17.

Under the notification, these standards come into force from 1st April 2016, i.e. assessment year 2016-17, apply to all assessees following mercantile system of accounting, and are to be followed for the purposes of computation of income chargeable to income tax under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources”. The notification also supercedes notification dated 25th January 1996 [which notified 2 Accounting Standards u/s 145(2) – Disclosure of Accounting Policies, and Disclosure of Prior Period and Extraordinary Items and Changes in Accounting Policies], except as regards such things done or omitted to be done before such supersession.

Background
Section 145, which deals with method of accounting, was substituted by the Finance Act, 1995, with effect from assessment year 1997-98. Sub-section (2) to this section, after this amendment, provided that the Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time accounting standards (“AS”) to be followed by any class of assessees or in respect of any class of income.

The provisions of sub-section (1) were made subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), whereby the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources” was to be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, subject to the provisions of subsection (2).

Sub-section (3) provided that where the assessing officer was not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) or AS notified under sub-section (2) had not been regularly followed by the assessee, the assessing officer could make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144 (i.e. a best judgement assessment).

In 1996, AS notified by ICAI were not mandatory for companies, but were mandatory for auditors auditing general purpose financial statements. On 29th January 1996, two AS (“IT-AS”) were notified by the CBDT, Disclosure of Accounting Policies, and Disclosure of Prior Period and Extraordinary Items and Changes in Accounting Policies.

In July 2002, the Government constituted a Committee for formulation of AS for notification u/s 145(2). In November 2003, this Committee recommended the notification of the AS issued by ICAI without any modification, since it would be impractical for a taxpayer to maintain two sets of books of account. It also recommended appropriate legislative amendments to the Act for preventing any revenue leakage due to the AS being notified by ICAI. These recommendations were not implemented.

With the imminent introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in India in the form of Ind- AS, in December 2010, the Government constituted a Committee of Departmental Officers and professionals to suggest AS for notification u/s. 145(2). The terms of the Committee were as under:

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

ii) to suggest 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

iii) to suggest appropriate amendments to the Act in view of transition to IFRS (IND AS) regime. This Committee submitted an interim report in August 2011. The recommendations of the Committee in such interim report were as under:

1. Separate AS should be notified u/s. 145(2), since the AS to be notified would have to be in harmony with the Act. The notified AS should provide specific rules, which would enable computation of income with certainty and clarity, and would also need elimination of alternatives, to the extent possible.

2. Since it would be burdensome for taxpayers to maintain 2 sets of books of account, the AS to be notified should apply only to computation of income, and books of account should not have to be maintained on the basis of such AS.

3. T o distinguish such AS from other AS, these AS should be called Tax Accounting Standards (“TAS ”).

4. S ince TAS were based on mercantile system of accounting, they should not apply to taxpayers following cash system of accounting.

5. S ince TAS are meant to be in harmony with the Act, in case of conflict, the provisions of the Act should prevail over TAS .

6. S ince the starting point for computation of taxable income was the profit as per the financial accounts, which are prepared on the basis of AS whose provisions may be different from TAS , a reconciliation between the income as per the financial statements and the income computed as per TAS should be presented.

In October 2011, drafts of 2 TAS – Construction Contracts and Government Grants – were released for public comment. In May 2012, drafts of another 6 TAS were released for public comment.

The Committee gave its final report in August 2012. It focused only on formulation of TAS harmonised with the provisions of the Act, since the position regarding the transition to Ind-AS was fluid and uncertain, and therefore even the impact of Ind-AS on book profits relevant for the purposes of MAT could not be ascertained.

It recommended that of the 31 AS issued by ICAI, 7 AS did not need to be examined, since they did not relate to computation of income. Of the remaining 24 AS, 10 related to disclosure requirements, were not yet mandatory or were not required for computation of income. The Committee therefore provided drafts of 14 TAS . The Committee also recommended that TAS in respect of certain other areas be considered for notification – Share based payment, Revenue recognition by real estate developers, Service concession arrangements (example, Build Operate Transfer agreements), and Exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources.

In January 2015, the CBDT released the draft of 12 TAS (renamed as ICDS) for public comment. These did not include 2 TAS recommended by the Committee – Contingencies and Events Occurring After the Balance Sheet Date and Net Profit or Loss for the Period, Prior Period Items and changes in Accounting Policies.

Section 145 was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 with effect from 1st April 2015 (assessment year 2015-16), by substituting the term “income computation and disclosure standards” for the term “accounting standards” in sub-section (2). Similarly, sub-section (3) was amended to substitute the “not regular following of accounting standards” with “non-computation of income in accordance with the notified ICDS”.

Finally, in March 2015, the CBDT notified 10 ICDS as under:

ICDS I – Accounting Policies
ICDS II – Valuation of Inventories
ICDS III – Construction Contracts
ICDS IV – Revenue Recognition
ICDS V – Tangible Fixed Assets
ICDS VI – Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates
ICDS VII – Government Grants
ICDS VIII – Securities
ICDS IX – Borrowing Costs
ICDS X – Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets

The draft ICDS prepared by the Committee but not notified were those relating to Leases and Intangible Fixed Assets.

Applicability & Issues
The notified ICDS apply with effect from assessment year 2016-17, while section 145(2) was amended with effect from assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, for assessment year 2015-16, IT-AS would not apply, since the section provides for ICDS to be followed. Further, since ICDS were not notified till March 2015, ICDS were also not required to be followed for that year. Effectively, for assessment year 2015-16, neither IT-AS nor ICDS would apply. ICDS would apply only with effect from assessment year 2016-17.

ICDS would apply to all taxpayers following mercantile system of accounting, irrespective of the level of income. It would not apply to taxpayers following cash system of accounting. It would not apply only to taxpayers carrying on business, but even to other taxpayers, who may have income under the head “Income from Other Sources”. Effectively, since almost every taxpayer would have at least bank interest, which is taxable under the head “Income from Other Sources”, it would apply to most taxpayers. Further, most taxpayers choose to offer income for tax on an accrual basis, to facilitate matching of tax deducted at source (TDS) from their income with their claim for TDS credit as per their return of income.

Would it apply to taxpayers who do not maintain books of accounts? The provisions would certainly apply to all taxpayers who offer their income to tax under these 2 heads of income on a mercantile basis. Can a taxpayer choose to offer his income to tax on a cash basis, where books of account are not maintained, or is it to be presumed that his income has to be taxed on a mercantile or accrual basis in the absence of books of accounts?

In N. R. Sirker vs. CIT 111 ITR 281, the Gauhati High Court considered the issue and held as under:

“It can safely be assumed that ordinarily people keep accounts in cash system, that is to say, when certain sum is received, it is entered in his account and in the case of firms, etc., where regular method of accounting is adopted, sometimes accounts are kept in mercantile system. In the instant case it was not the case of the department that the assessee’s accounts were kept in mercantile system. On the other hand, the assessment orders showed that no proper accounts were kept. That being so it would not be justified to presume that the assessee kept his accounts in the mercantile system. Income-tax is normally paid on money actually received as income after deducting the allowable deductions. In the case of an assessee maintaining accounts in mercantile system, there was some variation, inasmuch as moneys receivable and payable were also shown as received and paid in the books. In order to apply this method, the proved or admitted position must be that the assessee keeps his accounts in mercantile system.”

Similarly, in Dr. N. K. Brahmachari vs. CIT 186 ITR 507, the Calcutta High Court held that unless and until it was found that the assessee maintained his accounts on accrual basis, income accrued but not received could not be taxed.

In CIT vs. Vimla D. Sonwane 212 ITR 489, the Bombay High Court considered a case where the assesse did not maintain regular books of accounts and did not follow mercantile system of accounting. The Bombay High Court held in that case:

“Option regarding adoption of system of accounting is with the assessee and not with the Income-tax Department. The assessee is indeed free even to follow different methods of accounting for income from different sources in an appropriate case. The department cannot compel the assessee to adopt the mercantile system of accounting. As a matter of fact, it was not adopted.”

In Whitworth Park Coal Co. Ltd. vs. IRC [1960] 40 ITR 517, the House of Lords laid down that where no method of accounting had been regularly employed, a non-trader cannot be assessed, (in the Indian context, u/s. 56 under the head ‘Income from other sources’) in respect of money which he has not received. The House of Lords observed:

“…The word ‘income’ appears to me to be the crucial word, and it is not easy to say what it means. The word is not defined in the Act and I do not think that it can be defined. There are two different currents of authority. It appears to me to be quite settled that in computing a trader’s income account must be taken of trading debts which have not yet been received by the trader. The price of goods sold or services rendered is included in the year’s profit and loss account although that price has not yet been paid. One reason may be that the price has already been earned and that it would give a false picture to put the cost of producing the goods or rendering the services into his accounts as an outgoing but to put nothing against that until the price has been paid. Good accounting practice may require some exceptions, I do not know, but the general principle has long been recognised. And if in the end the price is not paid it can be written off in a subsequent year as a bad debt.

But the position of an ordinary individual who has no trade or profession is quite different. He does not make up a profit and loss account. Sums paid to him are his income, perhaps subject to some deductions, and it would be a great hardship to require him to pay tax on sums owing to him but of which he cannot yet obtain payment. Moreover, for him there is nothing corresponding to a trader writing off bad debts in a subsequent year, except perhaps the right to get back tax which he has paid in error.” (p. 533)

“The case has often arisen of a trader being required to pay tax on something which he has not yet received and may never receive, but we were informed that there is no reported case where a non-trader has had to do this whereas there are at least three cases to the opposite effect—Lambe v. IRC [1934] 2 ITR 494, Dewar v. IRC 1935 5 Tax LR 536 and Grey v. Tiley [1932] 16 Tax Cas. 414, and I would also refer to what was said by Lord Wrenbury in St. Lucia Usines & Estates Co. Ltd. v. St. Lucia ( Colonial Treasurer) [1924] AC 508 (PC). I certainly think that it would be wrong to hold now for the first time that a non-trader to whom money is owing but who has not yet received it must bring it into his income-tax return and pay tax on it. And for this purpose I think that the company must be treated as a non-trader, because the Butterley’s case [1957] AC 32 makes it clear that these payments are not trading receipts.” (p. 533)

Therefore, for income falling under the head “Income from other sources”, it is clear that in the absence of books of accounts, and where the assessee has not exercised any option, the income would be taxable on a cash basis.

It is well settled that the method of accounting is vis-a-vis each source of income, since computation of income is first to be done for each source of income, and then aggregated under each head of income. An assessee can choose to follow one method of accounting for some sources of income, and another method of accounting for other sources of income. In J. K. Bankers vs. CIT 94 ITR

107    (All), the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting in respect of interest on loans in respect of its moneylending business, and offered lease rent earned by it to tax on a cash basis under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The Allahabad High Court held that an assessee could choose to follow a different method of accounting in respect of its moneylending business and in respect of lease rent. Similarly, in CIT vs. Smt. Vimla D. Sonwane 212 ITR 489, the Bombay High Court held that “The assessee is indeed free even to follow different methods of accounting for income from different sources in an appropriate case”.

Where an assessee follows cash method of accounting for certain sources of income and mercantile system of accounting for others, ICDS would apply only to those sources of income, where mercantile system of accounting is followed and would not apply to those sources of income, where cash method of accounting is followed. For instance, an assessee may have a manufacturing business, and a separate commission agency business. He may be following mercantile system of accounting for his manufacturing business, and a cash method of accounting for his commission agency business. ICDS would then apply only to the manufacturing business, and not to the commission agency business.

Can a taxpayer opt to change his method of accounting from mercantile to cash basis, in order to prevent the applicability of ICDS? Under paragraph 5 of ICDS I, an accounting policy shall not be changed without reasonable cause. Under AS 5, such a change was permissible only if the adoption of a different accounting policy was required by statute or for compliance with an accounting standard or if it was considered that the change would result in a more appropriate presentation of the financial statements of the enterprise. Would a change in law amount to reasonable cause? If such a change is made from assessment year 2016-17, the year from which ICDS comes into effect, an assessee would need to demonstrate that such change was actuated by other commercial considerations, and not merely to bypass the provisions of ICDS.

Do ICDS apply to a taxpayer who is offering his income to tax under a presumptive tax scheme, such as section 44AD? Under the presumptive tax scheme, books of account are not relevant, since the income is computed on the basis of the presumptive tax rate laid down under the Act. It therefore does not involve computation of income on the basis of the method of accounting, or on the basis of adjustments to the accounts. Therefore, though there is no specific exclusion under the notification for taxpayers following under presumptive tax schemes from the purview of ICDS, logically, ICDS should not apply to such taxpayers. However, where the presumptive tax scheme involves computation of tax on the basis of gross receipts, turnover, etc., it is possible that the tax authorities may take a view that the ICDS on revenue recognition would apply to compute the gross receipts or turnover in such cases.

Would ICDS apply to non-residents? The provisions of ICDS apply to all taxpayers, irrespective of the concept of residence. However, where a non-resident taxpayer falls under a presumptive tax scheme, such as section 115A, on the same logic as that of presumptive tax schemes applicable to residents, the provisions of ICDS should not apply. Further, where a non-resident claims the benefit of a double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA), by virtue of section 90(2), the provisions of the DTAA would prevail over the provisions of the Income-tax Act, including section 145(2) and ICDS notified thereunder. In other cases of incomes of non-residents, which do not fall under presumptive tax schemes or DTAA, the provisions of ICDS would apply.

It has been stated in each ICDS that the ICDS would not apply for the purpose of maintenance of books of accounts. While theoretically this may be the position, the question arises as to whether it is practicable or even possible to compute the income under ICDS without maintaining a parallel set of books of account, given the substantial differences between AS being followed in the books of accounts and ICDS. Most taxpayers would end up at least preparing a parallel profit and loss account and balance sheet, to ensure that ICDS and its consequences have been properly taken care of while making the adjustments.

Further, the Committee had recommended that a tax auditor is required to certify that the computation of taxable income is made in accordance with the provisions of ICDS. Before certification, a tax auditor would invariably require such parallel profit and loss account and balance sheet to be prepared, to ensure that all adjustments required on account of ICDS have been considered. This will result in substantial work for most businesses, and may even result in the requirement of parallel MIS, one for the purposes of regular accounts, and the other for the purposes of ICDS. One wonders whether the Committee really wanted to avoid the requirement of maintenance of 2 sets of books of account, as stated by it, or has taken into account the practical difficulties, given the complex and myriad adjustments it has suggested through ICDS.

An interesting issue arises in this context. Can an assessee maintain 2 separate books of accounts – one under the Companies Act or other applicable law on a mercantile system, and a parallel set of books of accounts for income tax purposes on a cash basis? If one looks at the provisions of section 145(1), it provides that income chargeable under these 2 heads of income shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. What is the meaning of the term “regularly employed”? Normally, the system of accounting adopted by the assesse in his books for his dealings with the outside world would be adopted for the purposes of computing the profit or loss for tax purposes also. The accounts are those maintained in the regular course of business. It may therefore be difficult for an assessee to maintain separate books of account with different system of accounting only for income tax purposes.

It may be noted that even after the introduction of ICDS, the computation still has to be in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Compliance with ICDS is an additional requirement. Therefore, the computation in accordance with the method of accounting is merely modified by the requirements of ICDS, and not substituted entirely.

Since ICDS is not applicable for the purposes of maintenance of books of account, one wonders as to what is the purpose and ambit of ICDS I on Accounting Policies. Since the purpose of ICDS is not to lay down accounting policies which are to be followed in the maintenance of the books of account, ICDS I should be regarded as merely a disclosure standard and not a computation standard. There are however certain provisions in ICDS I which relate to computation.

For example, the provision that accounting policies adopted shall be such was to represent a true and fair view of the state of affairs and income of the business, profession or vocation, and that for this purpose, the treatment and presentation of transaction and events shall be governed by their substance and not merely by their legal form, and marked to market loss or an expected loss shall not be recognised, unless the recognition of such loss is in accordance with the provisions of any other ICDS, really relates to what accounting policies an assessee should follow in its books of account. This is inconsistent with the preamble to this ICDS, that it is not applicable for the purpose of maintenance of books of account. This is also ultra vires the powers available under the provisions of section 145(2), which provide for computation in accordance with notified ICDS, and no longer contain the power to notify accounting standards.

This anomaly possibly arose on account of the fact that the provisions of section 145(2) were modified only after the Committee provided the draft of the relevant ICDS. Possibly, such provisions of ICDS I may not be valid.

Each ICDS states that in the case of conflicts between the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the ICDS, the provisions of the Act would prevail to that extent. Such a provision is ostensibly to harmonise the provisions of the ICDS with the provisions of the Act. One wonders as to why the Committee did not take into account the various provisions of the Act while framing ICDS. While such a provision is helpful, it would lead to substantial litigation in cases where there is no express provision in the Act, but where courts have interpreted the provisions of the Act in a manner which is inconsistent with the provisions of the ICDS.

There have been 3 specific amendments made to the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2015, to ensure that the provisions of the Act are in line with the provisions of ICDS. These 3 provisions are as under:

1.    The definition of “income” u/s. 2(24) has been amended by insertion of clause (xviii) to include assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or favour or concession or reimbursement (by whatever name called) by the Central Government or a State Government or any authority or body or agency in cash or kind to the assessee, other than the subsidy or grant or reimbursement, which is taken into account for determination of the actual cost of the asset in accordance with the provisions of explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43. This is to align it with the provisions of ICDS VII on Government Grants.

2.    The provisions of the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) have been modified to delete the words “for extension of existing business or profession”, after the words “in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset”, to bring the section in line with ICDS IX on Borrowing Costs, whereby interest in respect of borrowings for all assets acquired, from the date of borrowing till the date of first put to use of the asset, is to be capitalised.

3.    A second proviso has been inserted to section 36(1) (vii), to provide that where a debt has been taken into account in computing the income of an assessee for any year on the basis of ICDS without recording such debt in the books of accounts, then such debt would be deemed to have been written off in the year in which it becomes irrecoverable. This is to facilitate the claim for deduction of bad debts, where the debt has been recognised as income in accordance with ICDS, but has not been recognised in the books of accounts in accordance with AS.

Obviously, with the amendment of the Income-tax Act as well, the provisions of the ICDS in this regard read along with the amended Act, which may be contrary to earlier judicial rulings, would now apply.

There could be earlier judicial rulings which are based on the relevant provisions of the accounting standards, and where the court therefore interpreted the law on the basis of such accounting standards. These judicial rulings would now have to be considered as being subject to the requirements of ICDS, as the method of accounting is now subject to modification by the provisions of ICDS.

The third and last category of judicial rulings would be those where the courts have laid down certain basic principles while interpreting the tax law, in particular, the relevant provisions of the tax law. In such cases, such judicial rulings would override the provisions of ICDS, since such rulings have interpreted the provisions of the Act, which would prevail over ICDS.

For instance, various judicial rulings have propounded the real income theory. The Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Vashisht Chay Vyapar 330 ITR 440 has held, based on the real income theory, that interest accrued on non-performing assets of non-banking financial companies cannot be taxed until such time as such interest is actually received. Would the contrary provisions of ICDS IV on revenue recognition change the position? It would appear that the ruling will still continue to hold good even after the introduction of ICDS.

In case any of the provisions of ICDS is contrary to the Income Tax Rules, which one would prevail? The provisions of ICDS are silent in this regard. Given the fact that rules are a form of delegated legislation, while ICDS is in the form of a notification, which then becomes a part of the legislation, it would appear that the provisions of ICDS should prevail in such cases.

Since ICDS is not applicable for the purpose of maintenance of books of account, it is clear that the provisions of ICDS would not apply to the computation of “book profits” for the purposes of minimum alternate tax under section 115JB.

In fact, most of the ICDS provisions would increase the gap between the taxable income and the book profits, instead of narrowing down the gap. In this context, one wonders whether a recent Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court decision would be of assistance. In the case of Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited 373 ITR 252, the High Court held that where an item of income was taxed in an earlier year but was recorded in the books of account of the current year, on the principle that the same income could not be taxed twice, such income had to be excluded from the book profits of the current year.

Can one use the provisions of AS for interpreting ICDS, where the provisions of both are identical? If one compares the ICDS with the corresponding AS, one notices that the bold portion of the AS has been picked up and modified, and issued as ICDS. Where the provisions of the AS and ICDS are identical, one should therefore be able to take resort to the explanatory paragraphs forming part of the AS, though they do not form part of the ICDS, in order to interpret the ICDS.

Impact & Conclusion

One thing is certain – the provisions of ICDS will create far greater litigation, then what one is now witnessing. That would defeat the very purpose of ICDS of bringing in tax certainty and reduction of litigation. Does reduction of litigation mean introduction of complicated provisions which are unfair to taxpayers? Is there at least one provision in the ICDS which decides a disputed issue in favour of taxpayers?

Does the CBDT believe that what is accepted worldwide as income (profit determined in accordance with IFRS), is not the real income when it comes to taxation? Are the Indian tax authorities an exception to the rest of the world? ICDS does not increase taxes – it merely results in advancement of taxability of income to an earlier year, and postponement of allowability of expenditure to a later year. Is the need for advancement of tax revenues so pressing, that taxpayer convenience and compliance costs are brushed aside?

Looking at the requirements of ICDS, one cannot but help wonder as to whether ICDS has been merely brought in to overcome the impact of adverse judicial rulings, and not really with a view to facilitate transition to IndAS. What ought to have been done by amendments to the law is being sought to be implemented through ICDS.

Assessees would now have to cope with not only frequent changes to the law, but also with frequent changes to ICDS, given the unfinished agenda of 4 draft ICDS yet to be notified, and the further 4 recommended for notification by the Committee. One understands that the Committee is in the process of drafting further ICDS for notification.

One also understands that the CBDT is likely to issue FAQs to clarify various aspects of ICDS. One only hopes that such FAQs will not create further confusion, but would help clear the confusion created by the ICDS.

One wonders as to how such ICDS fits in with the Prime Minister’s promise to improve the ease of doing business. The additional compliance costs in order to comply with ICDS would far outweigh the advantages gained by the tax department by recovering taxes at an earlier stage. Would business be keen to expand or would persons be willing to set up new businesses, given the significant compliance costs? The country would certainly take a significant hit in the “Ease of Doing Business Survey” once ICDS is implemented.

Tax auditors will now be in an extremely difficult situation, if the recommendation relating to requirement of certification of computation of income in accordance with ICDS is implemented. So far, they merely had to certify the true and fair view of the accounts, and the correctness of the information provided in Form 3CD. They did not have to certify the correctness of the claims for various deductions. If an auditor would now have to certify the correctness of the computation of income, this would give rise to various issues as to how such certification could be carried out, particularly in cases where the issue was debatable.

Instead of taxpayers, tax auditors may bear the brunt of the income tax department’s actions in respect of claims for deduction or exemption made which, in the view of the income tax department, is not allowable. Would assessees be willing to remunerate tax auditors for such additional high risks which they would bear in certifying the computation of income? If such a requirement of certification of the computation of income were introduced, it is possible that many chartered accountants may no longer be willing to carry out tax audits.

The biggest beneficiaries of ICDS may be tax lawyers and chartered accountants, who will have to handle the resultant additional litigation. The biggest losers will be the taxpayers, due to additional compliance and litigation costs, and the country, due to loss of productive manhours, and the loss of potential growth in business.

BLACK MONEY ACT: A MALEVOLENT LAW

fiogf49gjkf0d
Black money is a cancer in our economic system, not yet terminal or life-threatening, and unquestionably deserves closer scrutiny by the government. However, the kind of action that has been taken on this front of late is difficult to understand. The replacement of the dreaded Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) was supposed to put an end to harassment by tax sleuths and enforcement officials. But, through various recent actions, the government has opened the door to such behaviour once again.

In this article, I have tried to capture various issues which have cropped up with the enactment of the Black Money law. Even after the CBDT has tried to address few issues by rolling out circular of frequently asked questions, still there is a lack of clarity in many areas on applicability of this dreadful law.

Constitutional Validity of Change in Date of Commencement of Act
To start with the list of issues, firstly, the move of the Finance Ministry to advance the date of operation of the black money law from April 1, 2016 to July 1, 2015 is highly questionable. Could the government have “amended” a law passed by the Parliament which had already received the assent of the President through an Executive Order? If the date from which the law would come into force was part of the Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament, then how anybody other than Parliament could have changed it. The government should have gone to the Parliament for amending it.

Section 86 (1) of the Act empowers the Central government to order to remove difficulties not inconsistent with the provisions of the main Act as a delegate of Parliament. But in the instant situation, the government has actually amended section 1(3) of the main Act by altering the date when the Act shall come into force from 1st April, 2016, to 1st July, 2015 in a notification issued by an officer of the rank of Under Secretary to remove any “difficulty” that comes in the way of giving effect to the provisions of the Act through an order. But the “difficulty” that the section refers to cannot apply to the date from which the law would come into force. Further, a delegated legislation cannot amend the parent legislation.

Duration of Compliance Window
It was expected that the government would provide a compliance window of 3 to 6 months, though the author’s view is that a period of 6 to 9 months would have to be provided for those, who may want to take this one time opportunity and to get the proper valuation of their assets done in terms of complicated Rules for valuation. The 3-month window will certainly be a practical difficulty faced by persons who are genuinely interested in making a disclosure of undisclosed foreign assets. Supposedly, a person having investments and assets in, let us say, 7 tax havens (Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg, Jersey, Singapore and Mauritius) and wants to come clean by making declaration of undisclosed assets. Further, calculating the fair value of unlisted shares will be a pain and above that it will be a task to satisfy the tax authority that the disclosure made under the one-time compliance window is correct. An individual who holds shares in an unlisted firm will have to find out the fair value of all assets that firm holds which will be time-consuming. It will not be easy to complete the valuation exercise in three months time frame allotted (at the time of writing this article, approximately one month of the time frame has already elapsed) for one-time compliance window, but the downside of not declaring could be severe in view of the automatic exchange of information becoming effective soon. If this three-month compliance scheme is compared with the tax authority’s 2 year time frame to complete an assessment, such short compliance scheme may cause undue hardship and be a burden to declarants to satisfy the requirements prescribed under the scheme. If the information comes to the notice of the tax department post this window, the payout would be much more and there would be the risk of imprisonment and prosecution. More so if anyone, even by mistake, makes an incorrect declaration, then the entire declaration will be treated as null and void. The tax and penalty paid will not be refunded and the information given in the form will be used against the person for initiating proceedings by any demand raised against the declarant.

CONFUSION OVER NON-REFUNDABLE TAX AND PENAL TY UPON REJECTION OF THE DECLARA TION UNDER CO M-LIANCE WINDOW SCHEME

If the declaration is regarded as void under section 68 of the Act (Chapter VI – Compliance Window Scheme), then whether the tax and penalty paid would be refunded? This question requires clarification from the CBDT. However, having regard to the provisions of section 66 and section 68, such tax and penalty may not be refunded to the declarant and the declaration shall be deemed never to have been filed under Chapter VI of the Act. Now, since the declaration is deemed never to have been filed, the Assessing Officer may issue a notice under the normal provisions of this Act. Consequently, the declaration may be required to pay tax and penalty, as per the provisions of the Act. However, the declarant should be allowed to claim set-off of the amount of tax and penalty already paid under this chapter for the assets declared vide the declaration (which was regarded as void under section 68) and therefore only the remaining amount of tax and/or penalty should be required to be paid.

PROBLEM ON OBTAINING INFORMATION ON BANKS ACCOUN TS BY THE DECLARANT

Under Indian Income Tax Act, the tax department can go back up to 16 years whereas under the Black Money Act (which prescribes no time limit) the resident is expected to disclose, as per the circular issued, income or assets even for a period beyond 16 years also. This could be 20, 30 or even 40 years depending on when an account was opened or even sums inherited by a person or person from whom assets were inherited did not pay taxes on such assets. Some of the accountholders in the Liechtenstein bank LGT had opened accounts in the late 1960s and 1970s. Foreign banks do not have account details beyond 10 years. If a person cannot furnish all details, then he would not be able to comply and the tax department will reject the application which is made under the one-time compliance window. However, in a case where there are undisclosed assets other than bank accounts in the declaration, it is uncertain whether the entire declaration would be rejected or only the bank account declaration would stand reject on account of non-compliance of the details so prescribed by the Government.

In some countries like the UAE, there is no income tax and also no legal requirement to maintain books of accounts for tax purpose. In such cases, it will be difficult for individuals to get details of all transactions in the bank account.

Prior Information received by Govt under DTAA
Declarant under the compliance window has no means to know whether the Government has received any prior information under DTAA on or before 30 June 2015 about his undisclosed assets. Supposedly, where a declarant has disclosed the information under the compliance window scheme and is later on informed by the Government that they had information about these undisclosed assets, then that declarant would have to exclude such undisclosed assets from the declaration and will also lose immunity from prosecution under Income-tax Act, Wealth Tax Act, Customs Act, FEMA and Companies Act. But the question here arises, on what grounds that declarant should rely on Government’s statement of having prior information. So, declarants may contest the Government’s assertion by filing RTI application to disclose documentary evidence substantiating Government’s claim that information under DTAA was received on or before 30th June 2015.

Valuation of Immovable Properties acquired abroad

Properties acquired abroad will be taxed on the basis of a valuation report of a valuer recognised by the foreign government. Clarification is required regarding the evidence the declarant will have to produce to prove that the valuer is recognised by that particular foreign government and to get valuation done. In most of the foreign countries, there is no system of a registered valuers notified by the Government and valuation is generally carried out by private asset valuation companies. This becomes more difficult and time-consuming for a person to first conduct a search for finding a registered valuer otherwise the declaration made would be rejected and deemed to have never been made leading to more severe and harsh consequences like higher penalty and fear of prosecution.

Valuation of Any other assets

The rules prescribed by the Government provide for valuation of any other asset. Clarification is required regarding its definition. Whether that will include intangible assets as well. Further regarding its valuation the rules provide that FMV shall be higher of cost and the price that the asset would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date in an arm’s-length transaction. Whether a valuation report is required for this?

Indian Nationals returning to India after few years

Professionals who return to India after having worked abroad may have opened retirement pension accounts like 401K account in US. CBDT has clarified that assets acquired when the person was a non-resident do not fall under the definition of undisclosed assets and will not be taxed under the Black Money Act or Income-tax Act. However, a question arises whether the balance in the 401k accounts will have to be disclosed by a resident in the Income Tax Return under the Schedule for Foreign Assets? Since CBDT’s circular has stated that non-reporting of foreign assets in Income-tax return and makes the person liable for penalty of Rs 10 lakh under the Act. Further, the threshold limit of Rs. 5 lakh prescribed by the Government for which the penalty is not applicable is in respect of bank account only. So, such 401k balances does not represent as bank account and the threshold limit would also not be applicable in this regard. Clarification needs to be sought from CBDT on this issue since the penalty will be harsh for a mere non-disclosure even if there is no detriment to the Government as the asset was created out of income earned when the individual was a non-resident and which is not taxable in India.

Further, there is a practical difficulty of retrieving details of such balance for those who returned to India from abroad long back. It makes no sense in putting such people to hardship without any commensurate benefit to the Government. It would be better if CBDT instructs Assessing Officers not to impose penalty in cases where non-disclosure causes no loss to the Revenue.

Inheritance of property

The CBDT in the circular containing a list of frequently asked questions has stated that in case of inheritance of property from the father and which has been sold by the son in an earlier year, son can make the declaration in respect of such property as legal representative where source of investment in the property by the father was unexplained. What happens if son is not aware of the source? Can he be liable under this Act, in case he fails to make such disclosures? Similarly, there is conflict between the Act and the Circular issued by the CBDT, where in the Circular it appears as if the non-residents are also being covered by the Act, while section 3 of the Act provides the applicability of this act to ordinarily residents only.

Further, would it be correct to argue that non-disclosure would only attract penalty of Rs. 10 lakh u/s. 42? Tax and penalty of 120% would be attracted only on income accrued on such inherited property that is not disclosed post inheritance?

Threat of Abetment

The Act imposes liability for abetting or inducing another to wilfully attempt to evade tax or to make false statements/ declarations in relation to foreign income and assets. The objective of this provision is to target professional advisors such as private banks, accountants, lawyers and other consultants whose actions may potentially be covered under ‘abetment or inducement’. This move is intended to make the Act comprehensive in its scope. That said, it is bound to cause concern among practitioners as there is no clear guidance on what precautions or due diligence will be sufficient to indicate practitioners acted within their rights or that they did not beach their code of conduct. Imposition of such liability on professional advisors and intermediaries may adversely affect advising of Indian clients by practitioners may apprehend the risk of undue harassment at the hands of Revenue officials.

There is a dire need for the Government to step in and clear the air on many issues and by not just issuing a press release stating the views in the media reports are based on surmises and may not be factually accurate or correctly reflecting the legal position. Thus, until and unless the Government lends an ear to the problems faced and helps in resolving them, this dreadful Black Money Law will only be a tool of tax terrorism.

Business expenditure – Accounting – Sections 37 and 145 – A. Ys. 1996-97 to 1999-00 – Accounting standards issued by ICAI not to be disregarded – Accounting standard employed by assessee, issued by ICAI but not notified by Central Government – Not a ground to discard – Lease equalisation charges – Deductible from lease rental income

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Pact Securities and Financial Services; 374 ITR 681 (T&AP):

For the A. Y. 1998-99, the assessee showed gross lease rental of Rs. 1,14,91,395/- as income. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 48,56,224/- was claimed as deduction of lease equalization charges from the lease rental income following the guidance note on accounting of leases, Issued by the ICAI. The Assessing Officer disallowed the lease equalisation charges. The Tribunal allowed the claim.

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

“(i) The Assessing Officer could not have disregarded the method of accounting followed by the assessee in respect of the lease rental as it was based on a guidance commended for adoption by a professional body such as the ICAI. The guidance note reflected the best practices adopted by accountants the world over. The fact that at the relevant point of time, it was not mandatory to adopt the methodology professed by the guidance note issued by the ICAI was irrelevant because as long as there was a disclosure of the change in the accounting policy in the accounts, which had the backing of a professional body such as the ICAI, it could not be discarded by the Assessing Officer.

(ii) Notwithstanding the fact that the opinion of ICAI was expressed in a guidance note which had not attained a mandatory status, would not provide a basis to the Assessing Officer to disregard the books of account of the assessee and in effect the method of accounting of leases followed by the assessee.

iii) Merely because the Central Government has not notified in the Official Gazette “accounting standards” to be followed by any class of assesses or in respect of any class of income, it could not be stated that the accounting standards prescribed by the ICAI or the accounting standards reflected in the “guidance note” cannot be adopted as an accounting method by an assessee.

iv) T he questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.”

levitra

Appeal to High Court – Competency of appeal – Rule of consistency – Sections 92B and 260A – A. Y. 2007-08 – Decision of Tribunal on identical issues relating to section 92B – No appeals from decisions – Presumption that the decision has been accepted – Appeal on similar issue to High Court not maintainable

fiogf49gjkf0d

CIT vs. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.; 374 ITR 516 (Bom):

The Revenue had filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal relating to section 92B. Appeal was not preferred against the decisions of the Tribunal on identical issue in other cases:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and held as under:

“i) T he order of the Tribunal, inter alia, had followed the decisions of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the arm’s length price in the case of loans advanced to associate enterprises would be determined on the basis of the rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received/ consumed.

ii) T he Revenue had not preferred any appeal against those decisions of the Tribunal on the above issue. No reason had been shown as to why the Revenue sought to take a different view in the present case from that taken in those decisions of the Tribunal. The Revenue having not filed any appeal against those decisions, had in fact accepted the decisions of the Tribunal. The appeal was not maintainable.”

levitra

Business Expenditure – Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of payments in cash in excess of specified limit in an assessment made for a block period – Provisions to be applied as applicable for the assessment years in question

fiogf49gjkf0d
M. G. Pictures (Madras) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 373 ITR 39 (SC)

The appellant/assessee was engaged in production and distribution of motion pictures mainly in Tamil language. There was a search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, at the business premises of the assessee during which certain book of accounts were seized. Consequent to the search, proposal was made for assessment for the block period of ten years 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1996 and thereafter, up to 13.9.1996.

The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure where the payments were made in cash in excess of Rs.10,000/- relying on section 40A(3) of the Act as it stood prior to 1.4.1996.The appellant filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench (‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal vide order dated 28.6.2000 partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for considering the claim whether the income/loss from the film Thirumurthy was to be computed for the assessment year 1996-97 in accordance with Rule 9A of the Income Tax Rules. It was also directed that in making the computation, the Assessing Officer will consider the expenditure and make the disallowance under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, as was applicable for the assessment year in question.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court did not accept the contentions of the appellant which were based on the amended section 158B(b) in Chapter XIVB of Finance Act, 2002 and dismissed the appeal.
Questioning the validity of the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the appellant preferred an appeal with the leave of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that in the year 1996, the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act did not allow any expenditure if it was more than Rs.20,000/- and paid in cash. The only exception that was carved out in such cases was where the assessee could satisfactorily demonstrate to the Assessing Officer that it was not possible to make payment in cheque. Even in those cases, the expenditure was allowable up to Rs.10,000/- and all cash payments made in excess of Rs.10,000/- were to be disallowed as the expenditure. Provisions of section 40A(3) were amended with effect from 1.4.1996. With this amendment, in cases where the cash payment is made in excess of Rs.20,000/-, disallowance was limited to 20% of the expenditure.

The Supreme Court observed that since the date of the amendment fell within the aforesaid block period, the assessee wanted the benefit of this amendment for the entire block period of ten years, i.e., 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1996. According to the Supreme Court, such a plea was unacceptable on the face of it inasmuch as the amendment was substantive in nature, which was made clear in the explanatory notes of amendments as well.

The Supreme Court held that once the amendment was held to be substantive in nature, it could not be applied retrospectively. The only ground on which the assessee wanted benefit of this amendment from 1.4.1986 was that the assessment was of the block period of ten years. The Supreme Court noted that, however, on its pertinent query, learned counsel for the appellant was fair in conceding that there was no judgment or any principle which would help the appellant in supporting the aforesaid contention. According to the Supreme Court, the order of the High Court was perfectly justified.

levitra

Preimus Investment and Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT ITAT, Mum-C Bench Before I. P. Bansal (J. M.) & Rajendra (A. M.) ITA No 4879/Mum/2012 Assessment Year-2006-07. Decided on 13-05- 2015 Counsel for Assessee / Revenue: Dr. K. Shivaram, & Ajay R. Singh / Premanand J.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 37(1) – Business expenditure – Merely because the application for registration as NBFC is rejected by RB I the business carried on does not become illegal and expenditure incurred is allowable as deduction.

Facts:
Assessee-company was engaged in the business of leasing, financing and trading. Its application for registration to Reserve Bank of India to register it as NBFC was rejected as its net owned funds were below the prescribed minimum level. According to the AO the assessee was not authorised to carry on business of financing and thus the business carried on by the assessee was prohibited under the law. Therefore, he held that the interest income earned by the assessee cannot be said to be arising from business activity and he taxed the same as income from other sources. Further, various expenditure claimed by the assessee was also disallowed on the ground that the RBI had not recognised the assessee as NBFC and the claim for set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation was also denied. The first appellate authority, on appeal upheld the order of the AO.

Held:
According to the Tribunal permission/denial by the RBI to register an assessee as NBFC does not decide the issue of carrying on of business or make the business illegal. If the assessee had violated any provisions of law under the RBI Act, it would be penalised by the appropriate authority. But that does not mean that the systematic organized activity carried on by the assessee for earning profit would not be treated as business. The Tribunal further noted that in the scrutiny assessment in the earlier years, the AO had assessed the interest income as business income and had allowed all the expenditure related with the business activity. According to the Tribunal, the rule of consistency demanded that for deviating from the stand taken from the earlier years, the AO should bring on record the distinguishing feature of that particular year. The Tribunal found that the AO or the first appellate authority in their orders had not mentioned as to how the facts of the case were different from the facts in the earlier or subsequent years. As regards disallowance of other expenditure like audit fee, professional fee, general expenses, etc., the tribunal, relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd. (129 ITR 58), held that since the assessee is a corporate entity, even if it is not carrying on any business activity it has to incur some expenditure to keep up its corporate entity. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by it has to be allowed. Accordingly, it was held that the interest income earned by the assessee has to be taxed under the head business income and all the expenses related with it have to be allowed.

As far as the disallowance of carry-forward of loss and depreciation was concerned, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi high court in the case of Lavish Apartment Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (23 taxmann.com 414) and held that the assessee was entitled to claim set-off.

levitra

[2015] 153 ITD 613 (Pune) ITO, Ward 1(3), Jalna vs. MSEB Employees Coop Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2008-09 Date of Order – July 18th , 2014

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 80P, read with section 154 – Where the assessee had not claimed a deduction in its return, which was rightfully available to him, the assessing officer is obliged, required to assist such an assessee by ensuring that only legitimate taxes are determined as collectible. Assessing officer cannot deny benefit of section 80P, even though the said claim is not made in the income tax return.

FACTS
The assessee, a Credit Co-operative Society, duly registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, had filed its return of income without claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) and accepted.

Subsequently, the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 requesting the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The Assessing officer rejected the application and denied the claim.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) on the point of rectification observed that due to technical difficulties in preparing the return in “Tax Base Software”, small clerical errors had led to incorrect filing of return. Further, due to errors in programming of the said software, although the deduction was not allowed in the e-return resulting into tax demand, the acknowledgement of e-return generated by the software resulted into Nil demand as the deduction was allowed. Therefore, the said mistake was rectifiable u/s. 154 by the Assessing Officer and while allowing the assessee’s claim, Commissioner (Appeals) held that even on merit, the assessee society was eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i).

On departments appeal.

HELD
It is settled law that correct income of the assessee is to be assessed as per provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, inspite of higher income incorrectly declared by the assessee in the return of income. If an assessee, under a mistaken belief, , misconception or on account of being not properly instructed returns higher income, the concerned authority is obliged, required to assist such an assessee by ensuring that only legitimate taxes are determined as collectible. If particular levy is not permissible, the tax cannot be collected. In view of above, the Commisioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that such a mistake is rectifiable u/s. 154 and the assessee society is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) on merit as well.

levitra

[2015] 152 ITD 181 (Chandigarh) DCIT vs. Vikas Sharma A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2010-11 Date of Order – 19th June 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 194C read with section 40(a)(ia) – The freight payments made by the assessee for hired tankers, which are to be supplied to different customers, are made in capacity of agent on behalf of the principal and hence assessee is not liable to deduct tax on such freight payments made.

FACTS
The assessee had entered into contract with different parties to supply tankers which were being hired from time to time, against which freight payments were made by the assessee.

The assessee’s case was that no TDS was required to be deducted from the freight expenses as all 15-I and 15-J forms regarding the same had been duly submitted to the department.

The AO found certain discrepancies in 15-I and 15-J forms and made addition for failure to deduct TDS under the provisions of section 194C and consequently, made disallowance as per section 40(a)(ia).

It was held by the CIT-(A) that the provisions of section 194C were not applicable to the instant case as the assessee had only hired the trucks from time to time and deleted the additions made u/s. 40(a)(ia).

On appeal by Revenue

HELD THAT
It may be noted that the said Form 15-I and 15-J are to be filed before the prescribed authority, i.e., the Commissioner and not the Assessing Officer. In the instant case, the said forms were filed before the prescribed authority and within the prescribed time and no defect was pointed out by the said authority. In the absence of the same, there is no merit in the observation of the Assessing Officer that there are discrepancies in Form 15-I and 15-J.

Further, the assessee had entered into contract with several parties on whose behalf it was arranging the truck from time to time and the expenditure was booked as freight payment against which freight income was received by the assessee. Hence the assessee is not liable for tax deduction at source u/s. 194C as the amounts paid by the assessee were on behalf of the principal on whose behalf it was arranging the said tankers.

The assessee was making payment for carriage of goods and there was admittedly no oral or written agreement between the assessee and transporters and in the absence of the same, there is no merit in the order of the Assessing Officer in holding that the provisions of section 194C had been violated. In the absence of the same no disallowance is warranted u/s. 40(a)(ia). The order of the CIT-(A) is upheld.

levitra

Search and seizure – Block assessment – Sections 158BC and 158BD – B. P. 1/04/1988 to 03/05/1998 – Police recovering cash from possession of three persons – Persons stating cash belonging to assessee who in reply stated that cash belongs to firm – No search warrant or requisition in name of assessee or the firm – No asset requisitioned from assessee – No notice could be issued in the name of assessee – Block assessment against assessee not valid

fiogf49gjkf0d

CIT vs. Anil Kumar Chada; 374 ITR 10 (All):

On 2nd May, 1998, the police recovered a sum of Rs. 17 lakh from the possession of three persons. On interrogation, they stated that the money belonged to the assessee who in reply to the query by the police stated that the cash belonged to the firm, C. When the matter was referred to the Income Tax Department, it issued a notice u/s. 158BC in the name of the assessee for the block period 1 st April, 1988, to 3rd May, 1998, and made an assessment of undisclosed income of Rs. 18,11,700/- in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal cancelled the assessment holding that since no search warrant was issued u/s. 132 in the name of the assessee, no notice could be issued in the name of the assessee u/s. 158BC.

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

“i) There was no search warrant in the name of the assessee nor were assets requisitioned from the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of section 158BC were not applicable. Further, no warrant or requisition was issued either in the name of the firm or the assessee.

ii) The order of the Tribunal did not call for interference.”

levitra

Refund – Self-assessment tax – Interest – Sections 140A, 244A(1)(a),(b) and 264 – A. Y. 1994-95 – Excess amount paid as tax on self-assessment – Interest payable from date of payment to date of refund of the amount

fiogf49gjkf0d

Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd vs. CIT; 373 ITR 282 (Bom):

For the A. Y. 1994-95, the Assessing Officer did not pay interest u/s. 244A in respect of the excess amount paid by the petitioner as self assessment tax. The petitioner’s application u/s. 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the Commissioner.

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and held as under:

“i) The requirement to pay interest arises whenever an amount is refunded to the assessee as it is a kind of compensation for use and retention of money collected by the Revenue.

ii) Circular No. 549 dated 31/10/1989, makes it clear that if refund is out of any tax other than out of advance tax or tax deducted at source, interest shall be payable from the date of payment of tax till the date of grant of refund. The circular even remotely did not suggest that interest is not payable by the Department on self-assessment tax.

iii) The tax paid on self-assessment would fall u/s. 244A(1)(b). The provisions of section 244A(1)(b) very clearly mandate that the Revenue would pay interest on the amount refunded for the period commencing from the date payment of tax is made to the Revenue up to the date when refund is granted by the Revenue. Thus, the submission that the interest is payable not from the date of payment but from the date of demand notice u/s. 156 could not be accepted as otherwise the legislation would have so provided in section 244A(1)(b), rather than having provided from the date of payment of the tax. Therefore, the interest was payable u/s. 244A(1)(b) on the refund of excess amount paid as tax on self-assessment u/s. 140A.”

levitra

Non-resident: Section 6(1)(a) – A. Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09: Assessee will not lose non-resident status due to forced stay in India due to invalid impounding of passport

fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Suresh Nanda; [2015] 57 taxmann.com 448 (Delhi):

In the relevant years, the assessee was forced to stay in India for more than 182 days in a previous year due to impounding of passport. Such impounding was found by courts to be wrongful. The assessee was fighting court cases to get his passport released so that he could travel outside India to maintain his NRI status. If such forced stay was excluded then the assessee’s stay in India was less than 182 days and his status would have been that of non-resident. The assessee claimed that such forced stay should be excluded and the asessee should be treated as non-resident. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim and treated the assessee as resident. The Tribunal held that the assessee continued to enjoy the status of nonresident and, thus, not amenable to be held accountable under the Income-tax Act for income not earned here.

In appeal by the Revenue, the following question was raised:

“Whether the ITAT was correct in taking the view that the period for which the assessee was in India involuntarily on account of his passport having been impounded is not to be counted for purposes of section 6(1)(a) of the Income -tax Act so as to hold him entitled to be a non-resident?”

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) Where assessee was forced to stay in India for more than 182 days in a previous year due to impounding of passport found by courts to be wrongful and he was fighting court cases to get passport released so that he could travel outside India to maintain his NRI status, the period of such forced/unwilling stay in India cannot be counted for determining his residential status u/s 6. If assessee’s stay in India without counting such forced stay is for less than 182 days, he retains his NRI status for tax purposes.

ii) We must, however, add a caveat here. The conclusion reached by us on the facts and in the circumstances of the case at hand cannot be treated as a thumb rule to the effect that each period of involuntary stay must invariably be excluded from computation for purposes of Section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act. The view taken by us in the case of assessee here is in the peculiar facts and circumstances wherein he was inhibited from travelling out of India on account of such action of the law enforcement agencies as was found to be wholly unjustified. Here, it is important to notice that the passport impounding order was invalidated as without authority of law. The finding on whether in a given case an assessee’s claim to extended stay being involuntary, has to be fact dependent. For purposes of section 6(1)(a), each case will have to be examined on its own merits in the light of facts and circumstances leading to “involuntary” stay, if any, in India.”

levitra

Housing project – Deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) – A. Y. 2007-08 – Condition precedent – Plot must have minimum area of one acre – Composite housing scheme consisting of six blocks in area exceeding one acre – Housing project approved under Development Control Rules – Separate plan permits were obtained for six blocks is not a ground for denial of deduction – Assessee entitled to deduction

fiogf49gjkf0d

CIT vs. Voora Property Developers P. Ltd.; 373 ITR 317 (Mad):

For the A. Y. 2007-08, in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer had allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) in respect of the housing project consisting of six blocks in a area exceeding one acre. The Commissioner set aside the assessment order u/s. 263 for reconsidering the claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act holding that the assessee had developed six separate projects in one single piece of land measuring 1.065 acres and the assessee did not fulfill the essential condition of the minimum area of one acre for a single project as laid down u/s. 80-IB(10). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.

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

“i) There was no dispute in the approval granted by the CMDA in respect of the composite housing scheme. When the Legislature introduced 100% deduction it was known that the local authorities could approve a housing project to the extent permitted under the Development Control Rules. When the project fulfilled the criteria for being approved as a housing project, the deduction could not be denied u/s. 80-IB(10) merely because the assessee had obtained a separate plan permit for six blocks.

ii) If the conditions specified u/s. 80-IB are satisfied, then deduction is allowable on the entire project. Since the project was approved in accordance with the Development Control Rules, the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction on the entire project approved by the local authority.

iii) The assessee constructed six blocks in a land measuring one acre and 6.5 cents which admittedly exceeded the required area specified in clause (a) of section 80-IB(10), viz., one acre. Therefore, the assesee was entitled to the deduction.”

levitra