Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Whether The Gift Of A Capital Asset By A Corporate Entity Be Subjected To Income Tax?

BACKGROUND

  • Capital gains were charged for the first time via the Income Tax and Excess Profit Tax (Amendment) Act, 1947, which inserted section 12B under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Indian Finance Act, of 1949, virtually abolished this levy. The levy of capital gains was revived vide Finance (No. 3) Act, 1956 w.e.f. 1st April, 1957. Whether at the time of the introduction of capital gains in 1947 or at the stage of the revival of capital gains tax in 1956, the transaction of transfer of a capital asset by way of gift or transfer under irrevocable trust was not considered a transfer for the purpose of capital gains. In other words, the transfer of capital assets by way of gift or under an irrevocable trust was exempt. Such exemption was available to all classes of taxpayers, whether individual, HUF, firm, company, etc.
  •  Even under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ITA), section 47(iii) of ITA provided exemption from capital gains on the transfer of capital assets by way of gift or under an irrevocable transfer. Such exemption was available to all classes of taxpayers. However, vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, w.e.f. 1st April, 2025 (AY 2025–26 and onwards), section 47(iii) of ITA is substituted to provide that exemption on the transfer of a capital asset by way of gift or under an irrevocable transfer available only to individuals, and HUF.
  •  Explanatory Memorandum to Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2024 provides that amendment is carried out to (a) widen the tax base and act as an anti-avoidance measure, (b) section 50CA and section 50D of ITA are on statute book providing deeming consideration aiming to bolster anti-avoidance provisions, (c) taxpayers have argued in multiple judicial precedents that transaction of gift of shares by company is exempt under section 47(iii) of ITA (d) and (iv) to target tax avoidance and erosion of India tax base.
  •  Though the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance (No. 2) Bill 2024 provides that amendment is carried out to widen the tax base and target tax avoidance, there is no express mention that a transaction of gift by taxpayers other than individual and HUF will result in capital gains taxation.

WHETHER CORPORATE ENTITY CAN MAKE A VALID GIFT?

  •  Before delving into the tax implications arising from the transfer of capital assets by way of gift by a corporate entity, it may be of utmost importance to understand the legality of the corporate entity making a gift.
  •  Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA) defines gift to mean a transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Section 5 of TOPA provides that the transfer of property shall be carried out by a living person, and the living person includes the company. Accordingly, a corporate entity is also a person who can make a gift.
  •  In following judicial precedents, it has been held that the corporate entity can make a valid gift.

 

  • DP World (P) Ltd [2012] 103 DTR 166 (Delhi Trib.) — There is no restriction on a company to make a gift. As long as a donor company is permitted by its Articles of Association to make a ‘gift’, it can do so.
  • Nerka Chemicals [2014] 103 DTR 249 (Bombay HC) — Relied on DP World (supra). Bombay HC held that a corporate gift is a valid transaction.
  • KDA Enterprises Private Ltd [ITA No. 2662/Mum/2013] (Mumbai Trib.) — Corporates are competent to make and receive gifts, and natural love and affection are not necessary requirements for making gifts. The only requirement for a company to make gifts is to have the requisite authorization in the Memorandum of Association or Article of Association.
  • PCIT vs. Redington (India) Ltd [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Madras):
  • It seems that there is no express denial under the law for a corporate entity making the gift of its assets. So long as the Memorandum of Association and/or Article of Association authorizes the gift of its assets, a company can make the gift.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND ABSENCE OF ANY ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS

  •  Section 45(1) of ITA is a principal charging provision for taxing capital gains income. Section 45(1) of ITA provides that any profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital assets effected in the previous year be chargeable to income-tax under the head ‘capital gains’ and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.
  •  Section 48 of ITA provides for a mode of computation of capital gains income. Section 48 of ITA requires a reduction of expenditure in relation to the transfer of capital assets, cost of acquisition, and cost of improvement from the full value of consideration.
  •  Judicially, it is well settled that charging provision and computation provision form integrated code. In order to create an effective charge for capital gains income, the transaction shall be covered by a charging provision as well as a computation provision. Where a transaction is not covered by computation provision, the transaction falls outside the scope of the charging provision itself.

 

  •  Reference may be made to the SC ruling in the case of CIT vs. B C SrinivasaSetty [1981] 128 ITR 294. In this case, SC was concerned with the computation of gains arising on the transfer of goodwill of business. In the absence of the cost of acquisition of goodwill, SC held such asset is not covered within the fold of section 45 of ITA. Relevant observations from SC rulings are as under:

“8. Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to income tax. The asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of the section. It must bear that quality which brings section 45 into play. To determine whether the goodwill of a new business is such an asset, it is permissible, as we shall presently show, to refer to certain other section of the head “Capital gains”. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by section 45 must fall under the governance of its computation provisions. A transaction to which those provisions cannot be applied must be regarded as never intended by section 45 to be the subject of the charge. This inference flows from the general arrangement of the provisions in the Income-tax Act, where under each head of income the charging provision is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the income subject to that charge. The character of the computation provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of the charge. Thus, the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. Otherwise, one would be driven to conclude that while a certain income seems to fall within the charging section, there is no scheme of computation for quantifying it. The legislative pattern discernible in the Act is against such a conclusion. It must be borne in mind that the legislative intent is presumed to run uniformly through the entire conspectus of provisions pertaining to each head of income. No doubt there is a qualitative difference between a charging provision and a computation provision. Ordinarily, the operation of the charging provision cannot be affected by the construction of a particular computation provision. But the question here is whether it is possible to apply the computation provision at all if a certain interpretation is pressed on the charging provision. That pertains to the fundamental integrity of the statutory scheme provided for each head.”

  •  Reference may also be made to the SC ruling in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509. In this case, SC was concerned with the determination of the full value of consideration accruing or received by a partner on the contribution of the personal asset to the firm. In the absence of a determination of consideration on the transfer of capital assets, SC held that the case of a contribution of capital assets into the firm is outside the scope of the capital gains chapter. Relevant observations from the ruling are as under:

“In CIT vs. B.C. SrinivasaSetty [1981] 128 ITR 294 this Court observed that the charging section and the computation provisions under each head of income constitute an integrated code, and when there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. On the basis of that proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee has urged that section 45 is not attracted in the present case because to compute the profits or gains under section 48, the value of the consideration received by the assessee or accruing to him as a result of the transfer of the capital asset must be capable of ascertainment in monetary terms. The consideration for the transfer of the personal assets is the right that arises or accrues to the partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of the profits from time to time and after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from the partnership, to get the value of a share in the net partnership assets as on the date of the dissolution or retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges. The credit entry made in the partner’s capital account in the books of the partnership firm does not represent the true value of the consideration. It is a notional value only, intended to be taken into account at the time of determining the value of the partner’s share in the net partnership assets on the date of dissolution or on his retirement, a share which will depend upon a deduction of the liabilities and prior charges existing on the date of dissolution or retirement. It is not possible to predicate beforehand what will be the position in terms of monetary value of a partner’s share on that date. At the time when the partner transfers his personal assets to the partnership firm, there can be no reckoning of the liabilities and losses that the firm may suffer in the years to come. All that lies within the womb of the future. It is impossible to conceive of evaluating the consideration acquired by the partner when he brings his personal asset into the partnership firm when neither the date of dissolution or retirement can be envisaged nor can there be any ascertainment of liabilities and prior charges which may not have even arisen yet. In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the consideration which a partner acquires on making over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital can fall within the terms of section 48. And as that provision is fundamental to the computation machinery incorporated in the scheme relating to the determination of the charge provided in section 45, such a case must be regarded as falling outside the scope of capital gains taxation altogether.”

  •  It may also be observed that in the context of the capital gains Chapter, SC, in the case of PNB Finance Ltd vs. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 75, held that in the absence of the determination of the cost of undertaking, the amount received on compulsory acquisition of undertaking cannot fall within the scope of section 45 of ITA.
  •  Reference may also be made to the SC ruling in the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs. CST [1985] 155 ITR 144 rendered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (‘Sales Tax Act’) as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi. The case revolved around the interpretation of Sections 14 and 15 of the Sales Tax Act. Cotton yarn was classified as one of the goods of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce as envisaged by Section 14 of the Sales Tax Act. Section 15 of the Sales Tax Act provided that sales tax on goods of special importance should not exceed a specified rate and further that they should not be taxed at more than one stage. The issue arose because the stage itself had not been clearly specified, and accordingly, it was not clear at what stage the sales tax would be levied. The Financial Commissioner held that in the absence of any stage, there was a lacuna in the law and consequently, cotton yarn could not be taxed under the sales tax regime. The Delhi High Court reversed the decision of the Financial Commissioner. However, SC held that the single point at which the tax may be imposed must be a definite ascertainable point, and in the absence of the same, tax shall not be levied. While rendering the ruling, SC has made the following observations which are worth quoting:

“The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is imposed, and the fourth is the measure or value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. If those components are not clearly and definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say that the levy exists in point of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislative scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity.”

SC ruling in the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran (supra) has been quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench of SC in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466.

  •  From the above, it is clear that, in order to create an effective charge, there shall be the presence of all the elements that go into the computation of capital gains income. The absence of any element that goes into the computation of capital gains will be fatal to the levy itself.

WHETHER THE TRANSACTION OF THE GIFT INVOLVE ANY CONSIDERATION?

  •  The term ‘gift’ is not defined under ITA. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882 defines ‘gift’ as under:

“Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee

  •  Reference may be made to the SC ruling in the case of Sonia Bhatia vs. the State of U.P., [AIR 1981 SC 1274]. Section 5(6) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (UP Act) as it stood at the relevant time provided that in determining the ceiling area any transfer of land made after  24th January, 1971 should be ignored and not taken into account. Clause (b) of the proviso to section 5(6) of the UP Act carves out an exception and states that section 5(6) of the UP Act shall not apply to a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration under an irrevocable instrument. Explanation II to said proviso places the burden of proof that a case fell within clause (b) of the proviso on the party claiming its benefit. On 28th January, 1972, the donor gifted away certain lands in favor of his granddaughter, the appellant, daughter of a pre-deceased son. The gift having been made after the prescribed date; the Prescribed Authority ignored the gift for purposes of section 5(6) of the UP Act. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that a gift could not be said to be a transfer without consideration because even love and affection may provide sufficient consideration and hence the condition regarding adequate consideration would not apply to a gift. SC held that the gift does not involve adequate consideration and hence case does not fall within the carve-out in the said proviso. The relevant extracts from the ruling are as under:

“To begin with, it may be necessary to dwell on the concept of gift as contemplated by the Transfer of Property Act and as defined in various legal dictionaries and books. To start with, Black’s Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) defines gift thus:

A voluntary transfer of personal property without consideration.A parting by the owner with property without pecuniary consideration. A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money”.

A similar definition has been given in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) where the author defines gift thus:

“Something that is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a voluntary transfer of real or personal property without any consideration or without a valuable consideration- distinguished from sale.”

Volume 18 of Words & Phrases (Permanent Edition) defines gift thus:

A ‘gift’ is a voluntary transfer of property without compensation or any consideration. A ‘gift’ means a voluntary transfer of property from one person to another without consideration or compensation.”

In Halsbury’s Laws of England (Third Edition-Volume 18) while detailing the nature and kinds of gifts, the following statement is made.

“A gift inter vivos (a) may be defined shortly as the  transfer of any property from one person to another gratuitously. Gifts then, or grants, which are the eighth method of transferring personal property, are thus to be distinguished from each other, that gifts are always gratuitous, grants are upon some consideration or equivalent.

Thus, according to Lord Halsbury’s statement the essential distinction between a gift and a grant is that whereas a gift is absolutely gratuitous, a grant is based on some consideration or equivalent. Similarly in Volume 38 of Corpus Juris Secundum, it has been clearly stated that a gift is a transfer without consideration, and in this connection, while defining the nature and character of a gift the author states as follows:

A gift is commonly defined as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another, without any consideration or compensation therefor. Any piece of property which is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation or consideration. A gift is a gratuity, and an act of generosity, and not only does not require a consideration but there can be none; if there is a consideration for the transaction it is not a gift.”

It is, therefore, clear from the statement made in this book that the concept of gift is diametrically opposed to the presence of any consideration or compensation. A gift has aptly been described as a gratuity and an act of generosity and stress has been laid on the fact that if there is any consideration then the transaction ceases to be a gift.

Under section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, the gift is defined thus:

“‘Gift’ is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.”

Thus, s. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly postulates that a gift must have two essential characteristics-(1) that it must be made voluntarily, and (2) that it should be without consideration. This is apart from the other ingredients like acceptance, etc. Against the background of these facts and the undisputed position of law, the words, ’transfer for adequate consideration’ used in clause (b) of the proviso clearly and expressly exclude a transaction that is in the nature of a gift and which is without consideration. Love and affection, etc., may be motive for making a gift but is not a consideration in the legal sense of the term.”

  •  Reference may also be made to Shakuntala vs. the State of Haryana, [AIR 1979 SC 843] wherein the transaction of gift is explained as under:

It is, therefore, one of the essential requirements of a gift that it should be made by the donor ‘without consideration’. The word ‘consideration’ has not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act, but we have no doubt that it has been used in that Act in the same sense as in the Indian Contract Act and excludes natural love and affection…. It would thus appear that it is of the essence of a gift as defined in the Transfer of Property Act that it should be without ‘consideration’ of the nature defined in Section 2 (d) of the Contract Act”

  •  Reference may be made to the Madras HC ruling in the case of CIT vs. ParmanandUttamchand [1984] 146 ITR 430. In this case, the taxpayer was carrying on the business of money lending. On the event of grahapravesham, taxpayer received gifts from relatives, friends, and well-wishers which included some of the borrowers of the taxpayer. Tax authorities brought this amount to tax as income. In this regard, refer following observations from the HC ruling dealing with the meaning of gift.

Under the general law of gifts, a voluntary or gratuitous payment is a gift. The absence of quid pro quo is regarded as an essential element of a gift. For purposes of taxation on income, however, it was said that these characteristics of gifts were to be regarded as indecisive and treated with indifference. It was said that the receipt of gifts should be considered from the point of view of the recipient, more especially in the context of the recipient’s walk of life. If the recipient, it was argued, receives the so-called gift by virtue of his employment or by virtue of his vocation, profession, or calling, then the gift, it was said, must be seen in a totally different light. In such cases, it was said, the receipts cannot escape being regarded as income, even though the person who made the payments did so voluntarily and intended it to be taken as a mere bounty.”

  •  Reference may be made to the Bombay HC ruling in the case of CED vs. NarayandasGattani [1982] 138 ITR 670. In this case, there was some dispute between the deceased and two of his sons regarding the earnings and the ownership of certain properties. To end the controversy, the deceased, out of his sweet will, gave ₹31,000 to one of his sons and ₹51,000 to the other, with the condition attached that the sons would relinquish all their rights over disputed properties. The sons, on receiving the said amounts, executed relinquishment deeds in respect of the said properties. Thereafter, the deceased and his sons entered into a partnership and the sons invested the above mentioned amounts as their capital in the firm. On the deceased’s death, the Assistant Controller included the said amounts in the deceased’s estate under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 on the ground that the deceased had gifted the money and was not entirely excluded from its enjoyment because it had been invested in the partnership firm in which the deceased was also a partner. The Appellate Controller sustained the Assistant Controller’s order. On the second appeal, the Tribunal set aside the Appellate Controller’s order on the ground that the impugned transaction was not a “gift” at all. Bombay HC held that the impugned transaction was not without consideration and hence not a gift. Relevant observations from the HC ruling are as under:

The concept of gift is that it has to be without consideration whatsoever except the consideration of love and affection in certain cases. The moment it is demonstrated that there was some consideration for the transfer, the transaction will be anything but a gift. The consideration can be the settling of a future probable dispute or even getting an admission from the party which will preclude the raising of a dispute. In the instant case, the Tribunal had concluded that there was a certain amount of mutuality in the impugned transaction and that it was not without consideration, the consideration being to put the affairs beyond the pale of controversy by obtaining the deed of relinquishment and giving the sons funds so as to enable them to start their own business, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the recitals contained in the two relinquishment deeds executed by the sons, the impugned transactions were not gifts.”

  •  Reference may be made to Madras HC ruling in the case of PCIT vs. Redington Ltd [2021] 430 ITR 298 dealing with a gift by a company to a step-down subsidiary the concept of gift has been explained by HC as under:

“40. As noticed above, the Tribunal in the impugned order from paragraphs 72 to 79 examined the aspect as to whether a company/corporate body can execute a valid gift and concluded that a company is a person both for the purposes of the TP Act and the Gift Tax Act, 1958 and can make a gift to another company which is valid in law and accepted the contention of the assessee that it was entitled to gift its shares in RG to RC. Having held so, the Tribunal failed to examine whether the ingredients of section 122 of the TP Act have been fulfilled to qualify as a valid gift. Section 122 of the TP Act defines “gift” to be a transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the donor to another called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. The essential elements of a gift are (i) absence of consideration; (ii) the donor; (iii) the donee; (iv) to be voluntary; (v) the subject matter; (vi) transfer; and (vii) the acceptance. The concept of gift is diametrically opposed to any person’s consideration or compensation. It cannot be disputed that there can be transactions that may not amount to a gift within the meaning of section 122 of the TP Act but would qualify as a gift for the purpose of levy of tax under the Gift Tax Act owing to the definition contained in section 2(iii) read with section 4 of the Gift Tax Act. Block Stone states that “gifts” are always gratuitous, grants or upon some consideration or equivalent. In several decisions, it has been held that for proving a document of the gift was executed with the free and voluntary consent of the donor, it must be proved that the physical act of signing the deed coincides with the mental act viz., the intention to execute the gift. The principles laid down in the Indian Contract Act relating to free consent would apply in determining whether the gift is voluntary.”

  •  Reference may be made to the recent ruling of Bombay HC in the case of Jai Trust vs. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 71 of 2016, order dated 8th March 2024]. In this case, the taxpayer gifted shares of the listed company to a private limited company and claimed exemption under section 47(iii) of ITA. There was a reassessment proceeding initiated against the taxpayer. The taxpayer challenged reassessment proceedings by filing a Writ Petition. Bombay HC held that (a) transfer of capital asset under a gift is not a transfer for the purpose of section 45 of ITA (b) reading of section 48 of ITA bears out that profits or gains can be measured only when the consideration is involved (c) section 50CA is not applicable as it was inserted w.e.f. 1st April 2017 and in any case, section 50CA applies only where consideration is received on transfer of capital asset being unquoted shares and does not apply when there is no consideration (d) section 50D is not applicable as it was inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and in any case, it applies only where consideration is received on the transfer of capital asset and does not apply when there is no consideration (e) A gift is commonly known as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another without any consideration. A gift does not require a consideration and if there is a consideration for the transaction, it is not a gift. In view of the above Bombay HC quashed the notice of reassessment. Relevant observations from the ruling are as under:

“18. Mr. Sharma’s reliance on Section 50CA of the Act in this regard has to be rejected because (a) Section 50CA of the Act was inserted with effect from 1st April, 2018 by the Finance Act, 2017 and (b) it applies to a capital asset being share of a company other than a quoted share (in this case shares transferred were quoted shares) and also applies only where the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Mr. Sharma’s reliance on Section 50D of the Act also has to be rejected because (a) it was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013 and (b) there also the Section postulates receiving consideration and not a situation where admittedly no consideration has been received.

19. A gift is commonly known as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another without any consideration. A gift does not require a consideration and if there is a consideration for the transaction, it is not a gift. Since the reason to believe it is admitted that shares were transferred by the assessee to NCPL without consideration, certainly, it is a gift. In fact, it is not even the respondents’ case that is it not a gift. Mr. Sharma submitted, as an afterthought, that the assessee being a Trust it can be reasonably presumed that the transfer was for a consideration because anything a Trust does is for the benefit of its beneficiaries. It is not the case of the Revenue in the reasons to believe or in the order disposing objections or even in the affidavit in reply. Therefore, this submission of Mr. Sharma cannot be even considered. We cannot proceed on the hypothesis and deal with such a presumptuous argument. Moreover, if the transfer is not valid, the property still remains with the Trust and in such a situation, there can be no capital gain.”

  •  Reference may also be made to the AAR ruling in the case of Deere & Co., In re [2011] 337 ITR 277. In this case, the taxpayer company incorporated in the USA gifted the shares of the Indian company to the Singapore group company. The transaction was finished by way of a gift. The taxpayer company claimed that it was not liable to pay capital gains. AAR held that the taxpayer company was not liable to pay capital gains in view of the exemption under section 47(iii) of ITA. Relevant extracts from the ruling are as under:

“4. The learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand has argued that there is no element of love and affection attached to the gift. According to the ordinary meaning, “gift” means a thing given willingly to someone without payment. The learned counsel further brought to our notice the definition of “gift” given in section 122 of the Transfer Property Act 1882, “Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the donor to another called donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. The meaning of gift supra reflects no element of love and affection and therefore the contention of the Departmental representative in this regard is without substance. The gift of shares by the applicant to John Deere Asia (Singapore) is made without any consideration and therefore the transfer has to be held to be a gift.”

  •  The above rulings including SC rulings are an authority that the transaction of gift does not involve consideration. If a transaction involves consideration (whether direct or indirect), such cannot qualify as a gift. The absence of consideration is an essential characteristic of a valid gift.
  •  In the case where a corporate entity has made a valid gift, there is no involvement of consideration or the transaction can be said to be without consideration. In the absence of consideration, one of the essential elements for the computation of capital gains is not present and accordingly, there is no trigger of capital gains provision.

REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE PROVISO TO ERSTWHILE SECTION 47(III) AND THE SIXTH PROVISO TO SECTION 48 OF ITA TO SUGGEST THAT ABSENT CONSIDERATION, THERE CANNOT BE AN EFFECTIVE CHARGE

  •  The erstwhile proviso to section 47(iii) of ITA provided that exemption under section 47(iii) of ITA shall not be available for transfer of capital asset by way of gift or irrevocable trust of capital asset being shares, debenture or warrants allotted under ESOP to employees. In order to back up the charge and deny exemption, a sixth proviso to section 48 of ITA was inserted to provide that market value as on the date of transfer of capital asset under a gift or irrevocable trust shall be considered as the full value of consideration.
  •  It may be noted that when the exemption was denied under section 47 of ITA, there was a backup provision under section 48 of ITA providing for deemed full value of consideration. In the present case, though the transfer under a gift or irrevocable trust by any person other than individual or HUF is not provided for exemption under section 47(iii), there is no provision providing for the full value of consideration. In the absence of full value of consideration, there is no effective charge under the capital gains chapter.

ABSENT CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO RELEVANCE OF SECTIONS 50C, 50CA, AND SECTION 50D OF ITA

  • Section 50C of ITA provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset being land or building is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable for stamp duty purposes, the value considered for stamp duty purposes shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration. Section 50CA of ITA provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset  being unquoted shares is less than Rule 11UAA value, such Rule 11UAA value shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration. Section 50D of ITA provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset is not ascertainable or cannot be determined, the fair market value of a capital asset on the date of  transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration.
  •  The common thread that runs through sections 50C, 50CA, and 50D of ITA is accrual or receipt of consideration on the transfer of capital assets. In order to trigger these sections, it is the sine qua non that there shall be the presence of consideration. By definition, the transaction of a gift is without consideration, and accordingly, in the case of the transaction of a gift, there is no accrual or receipt of consideration. This proposition has been dealt with by Bombay HC ruling in the case of Jai Trust (supra) wherein HC observed that section 50CA and section 50D of ITA postulates receipt of consideration and in the case of gift transaction, there is no consideration involved.
  •  Accordingly, in absence of consideration, provisions of sections 50C, 50CA and 50D of ITA cannot be triggered.

THE ABSENCE OF AN EXEMPTION DOES NOT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF A CHARGE

  •  In order to bring the transaction within the tax net, the transaction shall be covered by the charging provision and shall be a backup computational provision. Where the transaction is not covered within the charging provision, the mere absence of exemption will not create an effective charge. In the case where the transaction is not covered by a charging provision and a specific exemption is provided, it may be construed as a draftsman’s anxiety to make the law clear beyond any doubt.
  •  In this regard, reference may be made to the SC ruling in the case of CIT vs. Madurai Mills Ltd [1973] 89 ITR 45. In this case, SC was concerned with capital gains liability in the hands of shareholders in case of liquidation of the company. It may be noted that SC held that in the absence of a charge under the India Income-tax Act, 1922, the absence of exemption does not result in the creation of a charge. Relevant extracts from the SC ruling are as under:

“If the language of sub-section (1) of section 12B of the Act is clear and does not warrant the inference that distribution of assets on liquidation of a company constitutes sale, transfer or exchange, the said transaction of distribution of assets would not, in our opinion, change its character and acquire the attributes of sale, transfer or exchange, because of the omission of a clarification in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 12B of the Act, even though such clarification was there in the third proviso of the section inserted by the earlier Act (Act 22 of 1947). It is well settled that considerations stemming from legislative history must not be allowed to override the plain words of a statute (see Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, twelfth edition, page 65). A proviso cannot be construed as enlarging the scope of an enactment when it can be  fairly and properly construed without attributing  to it that effect. Further, if the language of the enacting part of the statute is plain and unambiguous and does not contain the provisions which are said to occur in it, one cannot derive those provisions by implication from a proviso (see page 217 of Crates on Statute Law, sixth edition)”

  •  Reference may also be made to the Privy Council1 ruling in the case of CIT vs. Shaw Wallace [AIR 1932 PC 138]. In this case, the taxpayer received compensation for cessation of the agency. Privy Council held that such an amount received cannot be considered as income of the taxpayer. Privy Council held that even where the amount received was covered by the exemption provision, such was never income of the taxpayer. Refer following extracts from the Privy Council ruling.

“Some reliance has been placed in argument upon Sec. 4(3)(v ) which appears to suggest that the word ‘income’ in this Act may have a wider significance than would ordinarily be attributed to it. The sub-section says that the Act ‘shall not apply to the following classes of income’ and in the category that follows, clause (v) runs: ‘Any capital sum received in commutation of the whole or a portion of a pension, or in the nature of consolidated compensation for death or injuries, or in payment of any insurance policy, or as the accumulated balance at the credit of subscriber or to any such Provident Fund.’ Their Lordships do not think that any of those sums, apart from their exemption, could be regarded in any scheme of taxation as income, and they think that the clause must be due to the over-anxiety of the draftsman to make this clear beyond the possibility of doubt. They cannot construe it as enlarging the word ‘income’ so as to include receipts of any kind which are not specially exempted”


1   Rulings rendered by Privy Council are binding on all Courts except SC – refer ShrinivasKrishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango and others [1954 AIR SC 379], Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat [1991 AIR SC 2176].
  •  Reference may also be made to International Instruments (P) Ltd vs. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 283 (Karnataka) wherein the following observations are made:

“As observed by the Privy Council in CIT vs. Shaw Wallace & Co. AIR 1932 PC 138, just because an amount was exempted from tax under section 4(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it was not to be treated as income when such amount could not be regarded as income under any scheme of taxation and such exemptions only indicated the over anxiety of the draftsmen to place the matter beyond any possible controversy. [See also the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rani AmritKunwar vs. CIT (supra)].

On the above reasoning, with which we respectfully agree, a receipt that is income does not cease to be income even if exempted from income tax, and a receipt that is not income does not become income just because it is included as one of the items exempted from income-tax”

  •  Accordingly, in the absence of a specific exemption provision, it may be incorrect to contend that there is a charge of capital gains income.

AUTHOR’S VIEW

Considering that (a) for creation of effective charge, all elements of computation provisions have to be present, (b) the transaction of gift does not involve any consideration, (c) absent consideration, there is no trigger of deemed consideration provisions under
ITA, (d) absence of exemption does not result in creation of charge, (e) absent consideration, there cannot be computation of capital gains income, in view of the author, the taxpayer stands on a firm footing to urge that there cannot be capital gains
income in the hands of corporate entity on gift of a capital asset.

However, it may be noted that where the transaction involves some direct or indirect consideration, the transaction may itself lose the status of a gift as it involves consideration. Consequently, it may be difficult to claim non-taxability. Further, once the transaction involves consideration, sections 50C, 50CA, and 50D
of ITA, which provide for deemed consideration, may also apply.

TAXABILITY OF TRANSFER FEE RECEIVED BY A CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY1

INTRODUCTION

In this article
would be discussed the taxability of transfer fee received by a
co-operative
housing society under the principles and provisions of the Income-tax
Act, 1961
(‘the Act’). A co-operative housing society (hereinafter also referred
to as ‘Society’) here would include all Societies – residential,
commercial and industrial. Apart from transfer fee simpliciter, the
taxability of its many variants such as voluntary contribution on transfer,
premium on transfer, etc. would also be examined.

 

NATURE OF TRANSFER FEE

At the outset, it
is most pertinent to understand the nature of a co-operative housing society
and the nature and purpose of the transfer fee collected by a Society. A
Society is generally formed and registered with the following objects in its
bye-laws:

 

(a) To obtain conveyance from the owner / promoter
builder, in accordance with the provisions of the Ownership Flats Act and the Rules
made thereunder, of the right, title and interest, in the land with building /
buildings thereon, the details of which are as hereunder:

 

The building /
buildings known / numbered as…….. constructed on the plot / plot Nos. …… /
Survey No……… / CTS No…….. of ……….. (village / taluka) admeasuring……. sq.
metres, more particularly described in the application for the registration of
the Society;

 

(b) To manage, maintain and administer the property
of the Society;

 

(c) To raise funds for achieving the objects of the
Society;

 

(d) To undertake and provide for, on its own
account or jointly with a co-operative or other institution social, cultural or
recreative activities;

 

(e) To provide
co-operative education and training to develop co-operative skills to….. …..its………
Members, Committee Members, officers and employees of the Society; and

 

(f) To do all
things, necessary or expedient for the attainment of the objects of the
Society, specified in these Bye-laws.

 

(Refer clause 5 of
the Model Bye-laws as approved by the Commissioner for Co-operation and
Registrar, C.S., M.S., Pune, which are generally adopted by the Societies in
Maharashtra.)

 

From the above, one
can decipher that a Society is nothing but a pool of people residing in /
occupying a building, and having as its common object managing and maintaining
the building / property for the common benefit of all in a spirit of camaraderie.
Thus, there is no taint of commerciality, nor any intention of carrying on any
trade or any activity for the purpose of profits in the objects of a Society.

 

For this management
and maintenance of the building / property for the common benefit of all the
members, the Society has to pay various outgoings like property tax to the local
authorities, water charges, common electricity charges, salaries to security
and other staff members, repair, maintenance and proper upkeep of the building,
lift, etc. To defray all these common expenses, the Society collects from all
the members contribution by way of monthly maintenance charges, specific
collection against the outgoings mentioned above, transfer fee,
donation, etc. The authority for the collection for and payment of the common
expenses is embodied in the bye-laws of the Society to which every member is a
party. So, the modus operandi of the entire scheme is such that the
Society is the convenient instrument or medium or conduit through which the
building / property is maintained and managed by the members, for the common
benefit of all the members, from the contributions received from all the
members in different ways and on different occasions.


__________________________________________________________________­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________________________

1 An article on this subject was written by
the same author in the July 1990 issue of
The BCA Journal. After over 30 years, at the suggestion of The BCA Journal, the author discusses in this article the
current position on this evergreen or ever-grey subject of great importance. –
Editor.


Transfer fee is one
such mode of collecting contribution towards common expenses by a Society on
the occasion or the event of the transfer of a flat / office / unit by the
member of the Society, credited to a separate account called ‘Reserve Fund’ by
the Society. (See clause 12 of the Model Bye-laws.) The ‘Reserve Fund’ is
utilised by the Society for the ‘expenditure on repairs, maintenance and
renewals of the Society’s property’. [See clause 14(a) of the Model Bye-laws.]

 

Thus, by nature,
character or quality, transfer fee is only a form of collection or contribution
from the members which is utilised for the common benefit of all the members
only.

 

DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY

Another concept
which has a material bearing while analysing the taxability of transfer fee is
the concept or doctrine of mutuality. The doctrine of mutuality is the
foundation on which the entire edifice of the non-taxability of transfer fee is
built. It is submitted that this is a simple but often misunderstood concept,
especially by the tax authorities.

 

The concept of
mutuality is extensively discussed and relied upon in a large number of
judicial cases which are commonly called ‘club cases’2, and which
concern the taxation of sports or other creative clubs, because the
non-taxability of the income of the clubs is also based on the doctrine of
mutuality.

 

Let us try to
understand this doctrine by turning to some decided cases. In CIT vs.
Madras Race Club [1976] 105 ITR 433, 443 (Mad)
, this doctrine was
elucidated thus: ‘To take a common instance, supposing a dozen persons gather
together and agree to purchase certain commodities in bulk and distribute them
among themselves in accordance with their individual requirements, they may
collect a certain amount provisionally based on the anticipated price of the
commodities to be purchased. If it ultimately happens that the commodities are
available at a cheaper price so that at the end of the distribution of the
commodities among themselves, a part of the original amount provisionally
collected is repaid, then what is repaid cannot by any test be classified as
income. This would represent savings and not income. The Income-tax Act seeks
to tax income and not savings….’

 

The fundamental
test of mutuality was explained succinctly by Lord Macmillan in Municipal
Mutual Insurance Ltd. vs. Hills [1932] 16 TC 430, 448 (HL):
‘The
cardinal requirement is that all the contributors to the common fund must be
entitled to participate in the surplus and that all the participators in the
surplus must be contributors to the common fund; in other words, there must
be complete identity between the contributors and the participators.
If
this requirement is satisfied the particular form which the association takes
is immaterial.’ (Emphasis supplied)

 

In the often-quoted
case of Styles vs. New York Life Insurance Company [1889] 2 TC 460 (HL)
the doctrine of mutuality was discussed as follows by Lord Watson: ‘When a
number of individuals agree to contribute funds for a common purpose, such as
the payment of annuities or of capital sums, to some or all of them, on the
occurrence of events certain or uncertain, and stipulate that their
contributions, so far as not required for that purpose, shall be repaid to
them, I cannot conceive why they should be regarded as traders, or why
contributions returned to them should be regarded as profits.’

 

The Supreme Court
in a recent decision in ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society
Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 670 (SC),
after referring to numerous weighty
authorities – both Indian and English – narrated the concept of mutuality in
the following crystal clear words (see head notes):

‘The doctrine of mutuality, based on common law principles, is
premised on the theory that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An
amount received from oneself, therefore, cannot be regarded as income and
taxable. The essence of the principle of mutuality lies in the commonality of
the contributors and the participants who are also the beneficiaries. The
contributors to the common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus
and the participators in the surplus are contributors to the common fund. The
law envisages a complete identity between the contributors and the participants
in this sense.
The principle postulates that what is returned is
contributed by a member. Any surplus in the common fund shall therefore not
constitute income but will only be an increase in the common fund meant to meet
sudden eventualities.’ (Emphasis supplied)

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 For instance, see CIT vs. Royal Western India Turf
Club Ltd. [1953] 24 ITR 551 (SC); CIT vs. Bankipur Club [1997] 226 ITR 97 (SC);
Chelmsford Club vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 89 (SC); Bangalore Club vs. CIT [2013]
350 ITR 509 (SC); IRC vs. Eccentric Club Ltd. [1925] 12 TC 657 (HL); CIT vs.
Merchant Navy Club [1974] 96 ITR 261 (AP); The Presidency Club Ltd. vs. CIT
[1981] 127 ITR 264 (Mad); CIT vs. Cawnpore Club Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 181 (All); CIT
vs. Darjeeling Club Ltd. [1985] 153 ITR 676 (Cal) and CIT vs. Willingdon Sports
Club [2008] 302 ITR 279 (Bom)
. The principle of mutuality is also explained in CIT vs. Common Effluent Treatment
Plant (Thane Belapur) Association [2010] 328 ITR 362 (Bom); CIT vs. Kumbakonam
Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 241 (SC)
and CIT vs. Shree Jari Merchants Association
[1977] 106 ITR 542 (Guj).


The concept of
mutuality is based on the principle that no man can make profit out of himself.
So, when more than one person combine themselves for some common purpose or
mutual benefit and contribute for the common purpose or benefit and if afterwards
some surplus is left over and is returned to those contributors in their
capacity as contributors, the same does not amount to income in the hands of
the contributor-recipient, nor does the contribution as such amount to income
in the hands of the mutual benefit association of such persons.

 

BASIC PROPOSITION: TRANSFER FEE IS GOVERNED BY THE DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY

Based on the nature
of the transfer fee received by a Society, discussed hereinabove, and based on
the principle of mutuality, discussed above, it is submitted that the transfer
fee received by a Society on the transfer of a flat / office / shop / unit by a
member of the Society is completely governed by the principle of mutuality and
hence not liable to any tax under the Act. Transfer fee is nothing but a
contribution to the common fund of a mutual benefit association, i.e., the
Society, by its member on the occasion of the transfer of a flat, etc. which is
going to be utilised, either immediately or at a later date, for the common
benefit of all the members of the Society.

 

There is no express
statutory provision in the Act contrary to the above proposition. Whenever the
legislature intends to tax an item, it specifically provides for the same. For
example, section 2(24)(vii) of the Act specifically includes within the
definition of the term ‘Income’, ‘the profits and gains of any business of
insurance carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative
society, computed in accordance with section 44 or any surplus taken to be such
profits and gains by virtue of provisions contained in the First Schedule’.
Such income is, obviously, excluded from the principle of mutuality.3

 

Another example of
an express statutory provision creating an exception to the principle of
mutuality is section 2(24)(viia) which includes within the definition of
‘Income’, ‘the profits and gains of any business of banking (including
providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its
members’.

________________________________________________________________________________________

3 See the observations at p. 679 in ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises
Co-operative Society Ltd. [2019] 402 ITR 670 (SC).
See also the observations at pp. 40-41 in State of West Bengal vs. Calcutta
Club Ltd. 2019-VIL-34-SC-ST.


JUMPING SOME HURDLES

As stated above,
the transfer fee received by a Society is non-taxable on the principle of
mutuality. But there are some hurdles in the way of this theory, which are
jumped over in the succeeding paragraphs.

 

Hurdle 1:
Incorporation

 

The principle of mutuality requires that there must be complete identity
between the contributors to the common fund and the participators in the
surplus, but a Society is always formed and registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 or under the relevant State law concerning the
incorporation and registration of a Society, e.g., The Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter also referred to as
the Societies Act), which is a legal entity, separate and distinct from its members.
Then, how does the principle of mutuality apply to a Society?

 

It is well settled
now that once the identity between the contributors to the common fund and the
participators in the benefits and surplus is established completely, the fact
of incorporation of the mutual benefit association does not damage the
applicability of the principle of mutuality to it. As Lord Macmillan observed
in a passage reproduced above from Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd. vs.
Hills [1932] 16 TC 430, 448 (HL):
‘… in other words, there must be
complete identity between the contributors and the participators. If this
requirement is satisfied the particular form which the association takes is
immaterial.
’ (Emphasis supplied)

 

Likewise, the House
of Lords held in Styles vs. New York Life Insurance Co. [1889] 2 TC 460
(HL):
…. Incorporation does not destroy or even impair the complete
identity
between the contributors and the participators.’ (Emphasis
supplied)

 

The Supreme Court in an early case in CIT vs. Royal Western India
Turf Club Ltd. [1953] 24 ITR 551, 560 (SC)
explained convincingly:
In such cases where there is
identity in the character of those who contribute and of those who participate
in the surplus, the fact of incorporation may be immaterial and the
incorporated company may well be regarded as a mere instrument, a convenient
agent for carrying out what the members might more laboriously do for
themselves.’
(Emphasis supplied)

 

Later, in yet
another decision in CIT vs. Chelmsford Club [2000] 243 ITR 89 (SC),
it was observed (see head notes at p. 90): ‘There must be complete identity
between the contributors and the participators. If these requirements are
fulfilled, it is immaterial what particular form the association takes. (Emphasis supplied)

 

When one surveys
all the club cases, one notices that in most of the cases, the club was an
incorporated company, still, the Courts have upheld the applicability of the
principle of mutuality to the club. The incorporation of the club as a company
did not pose a hurdle in the way of applying the principle of mutuality to the
club.

 

In view of the
above, one can safely conclude that it is settled law that incorporation of
members into a registered society under the Societies Act would not adversely
impact the applicability of the principle of mutuality to the transfer fee
received by a Society.

 

Hurdle 2:
Members as a class

 

As discussed above,
the cardinal requirement of mutuality is that all the contributors to the
common fund must be participators in the surplus and that all the participators
in the surplus must be contributors to the common fund. In the case of transfer
fee received by a Society, the beneficiaries are all the members of the
Society, but the contributors are only those members who have transferred their
flat / shop / office / unit and not all the members. Then, how does it
satisfy the requirement of mutuality?

 

In terms of the
bye-laws of every Society, every member who transfers the flat / office,
etc. is liable to pay to the Society transfer fee. So, the basic or primary
liability to contribute to the Society in the form of transfer fee is on every
member
, meaning thereby that all the members are liable to pay the transfer
fee and not a particular member or a particular section of the members is
liable to pay the transfer fee – only the occasion to pay, i.e., transfer of
the flat / office, should arise. The person paying the transfer fee is paying
in his capacity or character as ‘a member’ of the Society and not in any
other capacity. Further, the participators in or beneficiaries of the transfer
fee received by the Society are also enjoying the same in their capacity or character as ‘members’. Thus, the identity between the
contributors and the participators is perfectly established.

 

While comparing the
contributors and the participators, they should be compared as ‘a class’ and no
individual contributor or participator is to be compared. For the purpose of
applicability of the principle of mutuality to the transfer fee received by a
Society it is not necessary that all the members should contribute or pay the
transfer fee at the same time which is an impossible event. It is sufficient if
all the members are liable by terms of the agreement to the bye-laws to
pay the transfer fee at the time of ‘transfer’.

 

The above reasoning
of comparing the members as ‘a class’ is well settled by numerous judicial
precedents. In CIT vs. Merchant Navy Club [1974] 96 ITR 261, 273 (AP) the
Court articulated with precision: ‘The contributors to the common fund and the
participators in the surplus must be an identical body. That does not mean
that each member should contribute to the common fund or that each member
should participate in the surplus or get back from the surplus precisely what
he has paid.
What is required is that the members as a class should
contribute to the common fund and participators as a class must be able
to participate in the surplus….’ (Emphasis supplied)

 

On this topic, a
learned author, Wheatcroft enlightens in his authoritative treatise ‘The Law
of Income-tax, Sur-tax and Profits Tax’
in paragraph 1-417 at pp. 1200-01:
‘For this doctrine to apply it is essential that all the contributors to the
common fund are entitled to participate in the surplus and that all the
participators in the surplus are contributors, so that there is complete
identity between contributors and participators. This means identity as a
class, so that at any given moment of time the persons who are contributing are
identical with the persons entitled to participate: it does not matter that the
class may be diminished by persons going out of the scheme or increased by
others coming in.’
(Emphasis supplied) This paragraph was noted and followed
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Merchant Navy Club (Supra)
while making the above observations.

 

Likewise, in CIT
vs. Shree Jari Merchants Association [1977] 106 ITR 542, 550-551 (Guj)

it was commented: ‘…. the main test of mutuality is complete identity of the
contributors with the recipients. This identity need not necessarily be of
individuals, because it is the identity of status or capacity which matters
more. Thus, individual members of an association may be different at different
times; but so long as the contributors and recipients are both holding the
membership status in the association, their identity would be clearly
established, and the principle of mutuality would be available to them.’

(Emphasis supplied)

 

Thus, if the
character or capacity of the persons paying the transfer fee, i.e., members, is
compared with the character or capacity of the persons enjoying the benefits or
participating in the surplus, i.e., members, the identity between the two is
established beyond the slightest shadow of doubt.

 

As rightly observed
in many cases4, in a Society the members are a class and that class
may be diminished by the members going out or increased by the members coming
in – but the class remains the same.

 

The Department
often argues that the member contributing the transfer fee is an outgoing
member, whereas the members enjoying the benefits of the transfer fee are the
existing members and the incoming members and therefore the contributors and
the participators are not identical. This argument stands answered by the class
theory discussed above.

 

Practically
speaking, it should be ensured that when the transfer fee is received by the
Society, the contributor is technically a ‘member’ registered in the records of
the Society. The occasion to take care arises more when the transfer fee or a
part thereof is received from an incoming member (‘transferee’) and on the date
when he pays the transfer fee he is not yet technically admitted as a member in
the records of the Society. The Department, in such a situation, often contends
that the transfer fee is paid by a person who is not a member and hence the
identity between the contributors and the participators is not established and the transfer fee is therefore taxable.5
Fortunately, however, the Supreme Court has adopted a very liberal and
pragmatic view even in such situations by granting the exemption even though
the admission of the transferee was pending when he paid the transfer fee. The
Supreme Court6 has unequivocally held that the transfer fee received
by a Society from a transferee member would not partake of the nature of profit
or commerciality as the amount is appropriated by the Society only after the
transferee is inducted as a member and the moment the transferee is inducted as
member the principle of mutuality applies, and in the event of non-admission,
the amount is refunded.7

 

Hurdle 3:
Participation in the surplus

 

In order to satisfy
the test of mutuality it is not necessary that the transfer fee received by a
Society should be utilised for the repairs and renewals of the Society’s
property in the year of receipt of the transfer fee. It may happen that the
transfer fee received may remain unutilised in the year of receipt and may have
to be carried forward to the future years under ‘Reserve Fund’ to be utilised
for ‘expenditure on repairs, maintenance and renewals of the Society’s
property’. Practically, one day or the other the amount is going to be utilised
for the repairs, renewals, etc. of the Society’s property, and there would be
no damage to the applicability of the principle of mutuality to the transfer
fee received by the Society. But, theoretically, technically or legally, what
happens if the surplus remains unutilised and the Society is to be wound up?

 

As per section 110
of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in the event of winding up
of the Society, the following are the options available for the disposal of the
surplus:

 

(a) The same may be divided by the Registrar, with
the previous sanction of the State Government, amongst its members in such
manner as may be prescribed; or

 

(b) The same may be devoted to any object or
objects provided in the bye-laws of the Society; or

 

(c) If the same is not divided amongst the members
and the Society has no such bye-laws for its utilisation for its objects, the
surplus shall vest in the Registrar, who shall hold it in trust and shall
transfer the same to the reserve fund of any other Society having similar
objects and serving more or less an area which the Society, to which the
surplus belonged, was serving. It is further provided that if no such Society
is available, the Registrar may use it for some public purpose or charitable
purpose.

 

If the surplus is
utilised as per (a) and (b) above, there is certainly no damage to the
applicability of the principle of mutuality to the transfer fee since, in those
cases, it is the members who are the ultimate beneficiaries of or the
participators in the surplus and that would be perfectly in keeping with the
requirement of the principle of mutuality. But, in the event the surplus vests
in the Registrar in terms of (c) above, and is not utilised by or for the
members, would it militate against the applicability of the principle of
mutuality to the transfer fee received by the Society, because the
participators in the surplus would not be the members who have contributed to
it?

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4 See, for example, Sind Co-operative Housing Society
vs. ITO [2009] 317 ITR 47, 60-61 (Bom).

5 This was the view expressed in Walkeshwar Triveni Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2004] 267 ITR (AT) 86 (Mum)(SB).

6 ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-operative
Society Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 670, 681 (SC).

7 See the similar views expressed in Sind Co-operative Housing Society
vs. ITO [2009] 317 ITR 47, 60 (Bom)
[after considering the decision in Walkeshwar Triveni Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2004] 267 ITR (AT) 86  (Mumbai) (SB)],
followed in Mittal Court Premises Co-operative
Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 414, 419 (Bom)
(later affirmed by the Supreme

First of all,
looking at the provisions of the Model Bye-laws adopted by all the Societies,
the possibility of a situation arising under (c) is practically almost none.
But theoretically, technically or legally, what happens if the situation in (c)
arises and there is a possibility of the surplus falling into the hands of
persons other than members? Would it militate against the applicability of the
principle of mutuality? Let us go through some decided cases in search of
judicial guidance.

 

In IRC vs.
Eccentric Club [1925] 12 TC 657 (HL),
there was a club incorporated as
a company with the object to promote social relations amongst gentlemen connected
with literature, art, music, drama, etc., which conducted a club of
non-political character. Clause 6 of its memorandum of association prohibited
distribution of dividend and also provided that on winding up of the club, the
surplus, if any, was not to be distributed amongst the members, but was to be
given or transferred as the committee of management may determine. In spite of
these features, it was held by the House of Lords that the principle of
mutuality was applicable to the club and the income of the club was
non-taxable.

 

This decision was
followed in India by the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Madras Race Club
[1976] 105 ITR 433 (Mad).
In this case the memorandum of association of
the club provided that in the event of winding up, the surplus was not
divisible amongst the members, but had to be made over to the entities having
similar objects. Despite this feature, the Madras High Court held that the
principle of mutuality was applicable, following the above referred decision in
IRC vs. Eccentric Club (Supra). The Court made very interesting
observations (p. 443): It is well settled that the memorandum and
articles of a company represent the contract between the company and the
members. It is only by virtue of their ownership of the surplus assets, if any,
that the members had agreed to the clause that they would not take back the
surplus, but allow it to be transferred to any similar entity. As they
themselves are to deal with the surplus, if any, at the time of winding up, it
cannot be said that they are not participators in the surplus.
The clause
is only a fetter in the manner of disposal. The participation envisaged in
the principle of mutuality is not that the members should willy-nilly take the
surplus to themselves. It is enough if they held a right of disposal over the
surplus to show that they were the participators.’
(Emphasis supplied)

 

However, the
Gujarat High Court adopted a contrary view in CIT vs. Shree Jari
Merchants Association [1977] 106 ITR 542 (Guj)
. In this case a rule of
the constitution of the association provided that at the time of its
dissolution the surplus assets of the association shall be used in the manner
proposed in the resolution passed by the association. The Court observed (p.
551-552): It is apparent that any resolution which may come up for
consideration in future would not necessarily provide for the distribution of
the surplus assets only amongst the members of the association. If, therefore,
the assets of the association are not liable to be returned to the members, the
identity between the contributors and recipients would be lost. This would
militate against the very basic principle of mutuality. The Court
concluded (p. 553): In the result, we conclude that the assessee is not
a mutual concern and cannot claim exemption on that ground.

 

Thus, in this case,
it is the fear or possibility of distribution of surplus amongst non-members
which influenced the decision of the Court against the assessee.

 

But, in a
subsequent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. West Godavari
Dist. Rice Millers Association [1984] 150 ITR 394 (AP)
held the
principle of mutuality applicable to the association despite the provision that
the surplus remaining with the association should not, at the time of
dissolution, go to the members but it should be made over to an
association with similar objects.
The Court followed the
above decisions in IRC vs. Eccentric Club (Supra) and CIT
vs. Madras Race Club (Supra)
and dissented from the above
decision in CIT vs. Shree Jari Merchants Association (Supra).8

 

It would be
worthwhile to note that every Society is subject to rigid discipline of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 or any other relevant law under
which it is registered and therefore the apprehension expressed by the Gujarat
High Court in CIT vs. Shree Jari Merchants Association (Supra) of
the possibility of the surplus being distributed among non-members is not
present in the case of a Society.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8 For identical views, see CIT vs. Cochin Oil Merchants’
Association [1987] 168 ITR 240 (Ker);
CIT vs. Northern India Motion Pictures
Association [1989] 180 ITR 160 (P & H)
and CIT vs. Indian Paper Mills
Association [1994] 209 ITR 28 (Cal).


Later, in CIT vs. Adarsh Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd.

[1995] 213 ITR 677 (Guj), the Gujarat High Court has taken a
favourable view by distinguishing the earlier adverse decision in
CIT vs. Shree Jari Merchants Association (Supra). This case was concerned with
determining the taxability of the premium amounts received by a Society on the
transfer of lease of plots by its members. Despite the fact that the bye-laws
of the Society provided that the surplus could be dealt with in accordance with
the resolution of the committee of the Society, the Court held that the premium
amounts were exempt on the principle of mutuality. The Court raised a pertinent
question (p. 692): ‘… the question which arises is: what is meant by ‘‘return’’
of what has been contributed to a common fund? Does it mean the return of the
corpus of the fund or does it include retention of control over the
corpus to be used in consonance with the statute regulating the association,
company or society, as the case may be?
(Emphasis supplied)

 

Dispelling the fear of the surplus going into the
hands of non-members,
the Court, taking into consideration the scheme and provisions of the
Gujarat
Co-operative Societies Act, observed that it is only on the failure of
the
members to exercise such power that the surplus vests in the Registrar
and not
otherwise. The Court observed that the phrase ‘return of the surplus to
contributors’ in the context of regulatory provisions as opposed to
voluntary act of parties, cannot be construed in the narrow sense of
division
of the corpus, where the body of the members as a whole retains the
power and
control over utilisation of surplus left at the time of dissolution or
winding
up, though division of the corpus is prohibited; it is return of the
corpus to
the members for their use. The Court elaborated the concept by stating
that it
is not the requirement that return of the corpus to the members must be
only
for the purpose of division; the fact that the members may in future
abandon
their power and may allow the surplus to be vested in the Registrar
cannot be a
decisive factor in determining the present status of mutuality. The
Court made
very significant comments (p. 693):

What is of the
essence is: what are the ordinary consequences envisaged by members within the
framework of the statute to deal with the surplus? The right of the members to
deal with the surplus is not destroyed but is only restricted to the extent
that instead of dividing the corpus pro rata, it has been confined to
utilisation or expending of the surplus for the objectives as per their own
decision. This does not detract from the concept of return of the surplus to
members which they have contributed in making that fund.’

 

After referring to
the facts of the adverse decision in Shree Jari Merchants Association
(Supra),
strongly relied upon by the Department, the Court observed
that in that case the question as to what is the meaning of ‘return of surplus’
was neither raised nor decided by the Court, but it proceeded on the assumption
that ‘return of surplus’ relates to ‘return of corpus’ to be shared by the
members pro rata. The Court finally stated: We find that the facts of the present case do not attract the ratio
of the decision in the case of Shree Jari Merchants Association [1977]
106 ITR 542 (Guj).

 

On this point, in Kanga
& Palkhivala’s The Law & Practice of Income Tax,
ninth edition (pp.
193-194), after referring to several judicial pronouncements discussed
hereinabove, the principle is summarised with precision: ‘….The contributors to
the common fund and the participators in the surplus must be an identical body.
That does not mean that each member should contribute to the common fund or
each member should participate in the surplus or get back from the surplus
precisely what he has paid.…..the test of mutuality does not require that
the contributors to the common fund should distribute the surplus amongst
themselves; it is enough if they have a right of disposal over the surplus,

and in exercise of that right they may agree that on winding-up the surplus
will be transferred to a similar association or used for some charitable
objects.’9 (Emphasis supplied)

 

In view of the
foregoing discussion, it is submitted that the applicability of the principle
of mutuality to the transfer fee received by a Society is not impaired on the
ground that the surplus might be distributed amongst non-members and
consequently the identity between the contributors and the participators may be
lost.

 

Hurdle 4:
Presence of other income

 

The fourth hurdle
could be the presence of some incidental receipts by the Society which may not
be governed by the principle of mutuality and hence may be taxable, e.g.,
interest received by a Society on excess funds deposited with a co-operative
bank. But would the presence of such taxable items jeopardise the applicability
of the principle of mutuality to the Society as a whole and qua the
transfer fee?

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

9
These observations are noted and followed in many judicial rulings. See, for example,
Sind Co-operative Housing Society vs. ITO [2009] 317
ITR 47,
57-58 (Bom). See also the
observations at p. 63 in this case.


It is submitted
that mere presence of certain incidental items of taxable income should not
adversely affect the claim of the Society to the principle of mutuality in
respect of its main activities and in respect of the transfer fee.

 

In CIT vs.
Madras Race Club [1976] 105 ITR 433 (Mad),
where there were
transactions of the same nature with members as well as non-members resulting
in surplus, the Court applied the principle of mutuality to the transactions
with members, and observed (p. 442): ….
the application of the principle of mutuality is not destroyed by the
presence of transactions with or profits derived from non-members.
The said
principle could apply to transactions with members.’10 (Emphasis
supplied)

 

SOME DIRECT JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ANALYSED

In a plethora of
judicial decisions on the subject rendered by the Tribunal as well as several
High Courts over the last three decades, the issue of taxability of transfer
fee received by a Society came to be examined. Some decisions earlier had gone
against the assessee and the transfer fee was held taxable. But the recent
trend of the judicial decisions has been of upholding the applicability of the
principle of mutuality to the transfer fee received by a Society from its
members and treat it as non-taxable. To avoid overcrowding of citations, only a
few selected recent decisions and that, too, of the High Courts are discussed
here.

 

In CIT vs.
Apsara Co-operative Housing Society  Ltd.
[1993] 204 ITR 662 (Cal)
the assessee was a  co-operative housing society which provided residential premises to its members
and received transfer fee for transfer of flats. The question arose about the
taxability of the transfer fee received by the assessee-society. Applying the
principle of mutuality the Court held that the transfer fee was not taxable.

 

In Sind
Co-operative Housing Society vs. ITO [2009] 317 ITR 47 (Bom)
11,
the Court categorically held (at p. 63) that the principle of mutuality will
apply to a co-operative housing society which has as its predominant activity,
the maintenance of the property of the Society which includes its building or
buildings and as long as there is no taint of commerciality, trade or business.
This decision was followed in Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society
Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 414 (Bom).
12

 

Earlier there were
several Tribunal and High Court13 decisions where the taxability or
otherwise of the transfer fee was examined with reference to whether the
transfer fee is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, and not on the principle
of mutuality. Those decisions are not discussed here, since now they have no
relevance, especially when there are umpteen judicial rulings upholding the
applicability of the principle of mutuality to the transfer fee received by a
Society.

 

SUPREME COURT’S VIEW

In a recent
decision, several issues concerning the taxability of transfer fees,
non-occupancy charges, contribution to common amenities fund, etc. came up for
the consideration of the Apex Court in ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises
Co-operative Society Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 670 (SC).
14 Based
on a careful reading of this decision, it is submitted that the Supreme Court
is of the clear-cut view that the transfer fee received by a co-operative
housing society gets the shelter of the principle of mutuality and is not taxable.
Fortunately, after a long battle, the issue has been finally set at rest by
this decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee.

 

PREMIUM COLLECTED BY SOCIETIES

Some Societies have
a provision in their bye-laws, or in their lease agreements in case of plot
holder Societies, providing that at the time of transfer of the plot, the
transferor will pay to the Society a certain amount of premium calculated
either as a percentage of the sale price realised by the transferor or at a
rate per square foot of the plot. The question has arisen many times whether
such premium received by such Society is taxable or it gets the shelter of the
principle of mutuality.

 

It is submitted
that such premium collected by the Society from members is ultimately going to
be utilised for the common benefit of all the members only and hence such
premium is also governed by the principle of mutuality and is non-taxable. No
doubt, earlier there were some adverse Tribunal decisions, but now most of the
judicial decisions are in favour of the view that such premium is not taxable
being covered by the principle of mutuality.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

10 For reaching this conclusion, the Court
relied upon
Carlisle
& Silloth Golf Club vs. Smith [1912] 6 TC 48, 54, 55 (KB).

11 This decision has been consistently
followed in countless judicial decisions (of the Tribunal and of the High
Courts) in favour of the assessee (which are not discussed here for brevity’s
sake).

12 Later affirmed in ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises
Co-operative Society Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 670 (SC).

13 For example, see CIT vs. Presidency Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 321 (Bom).
See the comments on this decision in Sind Cooperative Housing Society
vs. ITO [2009] 317 ITR 47 (Bom) at p. 57.

14 By the way, the Supreme Court considered
several judicial pronouncements in this case and affirmed
Mittal Court Premises Co-operative
Society Ltd. vs.

ITO
[2010] 320 ITR 414 (Bom)
and CIT vs. Shree Parleshwar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2017] 10
ITR-OL 202 (Bom)
.


In CIT vs.
Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 677 (Guj)
the
assessee was a co-operative society registered under the Bombay Societies Act,
1925. The Society acquired land and leased out the same to its members for a
period of 998 years. The Society permitted disposition or devolution of the
lease of any plot with any building thereon from an existing member to another
who registered himself as a member of the Society. On such transfer of lease
the existing member to whom the plot was leased had to pay to the Society half
of the premium amount received by him from the purchaser. The Court held that
the amounts contributed by the outgoing members were utilised by the Society
for extending common amenities to the members and hence the premium so
collected was non-taxable on the principle of mutuality.

 

In CIT vs.
Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 541 (Bom)
15
the assessee was a co-operative housing society formed of plot owners, who had
obtained land on lease from the Maharashtra Housing Board. The assessee in turn
entered into sub-lease agreements with its members. The assessee looked after
the maintenance and infrastructure. In terms of a resolution passed by the
assessee-society a member who desired to avail of the benefit of transferable
development rights and carry out construction or additional construction on his
plot, had to pay a premium of Rs. 250 per square foot to the assessee-society.
The assessee collected a premium of Rs. 18.75 lakhs in the previous year
relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. The A.O. was of the view that by
allowing the member to commercially exploit the plot and charging the premium
for that, the assessee-society was sharing the profit which was of commercial
nature. When the dispute regarding its taxability reached the High Court, it
held that such premium received by the Society is non-taxable on the principle
of mutuality as the premium flowed from a member.16

 

VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION OVER AND ABOVE TRANSFER FEE

As per the
notification17 issued, in the State of Maharashtra, the maximum
transfer fee which a Society can collect is Rs. 25,000. With increasing costs
of repairs and maintenance of buildings, the Societies are finding it difficult
to garner resources to maintain their buildings. As a result, many Societies,
especially in South Mumbai, are, in terms of resolutions passed in their
general body meetings, collecting voluntary contributions on transfer of flats
/ offices over and above the transfer fee of Rs. 25,000 as per the Government
notification. This voluntary contribution is fixed either at a particular rate
per square foot of the flat / office or sometimes even as a percentage of the
sale price of the flat / office. The Department has been contending that
collecting from the members any amount over and above the limit fixed by the
Government notification is illegal and amounts to profiteering and therefore
taxable.

 

But, fortunately,
even this controversy is now settled in favour of the assessee by the Supreme
Court decision in ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.
[2018] 402 ITR 670 (SC).
The Department relied upon (at p. 677) the
decision in New India Co-operative Housing Society vs. State of
Maharashtra [2013] 2 MHLJ 666 (Bom)
and contended that any receipt by the
Society beyond the permissible limit was not only illegal but also amounted to
rendering of services for profit attracting an element of commerciality and
thus was taxable. In response, the Supreme Court held (at p. 683) that in New
India Co-operative Housing Society (Supra),
the challenge by the
aggrieved was to the transfer fee levied by the Society in excess of that
specified in the notification, which is a completely different cause of action
having no relevance to the present controversy; that it is not the case of the
Revenue that such receipts have not been utilised for the common benefit of
those who have contributed to the funds. From these observations of the Supreme
Court it is clear that the Supreme Court is of the unequivocal view that so long
as the amount contributed over and above the limit specified in the Government
notification is utilised for the common benefit of all the members, it
satisfies the test of mutuality and is non-taxable. There is another pointer to
support this in the Supreme Court decision. At p. 676, the Supreme Court notes:
‘The assessee in Civil Appeal No. 1180 of 2015 assails the finding that such
receipts, to the extent they were beyond the limits specified in the Government
notification dated August 9, 2001 issued under section 79A of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960…was exigible to tax falling beyond the
mutuality doctrine.’ In this regard, the Supreme Court held (p. 684): ‘Civil
Appeal No. 1180 of 2015 preferred by the assessee-society is allowed.’

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

15 On identical facts, earlier same view was
expressed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in
The Friends Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.
962/Mum/2010)(Order dated October 22, 2010). For identical views, see ITO vs. Presidency Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. (ITA No. 6076/M/2017)
(Order dated December 5, 2017). See also Hatkesh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT [2017]
10 ITR-OL 263 (Bom).

16 The Court followed Mittal Court Premises Co-operative
Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 414 (Bom)
(later affirmed by the Supreme Court).

17 Circular No. CHS-2001/M. No. 188/14-C
dated August 9, 2001 issued under section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960, by the Cooperation & Textile Department, Government of
Maharashtra. The validity of this circular was upheld in
New India Co-operative Housing
Society vs. State

of
Maharashtra [2013] 2 MHLJ 666 (Bom).


Earlier, in CIT
vs. Darbhanga Mansion Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (ITXA No. 1474 of 2012)
(Order dated December 18, 2014)
18 the Bombay High Court held
that even if the amount of transfer fee collected exceeds the limit of Rs.
25,000 it is non-taxable on the principle of mutuality, because the
applicability of the principle of mutuality is not dependent upon the amount.

 

In view of the
above, it is submitted that the voluntary contribution collected by a Society
over and above the limit specified in the Government notification gets the
shelter of the doctrine of mutuality and hence is non-taxable. It is noteworthy
that this will not be affected even if it is found that the contribution is not
voluntary but involuntary.19

 

SECTION 56(2)(x): APPLICABLE TO TRANSFER FEE?

Section 56(2)(x)20
of the Act contains a legal fiction to the effect that where any person
receives any benefit in terms of money or money’s worth, without consideration
or for inadequate consideration, such benefit is taxable as income in his hands
under the head ‘Income from other sources’. In effect, a gift or deemed gift is
subjected to tax as income in the hands of the recipient.21 This
provision encompasses within its fold three types of gifts: (i) sum of money
(b) immovable property and (iii) property22 other than an immovable
property. There is a threshold exemption of Rs. 50,000 of such gift from this
tax. There are of course some exemptions from this charge, contained in the proviso
to section 56(2)(x), such as gift received from any relative, gift received on
the occasion of marriage, etc.

 

Can the Department
contend that the Society has ‘received’ the transfer fee from a member without
consideration and therefore is taxable as income under section 56(2)(x)?

 

As discussed above,
a Society is a mutual benefit association governed by the doctrine of
mutuality, and the principle of mutuality is premised on the theory that a
person cannot make a profit from himself and an amount received from
oneself, therefore, cannot be regarded as income and taxable.23
Thus, the Society and the members constitute ‘one person’ and not two persons.
Incorporation as a Society is only a convenient mode. It is held that the word
‘received’  implies two persons, namely,
the person who receives and the person from whom he receives; a person cannot
receive a thing from himself. [Rai Bahadur Sundar Das vs. The Collector
of Gujarat (1922) ITC 189, 192 (Lahore).]
Since the Society and the
members constitute one person, the Society cannot be said to have ‘received’
the sum of money from another person (member) and hence the transaction does
not fall within the purview of section 56(2)(x) at all.24 Thus,
section 56(2)(x) does not override, or carve an exception to, the principle of mutuality. It is pertinent to note that
even in the contexts of sales tax25 and service tax26, it
is settled that in the case of a mutual concern, there is only one person and
there are no two persons involved and therefore there cannot be any ‘sale’ by
one person to another to be subjected to sales tax and that there is no
‘service provided’ by one person to another and therefore there is no question
of charging service tax.

 

It can be argued
alternatively that the transfer fee is paid by a member to the Society for
discharging the obligation cast upon him by the bye-laws of the Society and
hence it is not ‘without consideration’ and hence it does not fall within the
purview of section 56(2)(x).

 

It can also be further contended that the member paying the transfer
fee to the Society receives the consideration  in the form of all amenities and facilities of
the Society, including particularly good maintenance of the building in which
such member lives; and, therefore, there is a consideration for payment of
transfer fee. As such, the Society does not receive it
‘without
consideration’ and hence it does not fall
within the purview of section 56(2)(x).

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18 For identical views, see The Friends Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 962/Mum/2010)(Order dated October 22, 2010); ITO
vs. Damodar Bhuvan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (ITA No. 1610/ Mum/2010)
(Order dated September 16, 2011); ITO vs. The Presidency Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. (ITA No. 6076/M/2017) (Order dated December 5, 2017)
and ITO vs. The Casa Grande
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (ITA No. 4598/Mum/2014) (Order dated January
29, 2016).
19 See
Sind
Co-operative Housing Society vs. ITO [2009] 317 ITR 47, 61 (Bom).

20 Read with section 2(24)(xviia).

21 As is known, gift-tax, hitherto levied
under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, has been abolished from October 1, 1998.

22 The term ‘property’ is defined to mean
nine specific items enumerated therein (which includes an immovable property).
See the
Explanation
below
clause (x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 with clause (d) of the
Explanation to clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section
56.

23 See ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises
Co-operative Society Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 670, 679 (SC).

24 Whenever the legislature intended to tax a
transaction with self, it has provided so by an express statutory provision.
For example, see section 45(2) (conversion of a capital asset into
stock-in-trade) and section 28(via) (conversion of stockin- trade into a
capital assert). (See the observations at p. 41 in
State of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Ltd.
2019-VIL-34-SC-ST.)
Section
56(2)(x) is not a provision which would encompass transfer fee within its fold.

25 See CTO vs. Young Men’s Indian
Association (1970) 1 SCC 462.

26 See State of West Bengal vs. Calcutta
Club Ltd. 2019-VIL-34-SC-ST.

It is further
arguable that section 56(2)(x) contains a legal fiction. As is settled, a legal
fiction is created for a specific purpose and it has to be construed strictly27,
and its application has to be confined to the purpose for which it is
created and should not be extended beyond its legitimate field. Section
56(2)(x) (as well as its predecessors) was enacted to
fill the void created by the abolition of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 and to
tax
gifts by one person to another. Going by this principle, it is submitted
that
the transfer fee received by a Society (which is non-taxable on the
principle
of mutuality) cannot be accommodated within the scope and ambit of the
legal
fiction of section 56(2)(x).

 

GST IMPACT

As stated above, in
the contexts of sales tax and service tax, it is settled by the Supreme Court
that in the case of a mutual concern, where the doctrine of mutuality is
applicable, there cannot be sales tax and service tax. A view is maintained
that this judicial position holds good even for the purpose of tax under the
Goods and Services Tax Laws (‘GST Laws’), but there are a few recent rulings to
the contrary. Be that as it may, the position of income-tax on transfer fee
stands concluded in favour of the assessee as discussed above and it will
remain intact and unaffected by some adverse rulings under the GST Laws.

 

TO SUM UP

In conclusion, it
is submitted that all the following amounts received by a Society –
residential, commercial and industrial – on the transfer of a flat / office /
shop / unit are non-taxable on the principle of mutuality:

(i)  the normal transfer fee up to Rs. 25,000;

(ii)  the voluntary contribution / donation by a
member, over and above the normal transfer fee of Rs. 25,000; and

(iii) the premium on transfer
of plots or leasehold rights in plots.

 

27  See Principles
of Statutory Interpretation
by G. P. Singh, ninth edition, page 328.
See also CIT vs. Vadilal Lallubhai [1972]
86 ITR 2 (SC);
CIT vs. Amarchand B. Doshi [1992]
194 ITR 56, 59 (Bom)
and CIT vs. Khimji
Nenshi [1992] 194 ITR 192, 196 (Bom).

 


 

NEW TCS PROVISIONS – AN ANALYSIS

 

The Finance Act,
2020 has inserted a new sub-section (1H) in section 206C of the Income-tax Act,
1961 with effect from 1st October, 2020 to provide for collection of
tax at source (Tax Collected at Source or TCS) on consideration received on
sale of certain goods. In this article an effort is being made to set out
various issues that are likely to arise out of these newly-inserted provisions.

 

AMENDMENT IN BRIEF

Every seller whose
turnover in the immediately preceding F.Y. exceeds Rs. 10 crores and who
receives an amount exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs in aggregate from a buyer in any
previous year on the sale of goods, is required to collect a sum of 0.1%
(0.075% for F.Y. 2020-21) on the sale consideration exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs from
the buyer of such goods.

 

The rate is to be
increased to 1% if neither PAN nor the Aadhaar number are provided.

 

Receipts from sale
of scrap, alcohol, motor vehicles, remittances under Liberalised Remittance
Scheme (LRS) and overseas tour programme packages are excluded from this
sub-section since they are covered by other clauses of section 206C.

 

The provisions of
TCS shall not be applicable in cases where the buyer is liable to make a tax
deduction at source from the amount payable to the seller, and such tax has
been deducted. Besides, goods exported out of India have also been excluded
from the applicability of TCS.

 

Further, the
following have been excluded from the meaning of the term ‘buyer’, thus making
these provisions inapplicable to them:

    Central Government

    State Government

    Embassy

    High Commission

    Legation

    Commission

    Consulate

    Trade Representation of a foreign state

    Local Authority

    Person importing goods into India

    Other Notified Person

 

ISSUES

‘Goods’

The levy of TCS is
on the consideration received on the sale of goods. The Income-tax Act does not
define the term ‘goods’. But it can be interpreted widely since anything that
is marketable, i.e., capable of being sold in the market, can be classified as
goods. The other relevant legislation from which a definition can be drawn is
the Sale of Goods Act. As per section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, ‘goods’
are described as: ‘Every kind of movable property other than actionable claims
and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass and things
attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before
sale or under the contract of sale.’

 

Under this
definition, shares and securities are included within the definition of goods.
Let us analyse this position in the following scenarios:

 

Shares &
securities held as stock in trade by a dealer trading in them

Listed shares and securities:

In case of listed
shares and securities, the dealer who regularly trades in them is required to
pay Securities Transaction Tax (STT) for transactions carried out through the
recognised stock exchanges. The identity of the buyer is not known to the
seller and, therefore, whether the sale consideration exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs for
each buyer cannot be determined. The machinery for implementation of TCS
provisions would not work in these cases. In view of these practical
difficulties, the CBDT vide its Circular No. 17 of 2020 dated 29th
September, 2020 (the Circular) has provided that the provisions of sub-section
(1H) of section 206C will not be applicable to transactions for sale of shares
/ securities and commodities which are carried out through recognised stock /
commodities exchanges. Though welcome, the Circular gives only limited clarity
and a few more issues with regard to ‘goods’ covered under this section are
discussed below.

 

Unlisted shares & securities:

In such a
scenario, there would be no STT payable on the sale of these shares. Since the
consideration would be received directly from the buyer, the seller will be in
a position to collect tax at source. Therefore, unless there is a specific
exclusion, unlisted shares and securities sold by a dealer may be covered under
these provisions. However, shares of private limited companies are not tradable
on account of restrictions on their transfer and may therefore not be regarded
as stock-in-trade. Sales proceeds of such shares may not be regarded as turnover
if they are held as capital assets. If the seller of such shares is otherwise a
dealer in goods having a turnover of more than Rs. 10 crores in the preceding
year, the question of applicability of TCS may arise. The question is whether
TCS provisions are attracted by sale of goods only in the course of business or
even otherwise in the case of a businessman. This is discussed further below.
Shares held as capital assets are taken up next.

 

Shares &
securities held as investments / Capital assets by an investor

Listed shares and securities:

In the case of
listed shares and securities, they would remain outside the scope of TCS for
the same reasons as discussed above.

 

Unlisted shares and securities:

In a case where unlisted shares and securities held as investments are
sold, whether they would constitute ‘goods’ would determine the applicability
of the TCS provisions. These shares and securities would usually be capital
assets and their sale would give rise to resultant capital gains / loss. Though
the definition of ‘goods’ under the Sale of Goods Act includes stocks and
shares, the fact that they would be considered as ‘goods’ in the context of
these provisions seems unlikely, and therefore may be excluded.

 

In order to
extrapolate this thought further, let us analyse the criteria to be fulfilled
for the applicability of TCS provisions. This sub-section has two-fold
criteria:

(i) the turnover from business of the preceding
financial year should be in excess of Rs. 10 crores, and

(ii) the aggregate consideration received from sale
of goods during the previous year should be in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs.

 

The consideration
received from the sale of such shares will not be included in the ‘turnover’
from business while determining the threshold of Rs. 10 crores. It would be
inappropriate to include such consideration while ascertaining the threshold
for aggregate consideration for the applicability of the TCS provisions. One
cannot apply an independent sense to interpret the words ‘turnover’ and
‘consideration’ on sale of goods which has been used in the same sub-section
(this reasoning has been elaborated further).

 

OTHER ASSETS


Next, would TCS
provisions be applicable in the case of other assets (other than the ones in
which the seller deals) that are sold? To illustrate the same, let us look at a
scenario: Say, Mr. A sells certain automobile parts (which constitute his
stock-in-trade) to Mr. B (buyer) during the year, the aggregate consideration
being Rs. 60 lakhs and the other relevant conditions have been fulfilled.
Assume that he further sells some machinery / furniture to Mr. B for a
consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs.

 

Will Mr. A collect
tax at source on the consideration received for the sale of machinery /
furniture as well?

 

A prima facie
view that one may be inclined to adopt is that TCS would be required to be
collected on the consideration received from the sale of machinery or
furniture, since the section does not carve out any specific exclusion. That
may be a conservative view, but it would be unfair to not evaluate the contrary
view. Before we analyse the same, it is pertinent to note that Mr. A in the
illustration above trades in or deals in automobile parts. In what is probably
an isolated transaction, he has sold certain machinery / furniture to one of
his buyers, Mr. B.

 

Before taking up
the contrary view, the following are certain important observations:

1. As discussed above, the term ‘goods’ has not
been defined in the Act. It is therefore capable of being applied to a wide
range of things. ‘Goods’ may also cover every movable asset except money and
actionable claims. However, when a particular word has not been defined in the
statute, it is important to understand its usage in the context of the
provision.

 

2.  The provisions related to TCS are covered
under Chapter VII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deals with Collection
& Recovery of Tax. The heading for section 206C containing the group of
sub-sections u/s 206C reads as ‘Profits & Gains from the business of
trading in alcoholic liquor, forest produce, scrap, etc.’

 

3. While the term ‘goods’ may mean a wide range of
items, the heading to the section in which the particular sub-section appears
clearly hints at receipts in the nature of profits / gains from the business of
‘trading’… In view of this, one may infer that the receipts intended to be
covered in this section are such receipts as arise to the seller from the sale
of such items that he trades in as part of his business.

 

4. Further, as per the Literal Rule of
Interpretation of Statutes, where a statute uses a word which is of everyday
use, such a word should be interpreted in its popular sense, i.e., construed as
it is understood in common language. Therefore, to interpret goods as
understood in common language, would ordinarily mean stock in trade or goods
that a person trades in regularly in the course of his business activities.

 

5. Explanation to this sub-section defines
‘seller’ as…

‘seller’ means
a person whose total sales, gross receipts or turnover from the business
carried on by him exceed ten crore rupees during the financial year immediately
preceding the financial year in which the sale of goods is carried out, not
being a person as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify for this purpose, subject to such conditions as may be
specified therein.

 

The seller in the context of this sub-section is a person whose sales /
gross receipts or turnover from ‘business’ carried on by him exceeds Rs. 10
crores in the preceding financial year. In determining the threshold for one of
the two criteria for applicability of these provisions, the sales / turnover
from ‘business activities’ of such seller has to be taken into account. It
would be inappropriate to include receipts on sale of such items which would
otherwise not form a part of
turnover or sales in determining the threshold for consideration of goods sold.
To put it simply, in the illustration above, when Mr. A sells machinery /
furniture to Mr. B, such amount will not be included in his ‘turnover from
business’ as clearly stated by the meaning of seller given in the explanation.
To include it in the aggregate consideration for goods sold, and
collect tax on such amount, would therefore not be appropriate.

 

Thus, a possible
contrary view is that other assets sold by the seller to the buyer which do not
represent goods or items that the seller trades in as a part of his business
would not be covered by these provisions.

 

APPLICABILITY OF
PROVISIONS

This sub-section
is effective from 1st October, 2020 and is prospective in
application. It is triggered if the consideration received for sale of goods of
the value, or aggregate of such value, is in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs in any
previous year (other than goods exported out of India). Therefore, the
threshold criterion of consideration in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs has to be
considered for the entire previous year.

 

This has been
clarified by paragraph 4.4.2(iii) of the Circular, which states that since
the threshold of fifty lakh rupees is with respect to the previous year,
calculation of receipt of sale consideration for triggering TCS under
sub-section (1H) of Section 206C shall be computed from 1st April,
2020.
Let us take up a few probable scenarios here:

 

(I)   Mr. A sells goods to Mr. B for Rs. 65 lakhs –
for Rs. 20 lakhs, both sale and receipt of consideration were pre-October,
2020; for Rs. 45 lakhs, both sale and receipt of consideration were
post-October, 2020. Though TCS provisions will be applicable on the receipt of
sale consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs post-October, for determining the threshold
criterion, receipt of sale consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs will be considered.

 

(II)  Mr. A sells goods to Mr. B and receives an
aggregate consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs. The sale and receipt of the entire
consideration take place post-1st October, 2020. Here, without any
doubt, the TCS provisions will be applicable and Mr. A will be under an
obligation to collect tax on Rs. 25 lakhs (Rs. 75 lakhs minus Rs. 50 lakhs).
Before we analyse further, it is important to take note of paragraph 4.4.2(ii)
of the Circular which states as under: Since sub-section (1H) of section
206C of the Act applies on receipt of sale consideration, the provision of this
sub-section shall not apply on any sale consideration received before 1st
October, 2020. Consequently, it would apply on all sale consideration
(including advance received for sale) received on or after 1st
October, 2020 even if the sale was carried out before 1st October,
2020.

 

(III) Mr. A had sold certain goods to Mr. B in F.Y.
2019-20 for a consideration of Rs. 80 lakhs. Of this, Rs. 10 lakhs was received
in F.Y. 2019-20. Of the balance Rs. 70 lakhs, further Rs. 5 lakhs was received
in July, 2020 and Rs. 65 lakhs was received post-October, 2020.

 

In view of the
above paragraph of the Circular, the seller would be required to make TCS on
the receipt of Rs. 15 lakhs of consideration received in the month of October,
2020 (Rs. 65 lakhs minus Rs. 50 lakhs), even though the sales were effected in
F.Y. 2019-20.

 

The Circular
categorically states that TCS would be applicable on all sale considerations,
even if the sale was carried out before 1st October, 2020. This is
not sufficiently asserted in the provisions of section 206C (1H) which states –
Every person, being a seller, who receives any amount as consideration for
sale of any goods of the value or aggregate value exceeding fifty lakh rupees
in any previous year…

 

In my humble view,
as mentioned above, this section is prospective in its application and takes
effect from 1st October, 2020. Though the trigger for applicability
of TCS provisions is ‘receipt of sale consideration’, it should not be made
applicable to such receipts for sales effected prior to 1st October,
2020.

 

Considering the
language used in the Circular, it will imply that all outstanding amounts due
to the seller for sales effected prior to 1st October, 2020 will now
be included in the ambit of the TCS provisions. This may span over a period of
the past one or two financial years, and the seller will be required to collect
TCS on receipts of such amounts. It may pose practical difficulties as the
buyers may be reluctant to remit additional amounts as they would not reflect
in the original invoices raised.

 

These practical
issues notwithstanding and referring to the arguments above, it will be unjust
to include receipts of consideration for sales affected prior to 1st
October, 2020 within the ambit of TCS.

 

There seems to be
an intention to apply the TCS provisions in respect of all sale considerations,
including advances, received on or after 1st October, 2020. However,
it’s ‘lost in translation’ as it further states advances received on or after 1st
October, 2020 including those for sales carried out before 1st
October, 2020. The only aspect clear from this paragraph is that the provisions
of TCS shall not apply on any sale consideration received before 1st
October, 2020.

 

Again, it is
important to note that the section does not use the word ‘advance’ and refers
to receipt of amount as ‘consideration for sale of goods’, or sale
consideration as used in common parlance. Further, neither has the term
‘consideration’ nor ‘sale consideration’ been defined in the sub-section, in
view of which the term will have to be understood in the context of its use in
common parlance. Any amount received as advance cannot partake the character of
‘sale consideration’ unless the corresponding sale against such sum of money
received is effected.

 

Thus, by merely
using a particular term in the Circular, which does not find place in the
section, its meaning cannot be imported in the section. Therefore, in my humble
view, TCS provisions will not be applicable on advances.

 

(IV) Mr. A,
dealing in a particular category of goods, sells them to Mr. B who uses them
further for his manufacturing / processing activity and is not the ultimate
consumer of such goods. Whether TCS would be collected by Mr. A in respect of
such goods?

 

To correlate,
section 206C(1A) excludes applicability of TCS on such sale transactions
covered u/s 206C(1) where the buyer uses the goods for further manufacturing or
production activities. At present, there is no such exclusion u/s 206C(1H).

 

The Circular makes
reference to transactions for sale of motor car, covering receipts from all
kinds of transactions of sale of motor car, under the TCS provisions, either
under sub-section (1H) or sub-section (1F), both sub-sections being mutually
exhaustive.

 

GOODS & SERVICES
TAX IMPLICATION


Another important
aspect that requires consideration is whether TCS is required to be collected
on the consideration inclusive of GST, or otherwise. The term sale
consideration has not been defined in the sub-section. It will mean the price
paid for purchase of goods. The question to be considered is whether it can be
said that GST is a part of the consideration? There are contrary views on this
issue as well. Based on certain judicial precedents, a view which prevails is
that GST is includible in the consideration and therefore TCS should be made on
the amount of consideration inclusive of GST.

 

Paragraph 4.6 of
the Circular clarifies that no adjustment on account of sale return or discount
or indirect taxes including GST is required to be made for collection of tax
under sub-section (1H) of section 206C of the Act since the collection is made
with reference to the receipt of the amount of sale consideration.

 

Let us evaluate
each of the items covered under this paragraph:

i. Sales
return:

a.  Sales
returns post receipt of amount of sale consideration by the seller:
In this case, the receipt will not
be net of sale return and the seller would have collected TCS on the same, as
it has been received. Assuming the sales return takes place in the subsequent
month, by when the seller has paid the amount of tax collected to the credit of
the government, the buyer will claim credit of the same while furnishing his
income tax return.

b.  Sales returns before receipt of amount of sale
consideration by the seller:
In this case, under
the terms of contract, the buyer will pay the amount net of sales return, and
thus the amount of consideration received will be subjected to TCS.

 

ii.  Discounts: The
discounts will be factored in the invoice, and / or the amount of sale
consideration received by the seller from the buyer will be net of such
discounts. As TCS is to be made on the amount received, no adjustment would be
required.

 

iii. GST: The Circular
states that no adjustment is required to be made on account of GST. It brings
little clarity on this aspect. In my view, GST should not be included for the
purpose of TCS though a conservative and practical approach adopted may be that
TCS is to be made inclusive of GST.

 

In case the
component of TCS is charged in the invoice, whether GST would be applicable on
the TCS component?

 

GST applies on the
consideration for supply of goods or services, whereas TCS is a collection of
the income tax component.

 

The Central Board
of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) Corrigendum to Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31st
December, 2018 issued vide F. No. CBEC-20/16/04/2018-GST has clarified
that for the purpose of determining value of supply under GST, TCS will not be
includible since it is in the nature of an interim levy. Therefore, if the TCS
component is reflected in the invoice, there will be no GST applicable on the
TCS component.

 

RESULTANT PRACTICAL
ASPECTS


The tax collected
by the seller shall be paid to the account of the Government by the 7th
of the month subsequent to the month in which the consideration was received.

 

No separate TAN is
required for TCS under this sub-section. The seller has to furnish TCS return
in Form 27EQ on a quarterly basis. The CBDT has amended the IT Rules in line
with the above changes to the TCS provisions.

 

The existing Rules
require the assessee to file quarterly TCS returns in Form 27EQ. Under the
amended Rules, the assessee (seller) is required to report the amount on which
TCS is not collected from the buyer. An annexure for party-wise break-up of TCS
is also provided in the form.

 

Due dates of
filing of Form 27EQ are:

Quarter

Due
date (normally)

April – June

15th July

July – September

15th October

October – December

15th January

January – March

15th May

 

 

CONCLUSION

As we cope with the implications of this newly-inserted sub-section, it
will be interesting to have a sneak peek into the history of these provisions.
The TCS provisions were first inserted by the Finance Act, 1988. The rationale
behind introducing these provisions was the fact that there was difficulty in
assessing the income of persons undertaking contracts for sale of liquor, etc.
Over the years, there have been several other sub-sections added to section
206C on the pretext of widening the tax base or to track high-value
transactions, the latest amendment being this insertion of sub-section 1H. From
1988 to 2020, both tax administration and tax compliance have undergone a sea
change. Considering the ‘E-mode’ of operations, several tests and checks are in
place to ensure minimal evasion of taxes and non-reporting of transactions.

 

Against this
backdrop, one wonders about the necessity of such provisions which are most
likely to increase the hassles of businessmen.

 

‘Lord Atkin once
said that an impartial administration of the law is like oxygen in the air:
people know and care little about it till it is withdrawn.’’

                                                                                         – Fali S. Nariman, Before Memory
Fades:
                                                                                                                              An Autobiography

REPORT: ROLE OF THE PROFESSIONAL IN A CHANGING TAX LANDSCAPE

HITESH D. GAJARIA
Chartered Accountant

(BCAS
Lecture Meeting, 8thJuly, 2020)

A
report by CA Riddhi Lalan




Hitesh D. Gajaria, a respected member of the BCAS family since 1985, delivered a remarkable speech at the BCAS Lecture Meeting on 8thJuly, 2020. We are publishing this summary just when the profession is at the threshold of change, a trending theme of 2020-21: Tradition, Transition and Transformation, adopted by the BCAS. A summary cannot convey the full import of his talk but we hope it will enable the professionals to get an eagle-eye view of the landscape of the tax profession, both near and far. We would recommend that you also watch the captivating talk on the BCAS YouTube channel.

 

The tax world is in a state of rapid flux. Earlier, the tax profession was all about filing returns, assessments, filing appeals and litigating matters. From simple and straight-forward days, where the most common tax concerns were additions on account of lower GP Ratio, deductions u/s 37 and revenue expenditure vs. capital expenditure for the Income-tax and the lack of C-Forms in the Sales Tax Assessments, the tax profession today has morphed into a complex, multi-dimensional arena requiring unique and varied skills from the tax professionals.

 

In light of this background, the learned speaker sought to dwell upon the most gripping questions for the tax professionals today – What are the current global and local trends? What factors have caused the changes? And as a result, how is the tax world different today? Is tax planning still possible? What is the future of the tax profession? What can be done by a tax professional to stay relevant and on top of the changes?

 

THE CURRENT TRENDS

Global

  • Increased reporting obligations in a number of tax jurisdictions.
  •  Increased collaborations between tax authorities of different jurisdictions and robust exchange of information mechanisms.
  •  Tightened rules to combat profit shifting with reference to concepts like transfer pricing, which India adopted only in 2002, but the US had since the mid-1960s.
  •  Increasing tendency to focus on ‘formula-based approaches’ to profit attribution.
  •  Strong anti-abuse rules to target treaty shopping and other abusive arrangements.
  •  No consensus on tackling the tax challenge arising from digitisation of the global economy. Even if a consensus is reached, it may result in re-thinking of the way taxation of income is approached and highly sophisticated and complex rules which a tax professional will have to master.
  •  Increased blurring of direct and indirect taxes, with a shift towards transaction type tax levies invading the domain of direct taxes.

 

Local

  •  Protectionism and increased unilateral measures, triggered by the revival of nationalistic politics in various nations, developed as well as developing, and partially by the slow pace of multilateral reform in tax.
  •  At the same time, countries still want to attract investments (both domestic and foreign) by way of large headline rate cuts for businesses to flourish in a jurisdiction. While this may trigger another round of tax competition, there will be greater need for not only tax competition but also tax co-operation. Tax war is an extreme situation which no country can afford today; however, tax competition shall always sustain.
  •  Proliferation of preferential regimes (e.g., patent box regimes).
  •  Many countries have combated preferential regimes by way of disallowance provisions for foreign related party transactions.
  •  Uncertainty over tariffs and potential trade wars has ripened the entire area of customs and indirect taxes for rethinking and overhaul.
  •  Unilateral measures to tax the digital sector have been introduced by many countries including India.
  •  In many countries, including India, huge compliance burden has been embedded at the stage of business transactions taking place, leading to huge burden on businesses.
  •  Closer home, an oncoming storm of tax assessments, audits, recoveries and tax enforcement measures is on the anvil because the government needs to start recovering taxes to make up for the increasing fiscal deficit and to fund more social welfare programmes if the needs of the lowest strata of society have to be met.

 

WHAT FACTORS HAVE CAUSED THESE CHANGES?


The changes in the tax trends began after the global financial crisis of 2008 which put huge fiscal pressure on governments worldwide. Improving tax compliance and increasing tax enforcement were seen as better routes rather than increasing tax rates, leading to increased global political interest in tax issues and driving the agenda for tax reforms. There has been a greater public focus and media scrutiny on taxpayer behaviour (Apple, Starbucks, Amazon, Panama papers leak, etc.). While there has been an increased alignment of interests between nations with exceptions, tax simplification, rationalisation and reforms have led to even more burdensome compliance for taxpayers. Covid-19 could be yet another turning point for unknown reforms in the tax world.

 

HOW IS THE TAX WORLD DIFFERENT TODAY?


THEN

NOW

  •  Tax liability depended on the strict letter of the law
  •  Remedies to correct abuse lay with the legislature to amend the tax laws
  •  Tax ‘morality’ has gained significance
  •  Factors such as substance, purpose and the acceptability of the outcome are extremely relevant for both taxpayers and advisers
  •  Secrecy and confidentiality was generally maintained
  • There has been a rise in publicising tax outcomes, naming and shaming of tax defaulters
  •  Increasing data leaks have proved that the so-called tax havens have been mirages in some sense
  •  Information asymmetries between countries have been largely plugged through exchange of information mechanisms
  • Tax matters involved only the government and the taxpayer assisted by tax advisers
  •  List of stakeholders has expanded to include the media, NGOs and even consumers
  • Compliance was a labour-intensive and assured source of regular work
  •  Compliance functions are being radically overhauled through use of technology tools
  • Clear distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion
  •  Tax avoidance was thought to be a goal
  •  The term ‘tax avoidance’ is under a cloud
  •  The new standard is ‘tax morality’

 

 

 

 

IS TAX PLANNING STILL POSSIBLE?


The days of tax planning in the form of reduction of tax liability with little or no impact on economic circumstances and ascertaining and implementing the most tax efficient way of achieving legitimate business objectives are over. That type of tax planning which disregards commercial realities no longer exists but it has evolved. Tax planning, in the traditional sense, will no longer work in an era where international measures such as CFC, MLI and domestic measures such as General Anti-Avoidance Rules are in place. However, planning for real business transactions is still possible.

 

A professional, who is fully grounded in understanding and mastering the law and able to guide businesses about what is permissible and what is not, will sustain. However, any planning will now involve a much higher risk of scrutiny at assessment and judicial levels. Higher threshold for acceptability and higher risk of scrutiny of the transactions from a large number of stakeholders would be inevitable. There is heightened risk of such transactions being reported on the front pages of newspapers due to increased information availability; a professional must measure himself by these standards. Extremely robust documentation and robust proof of commercial substance will be critical.

 

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE TAX PROFESSION?


The entire platform of tax services will rest on three main pillars which will broadly define how tax professionals may need to specialise their skillsets and garner focused experience:

 

(1) Technology-enabled tax compliance:

  •  Technology has ruthlessly changed the landscape and has been eagerly embraced by tax authorities; this, perhaps, has been a big revelation!
  •  It is the need of the hour to completely adapt and master technology to stay ahead.
  •  Competition would not only be limited to the tax professionals but also more disruptors, say non-professional technology firms, who enable compliance at a fraction of the cost, will now enter the arena.
  •  Technology using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) must take over a number of repetitive tasks.
  •  Technology has raised a question as to ‘Whether professionals, going forward, would even be engaged for compliance?’
  •  Compliance would not be dead for a professional, but will need adaptability and agility.
  •  Additional challenges of data safety, security and protection need to be addressed.
  •  By embracing mass compliance and processing data in larger volumes, a tax professional can gain leverage from the data available which will open a whole new vista predicting tax outcomes to better serve clients.
  •  While drafting and research has been taken over by AI, there are two ways to look at it – (i) threat to routine compliance, and therefore, accept technology; (ii) opportunity for value addition due to increasing uncertainty.
  •  Technology has merits but with the overload of the digital world there is also digital distraction. Tax professionals need to engage in deep work, detox periodically from technologies and opt for in-depth and consistent reading. Advisory services flowing from such detailed reading and connecting theory to practice in how that impacts a client is now more valuable.
  •  Technology cannot substitute experience and deep knowledge. Here lies the true value of a tax professional.
  •  By using algorithms and data mining, the Department is in a position to point out anomalies. Tax professionals need to be better prepared to address such anomalies. To walk the path of technology, assistance from data scientists may be required.

 

(2) High end advisory:

  •  Global convergence of tax methodologies, the drive against base erosion with accompanying changes in domestic and international laws and the emergence of and seeping in of transaction tax type levies, gives rise to fresh challenges for a professional to overcome.
  •  Today, with the convergence of accounting and tax principles, giving clear preference to the doctrine of substance over form and new and ever-changing corporate law, foreign exchange and SEBI regulations, we are in the middle of a perfect storm with attendant opportunities.
  • There is a perceived need for professionals who have experience in more than just one or two core areas and also for those professionals who can collaboratively work together with other professionals in different disciplines to evolve solutions which overcome complex problems, while simultaneously not falling foul of any regulations.
  • A longer-term strategy to develop and nurture appropriate talent needs to be undertaken because, in this arena, too, sister professions are nibbling away at pieces of work that Chartered Accountants traditionally did.

 

(3) Litigation:

  •  Complexities and uncertainties shall lead to an explosion of tax litigation.
  •  The tax professional has only witnessed the implementation aspects of GST; audits are yet to commence.
  •  There was no reduction in number of tax officers due to digitisation of the GSTN. These officers would be trained to do tax assessments more intelligently. The Income-tax Department, also, has sharply climbed up the learning curve. Even judges in Tribunals and Courts are keeping abreast with latest trends.
  •  Conflict between the needs of the government to garner more revenue and that of businesses to conserve more revenue will result in a sharp increase in litigation.
  •  At the same time, it needs to be understood that not all litigation is good. Hand-holding and guidance to clients would gain relevance to decide which litigation to pursue and which not to, having regard to the alternate forums of dispute resolution available under domestic laws as well as under international tax laws.
  •  Government is also realising the futility of litigations and therefore a scheme like VSVS is an attempt to clear such backlogs.
  •  The tax professional needs to be nuanced in how to assist clients to shape their litigation strategies. Jurisprudence is not static as more case laws are available online nationally and internationally.
  •  Mandatory disclosure regulations in case of aggressive tax positions require a balance in audit, assurance and litigation.

 

These three pillars are not independent compartments. A strong professional may have competency either in all or in more than one of these.

 

Certification assignments should be taken up only if capabilities and professional competency are available before pitching for such assignments. The Department is now equipped with algorithms to intelligently search all the reports and ferret out anomalies. Therefore, there is no easy way, either to discharge the certification function correctly or refrain from accepting – there is just no other option.

 

Tax risk in the corporate world: Barring a few exceptions, there is polarisation in the way the market is valuing companies having clear, transparent, ethical policies. Effective tax rate is not to be viewed in an absolute sense; it needs to be looked at on a comparative basis, based on a bench-marking analysis and tax policies and decided accordingly. The tone and culture of the corporate decides whether tax risk is a subject of discussion in the Board Room. Adverse tax consequences with attendant negative publicity is already tinged with social stigma, at least in the minds of independent directors whether the corporates believe in it or not. Therefore, tax risk is, increasingly, forming a part of the Board Room discussions.

 

HOW TO STAY RELEVANT?

  • Maximum advantage available with the younger professionals having agility, ability, keenness, inquisitiveness and willingness to change.
  •  Develop a willingness to adapt to changed circumstances.
  •  Ability to manage tax risks without overpaying taxes.
  •  Adherence to ethical standards is not old-fashioned; it is expected and demanded today.
  •  An analogy may be drawn from the letter ‘T’. The vertical line is the depth and core. Develop that depth, that core, own it, invest in it and nurture it. But do not forget the horizontal line which is the adjacent line. It is now, more than ever, important to read commercial news, develop good communication skills, understand cultural differences, learn personal etiquette, etc. Both lines need to be worked upon simultaneously.
  • SME firms and bigger firms need to come together and collaborate, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic.
  •  Develop cutting-edge technical skills and become comfortable with a fast-paced legal and regulatory environment.

 

We find ourselves at the crossroads to reinvent ourselves and today is the day to start. When nothing is certain, the maximum opportunity lies ahead – just re-trim your masts to catch that wind.

THE FINANCE ACT, 2020

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Ms Nirmala Sitharaman, the Finance Minister, presented her second
Budget to the Parliament on 1st
February, 2020. The Finance Bill, 2020, presented along with the Budget
with certain amendments suggested by the Finance Minister on the basis of
discussions with the stakeholders, was passed by the Parliament without any
discussion on 23rd March, 2020. It received the assent of the
President on 27th March, 2020. The Finance Act, 2020 was passed by
both the Houses of Parliament without any discussion in view of the recent
lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic which has affected India and the whole
world.

 

1.2 Some of the
important proposals in the Budget, relating to the Direct Taxes, can be
summarised as under:

(i) In line with
the reduction in rates of Income-tax for certain domestic companies which forgo
certain deductions and tax incentives introduced last year, the Finance Act,
2020 provides for revised slabs of Income-tax rates for Individuals and HUFs
who do not claim certain deductions and tax incentives.

(ii) Dividend
Distribution Tax, hitherto payable by companies and Mutual Funds and consequent
exemption on dividend received by shareholders and unitholders, has been
discontinued effective from 1st April, 2020. Consequently, the
exemption in respect of dividend receipt enjoyed by the shareholders and
unitholders of Mutual Funds has been withdrawn.

(iii) The
compliance burden of Charitable Trusts and Institutions has been increased.

(iv) The Finance
Minister has recognised the need for a ‘Taxpayer’s Charter’. A new section 119A
has been inserted in the Income-tax Act effective from 1st April,
2020 to provide that CBDT shall adopt and declare the Taxpayer’s Charter. CBDT
will issue guidelines for ensuring that this Charter is honoured by the
Officers of the Tax Department.

(v) One important
measure announced by the Finance Minister this year relates to the Disputed
Income-tax Settlement Scheme. ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Bill,
2020’ was introduced by her and was passed by Parliament on 13th
March, 2020. This Scheme has been introduced with a view to reduce litigation.
It is stated that about 4,83,000 Direct Tax cases are pending before various
appellate authorities. The assessees can avail the benefit of this Scheme by
paying the disputed tax and getting waiver of penalty, interest and fee.

 

1.3 This Article discusses some of the important
amendments made in the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 2020.

 

2. RATES OF TAXES

2.1 The slab rates
in the case of Individuals, HUFs, AOP, etc., for A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y. 2020-21)
are the same as in A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20). Similarly, the tax rates for
firms, LLPs, co-operative societies and local authorities for A.Y. 2021-22 are
the same as in A.Y. 2020-21. In the case of a domestic company, the rate of tax
is the same for A.Y. 2021-22 as in A.Y. 2020-21. However, the rate of 25% is
applicable in A.Y. 2021-22 to a domestic company having total turnover or gross
receipts of less than Rs. 400 crores in F.Y. 2018-19. In A.Y. 2020-21, this
requirement was with reference to total turnover or gross receipts relating to
F.Y. 2017-18.

 

2.2 The rates for Surcharge on tax applicable in A.Y. 2020-21 will
continue in A.Y. 2021-22. It may be noted that dividend declared and received
on or after 1st April, 2020 is now taxable in the hands of the
shareholder. Earlier, the company was required to pay Dividend Distribution Tax
(DDT) and the shareholder was not liable to pay any tax. Therefore, dividend
income for F.Y. 2020-21 (A.Y. 2021-22) will be liable to tax in the hands of
the shareholder. In order to provide relief in the rate of Surcharge to
Individual, HUF, AOP, etc. having total income exceeding Rs. 2 crores, it is
provided that the rate of Surcharge will be 15% on the Income-tax on dividend income
included in the total income.

 

2.3 The Health and
Education Cess of 4% of Income-tax and Surcharge shall continue as in the
earlier year.

 

3. REDUCTION IN TAX RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS AND HUFs


3.1 Last year, the
Income-tax Act was amended by insertion of new sections 115BAA and 115BAB to
reduce the tax rates of a domestic company to 22% if the company does not claim
certain deductions and tax incentives. In respect of newly-formed manufacturing
companies, registered on or after 1st January, 2019, the tax rate
was reduced to 15% if certain deductions and tax incentives were not claimed.

 

3.2 In the Finance Act, 2020 a new section 115BAC has been inserted
in the Income-tax Act with effect from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y. 2020-21) to reduce
the tax rates for Individuals and HUFs if the assessee does not claim certain
deductions and tax incentives. For claiming this concession in tax rates, the
assessee will have to exercise the option in the prescribed manner. The reduced
tax rates are as under:

 

Income (Rupees in lakhs)

Existing rate

Reduced rate (section 115BAC)

1

2.50 L

Nil

Nil

2

2.50 to 5.00 L

5%

5%

3

5.00 to 7.50 L

20%

10%

4

7.50 to 10.00 L

20%

15%

5

10.00 to 12.50 L

30%

20%

6

12.50 to 15.00 L

30%

25%

7

Above 15.00 L

30%

30%


Surcharge and Cess
at the specified rates will be chargeable. It may be noted that there is no
separate higher threshold for senior and very senior citizens in the above
concessional tax rate scheme.

 

3.3 For claiming
the benefit of the above concession in tax rates, the assessee will have to
forgo the deductions under sections, (i) 10(5) – Leave Travel Concession, (ii)
10(13A) – House Rent Allowance, (iii) 10(14) – Dealing with special allowances
granted to employees other than conveyance and transport allowance under Rule
2BB(1)(a), (b), (c) and Sr. No. 11 of Table under Rule 2BB(2) as notified by
CBDT Notification dated 26th June, 2020.

 

Out of the above,
some of the allowances as may be prescribed will be allowed, (iv) 10(17) –
Allowances to MPs and MLAs, (v) 10(32) – Deduction of clubbed income of minor
up to Rs. 1,500, (vi) 10AA – Deduction of income of SEZ unit, (vii) 16 –
Standard deduction of Rs. 50,000, deduction for entertainment expenses in
specified cases, deduction for professional tax, etc., available to salaried
employees, (viii) 24(b) – Interest on borrowing for self-occupied property,
(ix) 32(1)(iia) – Additional depreciation, (x) 32AD – Investment in new plant
and machinery in notified areas in certain states, (xi) 33AB – Deposits in tea,
coffee and rubber development account, (xii) 35(1)(ii), (iia), (iii) and (2AA)
– Specified deduction for donations or expenses for Scientific Research, (xiv)
35AD – Deduction of capital expenditure for specified business, (xv) 35CCC –
Weighted deduction for specified expenditure on Agricultural Extension Project,
(xvi) 57(iia) – Standard deduction for Family Pension, (xvii) Chapter VIA – All
deductions under Chapter VIA – excluding deduction u/s 80CCD(2) – Employee’s
contribution in notified Pension Scheme, section 80JJAA – Expenditure on
employment of new employees and section 80LA(1A) dealing with deduction in
respect of certain income of International Financial Services Centre.

 

This will mean that deductions under sections 80C (investment in PPF
A/c, LIP payments or investments in other savings instruments up to Rs. 1.50
lakhs), 80D (medical insurance), 80TTA/80TTB (deduction for interest on bank
deposits), 80G (donations to charitable trusts, etc.) cannot be claimed,
(xviii) Section 71 – Set-off of carried-forward loss from house property
against income from other heads, (ixx) Section 32 – Depreciation u/s 32 [other
than section 32(1)(iia)] shall be allowed in the prescribed manner, (xx) No
exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisites allowable under any other
law can be claimed, (xxi) provisions of Alternate Minimum Tax and credit under
sections 115JC/115JD will not be available.

 

3.4 As stated
above, the assessee will have to exercise the option in the prescribed manner
where an Individual or HUF has no business income, this option can be exercised
for A.Y. 2021-22 or any subsequent year along with the filing of the return of
income u/s 139(1). In other words, the option can be exercised every year in
the prescribed manner.

 

3.5 If the
Individual or HUF has income from business or profession, the option can be
exercised for A.Y. 2021-22 or any subsequent year before the due date for
filing the return of income for that year u/s 139(1). The option once exercised
shall apply to that year and all subsequent years. Such an assessee can
withdraw the option at any time in a subsequent year and, thereafter, it will
not be possible to exercise the option at any time so long as the said assessee
has income from business or profession.

 

3.6 It may be
noted that the above option for concession in tax rates will not be available
to AOP, BOI, etc. The existing slab rates will continue to apply to them.
Further, the provisions of sections 115JC and 115JD relating to Alternative
Minimum Tax and credit for such tax will not apply to the person exercising
option u/s 115BAC.

 

3.7 Considering
the above conditions, it is possible that very few assessees will exercise this
option for lower tax rates. If deductions for PPF contribution, LIP, etc., u/s
80C, donation u/s 80G, Mediclaim Insurance u/s 80D, Standard Deduction from
Salary income u/s 16, travel and other allowances under sections 10(5), 10(13A)
and 10(14), and similar other deductions are not to be allowed, this concession
in tax rates to Individuals and HUFs will not be attractive.

 

4. TAXATION OF DIVIDENDS


4.1 Up to 31st
March, 2020, domestic companies declaring / distributing dividend to
shareholders were required to pay DDT u/s 115-O of the Income-tax Act at the
rate of 15% plus applicable Surcharge and Cess. Similarly, section 115-R
provided for payment of tax by a Mutual Fund while distributing income on its
units at varying rates. Consequently, sections 10(34) and 10(35) provided that
the shareholder receiving dividend from a domestic company or a unitholder
receiving income from an M.F. will not be required to pay any tax on such
dividend income and income received from an M.F. in respect of the units of the
M.F. However, from A.Y. 2017-18 (F.Y. 2016-17), dividend from a domestic
company received by an assessee, other than a domestic company and Public
Trusts, was made taxable u/s 115BBDA at the rate of 10% plus applicable
Surcharge and Cess if the total dividend income was more than Rs. 10 lakhs.

 

4.2 Now, after
about two decades, the system of levying tax on dividends has been changed
effective from 1st April, 2020. Sections 115-O and 115-R levying DDT
on domestic companies / M.F.s are now made inoperative. Sections 10(34), 10(35)
and 115BBDA are also not operative from 1st April, 2020.

 

4.3 In view of the above, any dividend declared by
a domestic company or income distributed by an M.F., on or after 1st
April, 2020 will be taxable in the hands of the shareholder / unitholder at the
rate applicable to the assessee. In the case of a non-resident assessee it will
be possible to claim benefits of applicable tax treaties which will include
limit on tax rate for dividend income and tax credit in home country as
provided in the applicable tax treaty.

 

4.4 Section 57 has
been amended to provide that expenditure by way of interest paid on monies
borrowed for investment in shares and units of M.F.s will be allowed to be
deducted from Dividend Income or Income from units of M.F.s. This deduction
will be restricted to 20% of Dividend Income or Income from units of M.F.s. No
other deduction will be allowed from such income.

 

4.5 A new section,
80M, has been inserted in the Income-tax Act effective from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y.
2020-21). This section provides for deduction in the case of a domestic company
whose gross total income includes dividend from any other (i) domestic company,
(ii) foreign company, or (iii) a business trust. The deduction under this
section will be allowed to the extent of dividend distributed by such company
on or before the due date. For this purpose ‘Due Date’ means the date one month
prior to the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1). In other
words, if a domestic company has received dividend of Rs. 1 crore from another
domestic company, Rs. 50 lakhs from a foreign company and Rs. 25 lakhs from a
business trust during the year ending 31st March, 2021, it will be
entitled to claim deduction from this total dividend income of Rs. 1.75 crores,
amount of dividend of say Rs. 1.60 crores declared on or before 31st
August, 2021 if the last date for filing its return of income u/s 139(1) is 30th
September, 2021. It may be noted that the benefit u/s 80M will not be available
in respect of income from units of M.F.s.

 

4.6 In order to
provide some relief to Individuals, HUFs, AOP, BOI, etc., a concession in the
rate of Surcharge has been provided in respect of dividend income. In case of
such assessees, the rate of Surcharge on income between Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 5
crores is 25% and the rate of Surcharge on income above Rs. 5 crores is 37.5%.
It is now provided that if the income of such assessee exceeds Rs. 2 crores,
the rate of Surcharge shall not exceed 15% on Income-tax computed in respect of
the Dividend Income included in the total income. From the wording of this
concession given to Dividend Income, it appears that this concession will not
apply to the income from units of M.F.s received by the assessee.

 

4.7 Since the
income from dividend on shares is now taxable, section 194 has been amended to
provide that tax at the rate of 10% of the dividend paid to the resident
shareholder will be deducted at source. In the case of a non-resident
shareholder, the TDS will be at the rate of 20%. Similarly, new section 194K now
provides that an M.F. shall deduct tax at source at 10% of income distributed
to a resident unitholder. In the case of a non-resident unitholder, the rate of
TDS is 20% as provided in section 196A.

 

4.8 It may be
noted that u/s 193 it is provided that tax is not required to be deducted at
source from interest paid by a quoted company to its debenture-holders if the
said debentures are held in demat form. This concession is not given under
sections 194 or 194K in respect of quoted shares or units of M.F.s held in
demat form. Therefore, the provisions for TDS will apply in respect of shares
or units of M.F.s held in demat form.

 

5. TAX DEDUCTION AND COLLECTION AT SOURCE


5.1 Sections
191 and 192:
Both these sections are amended effective from A.Y. 2021-22
(F.Y. 2020-21). At present, section 17(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act provides
for taxation of the value of any specified securities or sweat equity shares
(ESOP) allotted to any employee by the employer as a perquisite. The value of
ESOP is the fair market value on the date on which the option is exercised as
reduced by the actual payment made by the employee. When the shares are
subsequently sold, any gain on such sale is taxable as capital gain. The
employer has to deduct tax at source on such perquisite at the time of exercise
of such option u/s 192.

 

In order to ease
the burden of startups, the amendments in these two sections provide that a
company which is an eligible startup u/s 80IAC will have to deduct tax at
source on such income within 14 days (i) after the expiry of 48 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, or (ii) from
the date of sale of such ESOP shares by the employee, or (iii) from the date on which the employee who
received the ESOP benefit ceases to be an employee of the company, whichever is
earlier. For this purpose, the tax rates in force in the financial year in
which the said shares (ESOP) were allotted or transferred are to be considered.
By this amendment, the liability of the employee to pay tax on such perquisite
and deduction of tax on the same is deferred as stated above. Consequential
amendments are also made in sections 140A (self-assessment tax) and 156 (notice
of demand).

 

5.2 Sections
194, 194K and 194LBA:
Sections 194 and 194LBA are amended and a new section
194K is inserted effective from 1st April, 2020. These sections now
provide as under:


(i) Section 194
provides that if the dividend paid to a resident shareholder by a company
exceeds Rs. 5,000 in any financial year, tax at the rate of 10% shall be
deducted at source. In the case of a non-resident shareholder, the rate for TDS
is 20% as provided in section 195.

(ii) New section 194K provides that if any income is
distributed by an M.F. to a resident unitholder and such income distributed
exceeds Rs. 5,000 in a financial year, tax at the rate of 10% shall the
deducted at source by the M.F. In the case of a non-resident unitholder, the
rate of TDS is 20% u/s 196A.

(iii) Section 194LBA has been amended to provide that
in respect of income distributed by a Business Trust to a resident unitholder,
being dividend received or receivable from a Special Purpose Vehicle, the tax
shall be deducted at source at the rate of 10%. In respect of a non-resident
unitholder, the rate for TDS is 20% on dividend income.

 

5.3 Section 196C:
Section 196C dealing with TDS from income by way of interest or dividends in
respect of Bonds or GDRs purchased by a non-resident in foreign currency has
been amended from 1st April, 2020. Under the amended section, TDS at
10% is now deductible from the dividend paid to the non-resident.

 

5.4 Section
196D:
This section deals with TDS from income in respect of securities held
by an FII. Amendment of this section from 1st April, 2020 now
provides that dividend paid to an FII or FPI will be subject to TDS at the rate
of 20%.

 

5.5 Section
194A:
This section deals with TDS from interest income. This section is
amended effective from 1st April, 2020. At present, a co-operative
society is not required to deduct tax at source on interest payment in the
following cases:


(i) Interest
payment by a co-operative society (other than a Co-operative Bank) to its
members.

(ii) Interest
payment by a co-operative society to any other co-operative society.

(iii) Interest
payment on deposits with a Primary Agricultural Credit Society or Primary
Credit Society or a Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank.

(iv) Interest
payment on deposits (other than time deposits) with a co-operative society
(other than societies mentioned in iii above) engaged in the business of
banking.

 

Under the
amendments made in section 194A effective from 1st April, 2020, the
above exemptions have been modified and a co-operative society shall be
required to deduct tax at source in all the above cases at the rates in force,
if the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The total
sales, gross receipts or turnover of the co-operative society exceeds Rs. 50
crores during the immediately preceding financial year, and

(b) The amount of
interest, or the aggregate of the amounts of such interest payment during the
financial year, is more than Rs. 50,000 in case the payee is a senior citizen
(aged 60 years or more) or more than Rs. 40,000 in other cases.

 

5.6 Section 194C: This section is amended effective from 1st
April, 2020. At present the term ‘Work’ is defined in the section to include
manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or
specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer.
Now, this term ‘Work’ will also include material purchased from the associate
of such customer. For this purpose, the ‘associate’ means a person specified
u/s 40A(2)(b).

 

5.7 Section
194J:
This section is amended effective from 1st April, 2020.
The rate of TDS has been reduced to 2% from 10% in respect of TDS from fees for
technical services. The rate of TDS from professional fees will continue at 10%
of such fees.

 

5.8 Section
194LC:
This section is amended effective from 1st April, 2020.
The eligibility of borrowing under the loan agreement or by issue of long-term
bonds for concessional rate of TDS under this section has now been extended
from 30th June, 2020 to 30th June, 2023. Further, section
194LC(2) has now been amended to include interest on monies borrowed by an
Indian company from a source outside India by issue of long-term Bonds or
Rupee-Denominated Bonds between 1st April, 2020 and 30th
June, 2023, which are listed on a recognised stock exchange in any
International Financial Services Centre. In such a case, the rate of TDS will
be 4% (as against 5% in other cases).

 

5.9 Section
194LD:
This section is amended effective from 1st April, 2020.
This amendment is made to cover interest payable from 1st June, 2013
to 30th June, 2023 by a person to an FII or a Qualified Foreign
Investor on Rupee-Denominated Bonds of an Indian company or Government security
u/s 194LD. Further, now interest at specified rate on Municipal Debt Securities
issued between 1st April, 2020 and 30th June, 2023 will
also be covered under the provisions of this section. The rate for TDS is 5% in
such cases.

 

5.10 Section
194N:
Section 194N was inserted effective from 1st September,
2019 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. It provided that a banking company,
co-operative bank or a Post Office shall deduct tax at source at 2% in respect
of cash withdrawn by any account holder from one or more accounts with such
bank / Post Office in excess of Rs. 1 crore in a financial year. This limit of
Rs. 1 crore applied to all accounts of the person in any bank, co-operative
bank or Post Office. Hence, if a person has accounts in different branches of
the bank, total cash withdrawals in all these accounts will be considered for
this purpose. This TDS provision applied to all persons, i.e., Individuals,
HUFs, AOP, firms, LLPs, companies, etc., engaged in business or profession, as
also to all persons maintaining bank accounts for personal purposes. Under this
section there will be no TDS on cash withdrawn up to Rs. 1 crore in a financial
year. The TDS provision will apply on cash withdrawal in excess of Rs. 1 crore.

 

Now, the above
section has been replaced by a new section 194N effective from 1st
July, 2020. This new section provides as under:

(i) The provision
relating to TDS at 2% on cash withdrawals exceeding Rs. 1 crore as stated above
is continued. However, w.e.f. 1st July, 2020, if the account holder
in the bank / Post Office has not filed the returns of income for all the three
assessment years relevant to the three previous years, for which the time for
filing such return of income u/s 139(1) has expired, the rate of TDS will be as
under:

(a) 2% of cash withdrawal from all accounts with a bank or Post
Office in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs but not exceeding Rs. 1 crore in a financial
year.

(b) 5% of cash withdrawal from all accounts with a bank or Post
Office in excess of Rs. 1 crore in a financial year.

(ii) The Central
Government has been authorised to notify, in consultation with RBI, that in the
case of any account holder the above provisions may not apply or tax may be
deducted at a reduced rate if the account holder satisfies the conditions
specified in the Notification.

(iii) This section
does not apply to cash withdrawals by any Government, bank, co-operative bank, Post
Office, banking correspondent, white label ATM operators and such other persons
as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with RBI if such
person satisfies the conditions specified in the Notification. Such
Notification may provide that the TDS rate may be at reduced rates or at Nil
rate.

(iv) This
provision is made in order to discourage cash withdrawals from banks and
promote digital economy. It may be noted that u/s 198 it is provided that the
tax deducted u/s 194N will not be treated as income of the assessee. If the
amount of this TDS is not treated as income of the assessee, credit for tax
deducted at source u/s 194N will not be available to the assessee u/s 199 read
with Rule 37BA. If such credit is not given, this will be an additional tax
burden on the assessee.

 

5.11 Section
194-O and 206AA:
New section 194-O has been inserted effective from 1st
April, 2020. Existing section 206AA has been amended from the same date.
Section 194-O provides that the TDS provisions will apply to E-commerce
operators. The effect of this provision is as under:

(i) The two terms
used in the section are defined to mean (a) ‘E-commerce operator’ is a person
who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for
electronic commerce, and (b) ‘E-commerce participant’ is a person resident in
India selling goods or providing services or both, including digital products,
through digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce. For
this purpose the services will include fees for professional services and fees
for technical services.

(ii) An E-commerce
operator facilitating sale of goods or provision of services of an E-commerce
participant, through its digital electronic facility or platform, is now
required to deduct tax at source at the rate of 1% of the payment of gross
amount of sales or services or both to the E-commerce participant. Such TDS is
to be deducted from the amount paid by the purchaser of goods or recipient of
services directly to the E-commerce participant / E-commerce operator.

(iii) No tax is
required to be deducted if the payment is made to an E-commerce participant who
is an Individual or HUF if the payment during the financial year is less than
Rs. 5 lakhs and the E-commerce participant has furnished PAN or Aadhaar Card
Number.

(iv) Further, in
the case of an E-commerce operator who is required to deduct tax at source as
stated in (ii) above or in a case stated in (iii) above, there will be no
obligation to deduct tax under any provisions of Chapter XVII-B in respect of
the above transactions. However, this exemption will not apply to any amount
received by an E-commerce operator for hosting advertisements or providing any
other services which are not in connection with sale of goods or services.

(v) If the
E-commerce participant does not furnish PAN or Aadhaar Card Number, the rate
for TDS u/s 206AA will be 5% instead of 1%. This is provided in the amended
section 206AA.

(vi) It is also
provided that CBDT, with the approval of the Central Government, may issue
guidelines for the purpose of removing any difficulty that may arise in giving
effect to provisions of section 194-O.

 

5.12 Section 206C: This section dealing with collection of tax at
source (TCS) has been amended effective from 1st October, 2020.
Hitherto, this provision for TCS applied in respect of specified businesses.
Under this provision a seller is required to collect tax from the buyer of
certain goods at the specified rates. The amendment of this section effective
from 1st October, 2020 extends the net of TCS u/s 206C (1G) and (1H)
to other transactions as under:

(i) An authorised
dealer, who is authorised by RBI to deal in foreign exchange or foreign
security, receiving Rs. 7 lakhs or more from any person in a financial year for
remittance out of India under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS) of RBI,
is liable to collect TCS at 5% from the person remitting such amount. Thus, LRS
remittance up to Rs. 7 lakhs in a financial year will not be liable for this
TCS. If the remitter does not provide PAN or Aadhaar Card Number, the rate of
TCS will be 10% u/s 206CC.

(ii) In the above
case, if the remittance in excess of Rs. 7 lakhs is by a person who is
remitting the foreign exchange out of education loan obtained from a financial
institution, as defined in section 80E, the rate of TCS will be 0.5%. If the
remitter does not furnish PAN or Aadhaar Card Number, the rate of TCS will be
5% u/s 206CC.

(iii) The seller of an overseas tour programme
package, who receives any amount from a buyer of such package, is liable to
collect TCS at 5% from such buyer. It may be noted that the TCS provision will
apply in this case even if the amount is less than Rs. 7 lakhs. If the buyer
does not provide PAN or Aadhaar Card Number, the rate for TCS will be 10% u/s
206CC.

(iv) It may be
noted that the above provisions for TCS do not apply in the following cases:

 

(a) An amount in
respect of which the sum has been collected by the seller.

(b) If the buyer
is liable to deduct tax at source under the provisions of the Act. This will
mean that for remittance for professional fees, commission, fees for technical
services, etc. from which tax is to be deducted at source, this section will
not apply.

(c) If the
remitter is the Central Government, State Government, an Embassy, High
Commission, a Legation, a Commission, a Consulate, the Trade Representation of
a Foreign State, a Local Authority or any person in respect of whom the Central
Government has issued a Notification.

 

(v) Section
206C(1H) which comes into force on 1st October, 2020 provides that a
seller of goods is liable to collect TCS at the rate of 0.1% on receipt of
consideration from the buyer of goods, other than goods covered by section
206C(1), (1F) or (1G). This TCS provision will apply only in respect of the
consideration in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs in the financial year. If the buyer
does not provide PAN or Aadhaar Card Number, the rate of TCS will be 1%. If the
buyer is liable to deduct tax at source from the seller on the goods purchased and
made such deduction, this provision for TCS will not apply.

 

(vi) It may be
noted that the above section 206C(1H) does not apply in the following cases:

 

(a) If the buyer
is the Central Government, State Government, an Embassy, a High Commission,
Legation, Commission, Consulate, the Trade Representation of a Foreign State, a
Local Authority, a person importing goods into India or any other person as the
Central Government may notify.

(b) If the seller
is a person whose sales, turnover or gross receipts from the business in the
preceding financial year does not exceed Rs. 10 crores.

 

(vii) The CBDT,
with the approval of the Central Government, may issue guidelines for removing
any difficulty that may arise in giving effect to the above provisions.

 

5.13 Obligation
to Deduct Tax at Source:
Hitherto, the obligation to comply with the
provisions of sections 194A, 194C, 194H, 194-I, 194-J or 206C for TDS was on
Individuals or HUFs whose total sales or gross receipts or turnover from
business or profession exceeded the monetary limits specified in section 44AB
during the immediately preceding financial year. The above sections are now
amended, effective from 1st April, 2020, to provide that the above
TDS provisions will apply to an individual or HUF whose total sales or gross
receipts or turnover from business or profession exceeds Rs. 1 crore in the
case of business or Rs. 50 lakhs in the case of profession. Thus, every
Individual or HUF carrying on business will have to comply with the above TDS
provisions even if he is not liable to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB.

 

5.14 General:

(i) From the above
amendments it is evident that the net for TDS and TCS has now been widened and
even transactions which do not result in income are now covered under these
provisions. Individuals and HUFs carrying on business and not covered by Tax
Audit u/s 44AB will now be covered by the TDS and TCS provision. In particular,
persons remitting foreign exchange exceeding Rs. 7 lakhs under LRS of RBI will
have to pay tax u/s 206C. This tax will be considered as payment of tax by the
remitter u/s 206C(4) and he can claim credit for such tax u/s 206C(4) read with
Rule 37-1.

(ii) It may be
noted that the Government has issued a Press Note on 13th May, 2020
giving certain relief during the Covid-19 pandemic. By this Press Note it is
announced that TDS / TCS under sections 193 to 194-O and 206C will be reduced
by 25% during the period 14th May, 2020 to 31st March,
2021. This reduction is given only in respect of TDS / TCS from payments or receipts
from residents. This concession is not in respect of TDS from salaries or TDS
from non-residents and TDS / TCS under sections 260AA or 206CC.

 

6. EXEMPTIONS AND DEDUCTIONS


6.1 Section 10(23FE): This is a new clause providing for
exemption of income from dividend, interest or long-term capital gain arising
from investment made in India by a specified person during the period 1st
April, 2020 to 31st March, 2024. The investment may be in the form
of a debt, share capital or unit. For this purpose the specified person means a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority which complies with
the various conditions of the Explanation given in the section. For claiming
the above exemption the specified person has to hold the investment for at least
three years. Further, the investment should be in (a) a Business Trust, (b) an
Infrastructure Company as defined in section 80-IA, (c) such other company as
may be notified by the Central Government, or (d) a Category I or Category II
Alternative Investment Fund regulated by SEBI and having 100% investment in one
or more companies as referred to in (a), (b) or (c) above.

 

If exemption under
this section is granted in any year, the same shall be withdrawn in any
subsequent year when the specified person violates any of the conditions of the
section in a subsequent year. It is also provided in the section that if any
difficulty arises about interpretation or implementation of this section, CBDT,
with the approval of the Central Government, may issue guidelines for removing
the difficulty.

 

6.2 Section
10(48C):
This a new clause inserted from 1st April, 2020. It
provides for exemption in respect of any income of Indian Strategic Petroleum
Reserves Ltd., as a result of arrangement for replenishment of crude oil stored
in its storage facility in pursuance of directions of the Central Government.

 

6.3 Section
80EEA:
This section was added by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 to provide
for deduction of interest payable up to Rs. 1,50,000 on loan taken by an
Individual from a Financial Institution for acquiring a residential house. One
of the conditions in the section is that the loan should be sanctioned during
the period 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020. This
period is now extended to 31st March, 2021.

 

6.4 Section
80GGA:
This section deals with certain donations for Scientific Research or
Rural Development. Till now, this deduction was allowed even if amounts up to
Rs. 10,000 were paid in cash. Now this section is amended, effective from 1st
June, 2020 and the above limit of Rs. 10,000 is reduced to Rs. 2,000.

 

6.5 Section
80-IAC:
This section deals with deduction in case of startup entities
engaged in specified businesses. The section is amended from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y.
2020-21). At present, the deduction under this section can be claimed for three
consecutive assessment years out of seven years from the year of incorporation.
By amendment of this section, the outer limit of seven years has been increased
to ten years.

 

In the Explanation
defining ‘Eligible Startup’, at present it is provided that the total turnover
of the business of the startup claiming deduction under this section should not
exceed Rs. 25 crores. This limit is now increased to Rs. 100 crores.

 

6.6 Section
80-IBA:
This section deals with deduction in respect of income from
specified housing projects. At present, for claiming deduction under this
section one of the conditions is that the housing project should be approved by
the Competent Authority during the period from 1st June, 2016 to 31st
March, 2020. This period is now extended up to 31st March, 2021.

 

6.7 Filing Tax
Audit Report:
At present sections 80-IA, 80-IB and 80JJAA provide that for
claiming deduction under these sections the assessee has to file the Tax Audit
Report u/s 44AB along with the return of income. These sections are now
amended, effective from 1st April, 2020 to provide that the Tax
Audit Report shall be filed one month before the due date for filing return of
income u/s 139(1). This will mean that in all such cases the Tax Audit Report
will have to be finalised one month before the due date for filing the return
of income u/s 139(1).

 

7. CHARITABLE TRUSTS


At present, a
University, Educational Institution, Hospital or other Medical Institution
claiming exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act is required to get
approval from the designated authority (Principal Commissioner or a
Commissioner of Income-tax). The procedure for this is provided in section
10(23C). The approval once granted is operative until cancelled by the
designated authority. For other Charitable Trusts the procedure for
registration is provided in section 12AA. Registration, once granted, continues
until it is cancelled by the designated authority. The Charitable Trusts and
other Institutions are entitled to get approval u/s 80G from the designated
authority. This approval is valid until cancelled by the Designated Authority.
On the strength of this certificate u/s 80G the donor to the Charitable Trust
or other Institutions can claim deduction in the computation of his income for
the whole or 50% of the donations as provided in section 80G. The Finance Act,
2020 has amended sections 10(23C), 11, 12A, 12AA and 80G and inserted section
12AB to completely change the procedure for registration of Trusts. These
provisions are discussed below.

 

7.1. New
procedure for registration:

(i) A new section
12AB is inserted effective from 1st October, 2020 which specifies
the new procedure for registration of Charitable Trusts. Similarly, section
10(23C) is also amended and a similar procedure, as stated in section 12AB, has
been provided. All the existing Charitable Trusts and other Institutions
registered under sections 10(23C) and 12AA will have to apply for fresh
registration under the new provisions of section 10(23C)/12AB within three
months, i.e., on or before 31st December, 2020. The fresh registration will be
granted for a period of five years. Therefore, all Trusts / Institutions
claiming exemption under sections 10(23C)/11 will have to apply for renewal of
registration every five years.

 

(ii) Existing
Charitable Trusts, Educational Institutions, Hospitals, etc., will have to
apply for fresh registration u/s 12AB or 10(23C) within three months, i.e. ,on
or before 31st December, 2020. The designated authority will grant
registration under section 12AB or 10(23C) for a period of five years. This
order shall be passed within three months from the end of the month in which
the application is made. Six months before the expiry of the above period of five
years, the Trusts / Institutions will have to again apply to the designated
authority for renewal of registration which will be granted for a period of
five years. This order has to be passed by the designated authority within six
months from the end of the month when the application for renewal is made.

 

(iii) For new
Charitable Trusts, Educational Institutions, Hospitals, etc., the following
procedure is to be followed:

(a) The
application for registration in the prescribed form should be made to the designated
authority at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year
relevant to the assessment year for which the registration is sought.

(b) In such a
case, the designated authority will grant provisional registration for a period
of three assessment years. The order for provisional registration is to be
passed by the designated authority within one month from the last date of the
month in which the application for registration is made.

(c) Where such
provisional registration is granted for three years, the Trust / Institutions
will have to apply for renewal of registration at least six months prior to
expiry of the period of the provisional registration or within six months of
commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. In this case, the
designated authority has to pass the order within six months from the end of
the month in which the application is made. In such a case, renewal of
registration will be granted for five years.

 

(iv) Section 11(7)
is amended to provide that the registration of the Trust u/s 12A/12AA will
become inoperative from the date on which the Trust is approved u/s
10(23C)/10(46), or on 1st October, 2020, whichever is later. In such
a case the Trust can apply for registration u/s 12AB. For this purpose the application
for registration u/s 12AB will have to be made at least six months prior to the
commencement of the assessment year for which the registration is sought. The
designated authority will have to pass the order within six months from the end
of the month in which the application is made.

 

(v) Where a Trust
or Institution has made modifications in its objects and such modifications do
not conform with the conditions of registration, application should be made to
the designated authority within 30 days from the date of such modifications.

 

(vi) Where the
application for registration, renewal of registration is made as stated above,
the designated authority has power to call for such documents or information
from the Trust / Institutions or make such inquiry in order to satisfy itself
about (a) the genuineness of the Trust / Institutions, and (b) the compliance
with requirements of any other applicable law for achieving the objects of the
Trust or Institution. After satisfying himself, the designated authority will
grant registration for five years or reject the application for registration
after giving a hearing to the trustees. If the application is rejected, the
Trust or Institutions can file an appeal before the ITA Tribunal within 60
days. The designated authority also has power to cancel the registration of any
Trust or Institutions u/s 12AB on the same lines as provided in the existing
section 12AA. All applications for registration pending before the designated
authority as on 1st October, 2020 will be considered as applications
made under the new provisions of section 10(23C)/12AB.

 

7.2. Corpus
donation:

(i) Hitherto, a
corpus donation given by an Educational Institution, Hospital, etc. claiming
exemption u/s 10(23C) to a similar institution claiming exemption under that
section, was not considered as application of income under that section. By
amendment of section 10(23C), effective from 1st April, 2020, a
corpus donation given by such an Institution to a Charitable Trust registered
u/s 12AA also will not be considered as application of income u/s 10(23C).
Similarly, section 11 at present provides that a corpus donation given by a
Charitable Trust to another Charitable Trust registered u/s 12AA is not
application of income. This section is also amended, effective from 1st April,
2020, to provide that a corpus donation given by a Charitable Trust to a
Charitable Trust registered u/s 12AA and to Educational Institutions or a
Hospital registered u/s 10(23C) will not be considered as application of income.

(ii) Section 10(23C) is amended, effective from 1st
April, 2020, to provide that any corpus donation received by an Educational
Institution or a Hospital claiming exemption under that section will not be
considered as its income. At present, this provision exists in section 12 and
Charitable Trusts claiming exemption u/s 11 are getting benefit of this
provision.

 

7.3. Section
80G(5)(vi):

A proviso
to section 80G(5)(vi) is added from 1st October, 2020. At present, a
certificate granted u/s 80G is valid until it is cancelled. Now, this provision
is deleted and a new procedure is introduced. Briefly stated, this procedure is
as under:

(i) Where the
Trust / Institution holds a certificate u/s 80G it will have to make a fresh
application in the prescribed form for a new certificate under that section
within three months, i.e. on or before 31st December, 2020. In such
a case the designated authority will give a fresh certificate which will be
valid for five years. The designated authority has to pass the order within
three months from the last date of the month in which the application is made.

(ii) For renewal
of the above certificate, an application will have to be made at least six
months before the date of expiry of the said certificate. The designated authority
has to pass the order within six months from the last date of the month in
which the application is made.

(iii) In a new
case, the application for certificate u/s 80G will be required to be filed at
least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the
assessment year for which the approval is sought. In such a case, the
designated authority will give provisional approval for three years. The
designated authority has to pass the order within one month from the last date
of the month in which the application is made.

(iv) In a case
where provisional approval is given, application for renewal will have to be
made at least six months prior to the expiry of the period of provisional
approval, or within six months of the commencement of the activities by the
Trust / Institution, whichever is earlier. In this case the designated
authority has to pass the order within six months from the last date of the
month in which the application is made.

 

In cases of
renewal of approval as stated in (ii) and (iv) above, the designated authority
shall call for such documents or information or make such inquiries as he
thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself that the activities of the Trust /
Institution are genuine and that all conditions specified at the time of grant
of registration earlier have been complied with. After it is satisfied it shall
renew the certificate u/s 80G. If it is not so satisfied, it can reject the
application after giving a hearing to the Trustees. The Trust / Institution can
file an appeal to the ITAT within 60 days if the approval u/s 80G is rejected.

 

7.4. Sections
80G(5)(viii) and (ix):
Clauses (viii) and (ix) are added in section 80G(5)
from 1st October, 2020 to provide that every Trust / Institution
holding a section 80G certificate will be required to file with the prescribed
Income-tax Authority particulars of all donors in the prescribed form within
the prescribed time. The Trust / Institution has also to issue a certificate in
the prescribed form to the donor about the donations received by it. The donor
will get deduction u/s 80G only if the Trust / Institution has filed the
required statement with the Income-tax Authority and issued the above
certificate to the donor. In the event of failure to file the above statement
or issue the above certificate to the donor within the prescribed time, the
Trust / Institution will be liable to pay a fee of Rs. 200 per day for the
period of delay under the new section 234G. This fee shall not exceed the
amount in respect of which the failure has occurred. Further, a penalty of Rs.
10,000 (minimum) which may extend to Rs. 1 lakh (maximum) may also be levied
for the failure to file details of donors or issue certificate to donors under
the new section 271K.

 

It may be noted
that the above provisions for filing particulars of donors and issue of
certificate to donors will apply to donations for Scientific Research to an
association or company u/s 35(1)(ii)(iia) or (iii). These sections are also
amended. Provisions for levy of fee or penalty for failure to comply with these
provisions will also apply to the donee company or association which received
donations u/s 35. As stated earlier, the donor will not get deduction for
donations as provided in section 80GG if the donee company or association has
not filed the particulars of donors or not issued the certificate for donation.

 

Further, there is
no provision for filing appeal before the CIT(A) or ITATl against the levy of
fee u/s 234G.

 

7.5. Filing of
Audit Report:
Sections 12A and 10(23C) are amended, effective from 1st
April, 2020 to provide that the audit reports in Forms 10B and 10BB for A.Y.
2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20) and subsequent years shall be filed with the tax
authorities one month before the due date for filing the return of income.

 

7.6 General:
The existing provisions relating to Charitable Trusts and Institutions are
complex. By the above amendments they are made more complex. The effect of
these amendments will be that there will be no ease of doing charities. In
particular, smaller Charitable Trusts will find it difficult to comply with
these procedural requirements. The compliance burden for them will increase. If
the Trusts are not able to comply with the requirement of filing details of
donors with the Tax Authorities or giving certificates to donors, they will
have to pay late filing fees as well as penalty. Again, the requirement of
getting fresh registration for all Trusts and Institutions and renewing the
same every five years under sections 10(23C), 12AB and 80G will be a
time-consuming process. Those dealing with Trust matters know how difficult it
is to get any such certificate or registration from the Income-tax Department.
In order to reduce the compliance burden, the requirements of filing details
about donors should have been confined to information relating to donations
exceeding Rs. 50,000 received from a donor during the year. Trustees of the
Charitable Trusts are rendering honorary service. To put such an onerous
responsibility on such persons is not at all justified. Under the new
provisions the donors will not get deduction for the donations made by them if
the trustees of the Trust do not file the prescribed particulars relating to
donors every year. Therefore, smaller Trusts will find it difficult to get
donations as donors will have apprehension that the donee trust may not file
the required details with the Income-tax Department in time.

 

8. RESIDENTIAL STATUS


The provisions
relating to residential status of an assessee are contained in section 6 of the
Income-tax Act. Significant changes are made by amendments in section 6 so far
as the residential status of an individual is concerned. In brief, these
amendments are as under:

 

(i) An individual
is resident in India in an accounting year if, (a) his stay in India is for 182
days or more in that year, or (b) his stay in India is for 365 days or more in
four years preceding that year and he is in India for a period of 60 days or
more in the accounting year.

(ii) At present,
in the case of a citizen of India or a Person of Indian Origin who is outside
India and comes on a visit to India in the accounting year, the threshold of 60
days stated in (i) above is relaxed to 182 days. By amendment of this provision
from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y. 2020-21), it is provided that in the case of a citizen
of India or a Person of Indian Origin who is outside India having total income
other than the specified foreign income, exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs during the
relevant accounting year, comes on a visit to India for 120 days or more in the
accounting year, will be considered as a resident in India.

(iii) It may be noted that the existing provision
applicable to a citizen of India who leaves India in any accounting year as a
member of the crew of an Indian ship or for the purpose of employment outside
India remains unchanged.

(iv) New sub-section (1A) is added in section 6 to
provide that if a citizen of India, having total income other than the
specified foreign income in the accounting year exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs, shall
be deemed to be a resident for that year, if he is not liable to tax in any
other country or territory by reason of his domicile or residence or any other
criterion of similar nature.

(v) Section 6(6) defines a person who is deemed to
be a ‘Resident but not Ordinary Resident’ (‘R but not OR’). By amendment of
this section, it is provided that the following persons shall also be
considered as ‘R but not OR’.

(a) A citizen of India, or a Person of Indian Origin, having total
income other than specified Foreign income exceeding Rs.15 lakhs during the
accounting year and who has been in India for a period of 120 days or more but
less than 182 days in that year.

(b) A citizen of India, who is deemed to be a resident in India, as
stated in (iv) above, will be considered as ‘R but not OR’.

(vi) For the above purpose the ‘specified foreign
income’ is defined to mean income which accrues or arises outside India, except
income derived from a business controlled in India or a profession set up in
India.

(vii) It may be
noted that under the Income-tax Act, an ‘R and OR’ is liable to pay tax on his
world income and a non-resident or an ‘R but not OR’ has to pay tax on income
accruing, arising or received in India. Therefore, individuals who are citizens
of India or Persons of Indian Origin will have to be careful about their stay
in India and abroad and determine their residential status on the basis of this
amended law.

 

9. SALARY INCOME


(i) At present, the contribution by an employer (a)
to the account of an employee in a recognised Provident Fund exceeding 12% of
the salary, (b) Contribution to superannuation fund in excess of Rs. 1,50,000,
and (c) contribution in National Pension Scheme is fully taxable in the hands
of an employee. However, deduction provided in section 80CCD(2) can be claimed
by the employee. There is no combined upper limit for the purpose of deduction
of amount of contribution made by the employer.

(ii) Section 17(2) has been amended, effective from
A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y. 2020-21), to provide that the aggregate contribution made by
the employer to the account of the employee by way of PF, superannuation fund,
NPS exceeding Rs. 7,50,000 in an accounting year will be taxable as perquisite
in the hands of the employee. Further, any annual accretion by way of interest,
dividend or any other amount of similar nature during the year to the balance
at the credit of the fund or scheme, will be treated as perquisite to the
extent it relates to the employer’s taxable contribution. The amount of such
perquisite will be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed by the Rules.

 

10. BUSINESS INCOME


10.1 Section
35:
Expenditure on scientific research

Section 35(1)
provides for weighted deduction for expenditure on Scientific Research by a
Research Association, University, College or other Institution or a Specified
Company (herein referred to as Research Bodies). The existing section provides
that these Research Bodies have to obtain approval of the prescribed authority.
Now this section is amended, effective from 1st October, 2020, to
provide as under:

(i) The approval
granted to such Research Bodies on or before 1st October, 2020 shall
stand withdrawn unless a fresh application for approval in the prescribed form
is made to the prescribed authority within three months, i.e., on or before 31st
December, 2020. The notification issued by the prescribed authority shall be
valid for five consecutive assessment years beginning from A.Y. 2021-22.

(ii) It is also
stated that the Notification issued by the Central Government in respect of the
Research Bodies after 31st December, 2020 shall, at any one time,
have effect for such assessment years not exceeding five assessment years as
may be specified in the Notification.

(iii) The
amendment in the section also provides that the above Research Bodies shall be
entitled to the deduction under the section only if the following conditions
are satisfied:

 

(a) They have to
prepare such statement about donations for such period as may be prescribed and
deliver these to the specified Income-tax Authority.

(b) They should
furnish to the donor a certificate specifying the amount of the donation in the
prescribed form.

(iv) It may be noted that if the statement in the
prescribed form is not filed in time or the certificate to the donor is not
given in time as stated above, the Research Body will be liable to pay a fine
of Rs. 200 per day of default u/s 234G. Further, penalty of Rs. 10,000
(minimum) which may extend to Rs. 1 lakh (maximum) may also be levied u/s 271K.

(v) The donor will not get deduction for the
donation if the above statement is not filed and the certificate in the
prescribed form is not issued by the Research Body.

 

10.2 Section
35AD:
At present, section 35AD(1) provides for 100% deduction of Capital
Expenditure (other than expenditure on Land, Goodwill and Financial Assets)
incurred by any specified business. Further, section 35AD(4) provides that no
deduction is allowable under any other section in respect of which 100%
deduction is allowed u/s 35AD(1).

 

The section is now
amended, effective from A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20), giving option to the
assessee either to claim deduction under the section or not do so. If such
option is exercised and the assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 35AD(1),
deductions u/s 32 can be claimed.

 

10.3 Section
43CA:
This section provides that if the consideration for transfer of land
/ building, which is held as stock-in-trade, is less than 105% of the stamp
duty valuation, the stamp duty valuation (SDV) will be deemed to be the
consideration. This provision is now amended, effective from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y.
2020-21), to provide that if the consideration is less than 110% of the SDV,
then the SDV shall be deemed to be the consideration. Thus, further concession
of 5% is given in this transaction.

 

10.4 Section
72AA:
At present, this section deals with carry-forward and set-off of
accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation on amalgamation of Banks. This
section is amended, effective from A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20). By this
amendment, the benefit of carry-forward and set-off losses and unabsorbed
losses which was given on amalgamation of Banks has been extended to the
following entities.

(a) Amalgamation of one or more Banks with another
Bank under a scheme framed by the Central Government under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or the similar
Act of 1980.

(b) Amalgamation of one or more Government
companies with another Government company under a scheme sanctioned by the
Central Government under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act,
1972.

 

11. CAPITAL GAINS


11.1 Sections
49 and 2(42A):
Section 49 provides for cost of acquisition for capital
assets which became the property of the assessee under specified circumstances.
Further, section 2(42A) provides for the period of holding of a capital asset
by an assessee for being considered as a short-term capital asset. These two
sections are amended, effective from A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20). Briefly
stated, these amendments are as under:

(a) In the event
of downgrade in credit rating of debt and money market instruments in M.F.
schemes, SEBI has permitted the Asset Management Companies an option to
segregate the portfolio of such Schemes. In the event of such segregation, all
existing investors are allotted equal number of units in the segregated
portfolio held in the main portfolio. It is now provided that in determining
the period of holding of such segregated portfolio, the period for which the
original units in the main portfolio were held will be included.

(b) Further, the
cost of acquisition of such units in the segregated folio shall be the cost of
acquisition of the units held by the assessee in the total portfolio in
proportion to the NAV of the asset transferred to the segregated portfolio out
of the NAV of the total portfolio before the date of segregation. The cost of
acquisition of the original units in the main portfolio will be suitably
reduced by the amount derived as cost of units in the segregated portfolio.
These provisions are similar to those applicable for allocation of cost of
shares on demerger of a company.

 

11.2 Sections
50C and 56(2)(X):
Section 50C provides that if the consideration for
transfer of a capital asset (land or building or both) is less than 105% of the
Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV), the SDV will be deemed to be the consideration.
This provision is now amended, effective from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y. 2020-21) to
provide that if the consideration is less than 110% of the SDV, the SDV will be
deemed to be the consideration. Thus, further concession of 5% is given for
such transactions.

 

On the same basis,
section 56(2)(X) is also amended. Under this section if land / building is
received by an assessee from a non-relative for a consideration which is less
than 105% of the SDV, the difference between the SDV and consideration is
treated as income from other sources. This section is also amended on the same
line as section 50C and further concession of 5% is given for such a
transaction.

 

11.3 Section
55:
At present, this section provides that if the capital asset became the
property of the assessee before 1st April, 2001, the assessee has
the option to adopt the fair market value of the asset transferred as on 1st
April, 2001 for its cost of acquisition. This section is now amended, effective
from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y. 2020-21), to provide that if the capital asset is land
/ building, the fair market value on 1st April, 2001 which the
assessee wants to adopt, shall not be more than the SDV on 1st
April, 2001.

 

12. FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME


12.1 Section
139(1):
At present, a person (including a company) who is required to get
his accounts audited is required to file his return of income on or before 30th
September every year. By amendment of this section from A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y.
2019-20), such a person will have to file his return of income on or before 31st
October of the year. Further, at present a working partner of a firm or LLP
which is required to get its accounts audited is covered by this provision.
Now, any partner, including a working partner of a firm or LLP which is
required to get its accounts audited can file his return of income on or before
31st October of that year. It may be noted that for A.Y. 2020-21,
the due date for filing return of income is extended up to 30th
November, 2020 under CBDT Notification No. 35/2020 dated 24th June,
2020.

 

12.2 Ordinance
dated 31st March, 2020:
By Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation
of certain Provisions) Ordinance dated 31st March, 2020 and CBDT
order u/s 119 dated 31st March, 2020 and CBDT Notification dated 24th
June, 2020 extends the time limit for filing return of income for A.Y. 2019-20
(F.Y. 2018-19) u/s 139(4) and revised return u/s 139(5), has been extended up
to 30th September, 2020. This concession is due to Covid-19 and
consequential lockdown from 25th March, 2020 onwards in the country.

 

12.3 Section
140:
Under this section, at present the return of income has to be signed
in the case of a company by a Managing Director or Director and in the case of
an LLP by a Designated Partner or Partner. By amendment of this section from
A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20), it is provided that in such cases the return of
income can be signed by such person as may be prescribed by the Rules.

 

 

 

13. TAX AUDIT REPORTS


13.1 Section 44AB: By amendment of this section, effective from
A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20), it is provided that in the case of a person
carrying on business if the aggregate of all amounts received including for
sales, turnover or gross receipts and the aggregate amount of all payments
(including expenditure incurred) in cash during the accounting year does not
exceed 5% of the sales, turnover or gross receipts and 5% of the total
payments, Tax Audit u/s 44AB will be required only if the sales, turnover or
gross receipts exceed Rs. 5 crores in that accounting year. It may be noted
that this provision will apply to a company, firm, LLP, individual, AOP, HUF,
etc.

 

In other cases,
the existing turnover limit of Rs. 1 crore will apply. The above concession is
not applicable in the case of a person carrying on profession where the limit
with reference to gross receipts is Rs. 50 lakhs.

 

13.2 From the
wording of the amendment in section 44AB it appears that the limit of 5% of
cash receipts and payments applies with reference to all receipts from sales,
turnover or gross receipts, receipts from debtors, receipts from capital
account transactions, receipts of interest on loans and deposits, etc., and to
all payments for expenses for business or other purposes, payments to
creditors, payments of taxes, repayment of loans, payments for capital account
transactions, payments relating to transactions other than business, etc. In
other words, the above concession is not applicable if 5% or more of total
receipts as well as 5% or more of total payments are in cash.

 

13.3 At present,
the Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB is required to be filed along with the return of
income. This provision is now amended from the A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20) to
provide that the Tax Audit Report should be filed with the tax authorities one
month before the due date for filing the return of income. Therefore, if the
due date for filing the return of income is 31st October, then the
Tax Audit Report should be filed on or before 30th September of that
year. In the case where Transfer Pricing Audit Report is to be obtained, the
due date for filing the return of income remains 30th November. In
such cases, the Audit Report u/s 92F will have to be filed on or before 31st
October.

 

13.4 It may be
noted that there are other sections under the Income-tax Act which require
different types of audit reports in the prescribed forms to be filed with the
return of income. These sections relate to charitable trusts, transfer pricing,
book profits, etc. Therefore, sections 10(23C), 10A, 12A, 32AB, 33AB, 33ABA,
35D, 35E, 44DA, 50B, 80-IA, 80-IB, 80JJAA, 92F, 115JB, 115JC and 155VW are
suitably amended from A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20). In all these cases, the Tax
Audit Report will be required to be filed one month before the due date for
filing the Income-tax return of income.

 

13.5 In the
Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2020, it is stated
that to enable pre-filing of returns in case of the assessee having income from
business or profession, it is required that the Tax Audit Report may be
furnished by the said assessee at least one month prior to the date of filing
of the return of income. All the above sections are amended for this purpose
from A.Y. 2020-21.

 

14. APPEALS


14.1 Section
250:
At present, an appeal before the CIT(A) is to be filed through
electronic mode. Thereafter, the assessee or his counsel has to attend before
the CIT(A) and argue the matter. In order to reduce human interface from the
system, section 250 has been amended from 1st April, 2020 to provide
for a new E-appeal Scheme on lines similar to the E-assessment Scheme. This amendment
is as under:

(i) The Central
Government is given power to notify an E-appeal Scheme for disposal of appeal
so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability.

(ii) Interface
between CIT(A) and the appellant in the course of appellate proceedings will be
eliminated to the extent technologically feasible.

(iii) Utilisation
of resources through economies of scale and functional specialisation will be
optimised.

(iv) An appellate system with dynamic jurisdiction
in which an appeal shall be disposed of by one or more CIT(A)s will be
introduced.

 

Further, the
Central Government may direct for exception, modification and adaptation as may
be specified in the Notification. The above directions are to be issued before
31st March, 2022.

 

14.2 Section
254:
Under this section, the ITAT has been given power to grant stay of
disputed demand on an application filed by the assessee. At present, the
Tribunal is not required to impose any condition for deposit of any amount out
of the disputed demand while granting such stay.

 

This section is
amended from 1st April, 2020 to provide that the ITAT can pass a
stay order subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit at least
20% of the disputed tax, interest, fee, penalty, etc., or furnish security of
equal amount of such disputed tax.

 

Further, ITAT can
grant extension of stay only if the assessee has complied with the condition of
depositing the amount of disputed tax or furnishing of security for the amount
as stated above. The ITAT has to decide the appeal, where stay of demand is
granted, within 365 days of granting of the stay. Thus, the stay of demand
granted by the Tribunal cannot exceed 365 days.

 

15. PENALTIES


15.1 Section
271AAD:
This is a new section inserted in the Act which will have
far-reaching implications. This section will take effect from 1st
April, 2020. It provides that if, during any proceedings under the Act, either
a false entry or an omission of an entry, which is relevant for computation of
total income of such person is found in the books of accounts maintained by any
person with a view to evade tax liability, the A.O. can levy penalty of 100% of
the aggregate amount of such entry or omission of entry. Since this is a penal
provision, it is possible to take the view that this provision will apply to
any false entry or omission of entry found in the books for the accounting year
2020-21 and onwards.

 

The term ’false
entry’ for this purpose is defined in the Explanation to the section. It
includes use or intention to use:

(i)  Forged or falsified documents such as false
invoice or, in general, a false piece of documentary evidence, or

(ii) Invoice in respect of supply or receipt of goods
or services or both issued by the person or any other person without actual
supply or receipt of such goods or services or both, or

(iii) Invoice in respect of supply or receipt of
goods or services or both to or from a person who does not exist.

 

15.2 Section
271K:
This is a new section which comes into force on 1st June,
2020. Under this section the A.O. is given power to levy penalty of Rs. 10,000
(minimum) which may extend to Rs. 1 lakh (maximum) for non-compliance of
requirements to (i) file required statements in time, or (ii) furnish
certificate to the donors as required under sections 35(1)(ii)(iia), or (iii),
35(1A)(ii), 80G(5)(viii) or (ix).

 

15.3 Section
274:
This section has been amended from 1st April, 2020 to
provide for a scheme for conducting penalty proceedings on lines similar to the
E-assessment Scheme. By this amendment, the Central Government is authorised to
notify a scheme for the purpose of imposing penalty so as to impart greater
efficiency, transparency and accountability. This scheme will provide for:

(i) Elimination of
interface between the A.O. and the assessee in the course of proceedings to the
extent technologically feasible,

(ii) Optimisation
of utilisation of resources through economies of scale and functional
specialisation,

(iii) Introduction
of mechanism of imposing penalty with dynamic jurisdiction in which penalty
shall be imposed by one or more Income-tax authorities.

 

Further, the
Central Government is also empowered to issue Notification directing that any
of the provisions of the Act relating to jurisdiction and procedure for
imposing penalty shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions,
modifications or adaptations as may be specified in the Notification. Such
Notification can be issued on or before 31st March, 2022.

 

16. OTHER AMENDMENTS


16.1 Section
115UA:
This section deals with taxation of income of unit holders of
Business Trust. Section 115UA(3) is amended from A.Y. 2021-22 (F.Y. 2020-21) to
provide that the distributed income in the nature of interest, dividends and
rent shall be deemed to be income of the unit holder and shall be charged to
tax. Consequential amendments are made in section 194LBA to provide for
deduction of tax at source on such distributed income.

 

16.2 Section
133A:
At present, the power to survey u/s 133A(1) can be exercised with the
approval of Joint Commissioner or Joint Director. This section is amended from
1st April, 2020 and it is provided as under:

(i) Where the
information is received from the authority to be prescribed by the Rules, the
survey shall not be undertaken by Assistant Director, Deputy Director,
Assessing Officer, T.R.O. or an Inspector without obtaining approval of the
Joint Commissioner or Joint Director.

(ii) In any other
case, no survey can be conducted by the Joint Director, Joint Commissioner,
Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Assessing Officer, T.R.O. or Inspector
without the approval of the Director or Commissioner of Income-tax.

 

16.3 Section
143:
Sections 143(3A) and (3B) deal with the E-Assessment Scheme for
assessment u/s 143(3). By amendment of this section from 1st April,
2020 it is now provided that the E-Assessment Scheme shall also apply to ex
parte
assessment u/s 144. Further, the time limit for issue of any
notification giving direction that any of the provisions of the Income-tax Act
relating to assessment of total income or loss shall not apply or shall apply
with such exceptions, modifications or adaptations as may be specified, has
been extended from 31st March, 2020 to 31st March, 2022.

 

16.4 Section
144C:
This section deals with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). At
present, the provision for sending draft assessment order by the A.O. to the
assessee applied only if the A.O. proposed variation in the income or loss
returned by the assessee. By amendment of this provision from 1st
April, 2020 it is now provided that the A.O. will have to send the draft
assessment order to the assessee even if the A.O. proposes to make any
variation which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. Further, at
present the provisions of this section apply in the case of (i) an assessee in
whose case transfer pricing adjustments are proposed by an order passed by
T.P.O. and (ii) a foreign company. With effect from 1st April, 2020,
this section will also apply in cases of all non-residents.

 

16.5 Section
234G:
This is a new section inserted in the Income-tax Act from 1st
June, 2020. It provides for levy of a fee for failure under sections (a)
35(1)(ii), (iia) or (iii), (b) 35(1A)(ii), (c) 80G(5)(viii), and (d) 80G(5)(ix)
to file statements or issue certificates to donors under these sections. This
fee is Rs. 200 per day during which the failure continues. However, such fine
shall not exceed the amount in respect of which the above failure has occurred.
This fee is payable before filing the statement or issuing the certificate
required under the above sections after the due date. As stated earlier, these
statements relate to particulars of donors to be filed with the tax authorities
and the certificates to be issued to donors. It may be noted that no appeal is
provided against the levy of this fee if the delay in filing statements or
issue of certificates is for reasonable cause.

 

16.6 Sections
203AA and 285BB:
Section 203AA required the Income-tax authority to prepare
and deliver to the assessee a statement in Form 26AS giving details of TDS, TCS
and taxes paid. This section is deleted from 1st June, 2020 and a
new section 285BB is inserted in the Act from the said date. This new section
provides that the prescribed Income-tax authority shall upload in the
registered account of the assessee an Annual Information Statement in the
prescribed form and within the prescribed time. This statement will include
information about taxes paid, TDS, TCS, sale / purchase transactions of
immovable properties, share transactions, etc., which are reported to the tax
authorities under various provisions.

 

16.7 Section
288:
This section gives a list of persons who can appear before the
Income-tax authorities and Appellate Authorities as authorised representatives.
This section is amended from 1st April, 2020 to authorise CBDT to
prescribe, by Rules, any other person who can appear as an authorised
representative.

 

17. TAXPAYER’S CHARTER


At present there is no provision under the Income-tax Act providing for
declaration of a Taxpayer’s Charter. A new section 119A has been inserted in
the Act from 1st April, 2020 which provides that CBDT shall adopt
and declare a Taxpayer’s Charter and issue such orders, instructions, directions
and guidelines to the Income-tax Authorities for administration of such
Charter. This Charter may explain the Rights and Duties of taxpayers. Let us
hope that the Income-tax Authorities respect the rights of taxpayers in the
true spirit in which the Charter is to be issued by CBDT.

 

18. ‘VIVAD SE VISHWAS’ SCHEME


Parliament passed
‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020’ in March, 2020. Certain
amendments are made in the Act by ‘The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of
Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020’ promulgated by the President on 31st
March, 2020. This Scheme has been introduced with a view to reduce litigation
in Direct Tax cases pending before various appellate authorities. The assessees
can avail the benefit of this Scheme by paying the disputed tax and getting
waiver of penalty, interest and late filing fee.

 

19. TO SUM UP


(i) From the above
analysis of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2020, the existing complex
Income-tax Act has been made more complex. Many provisions are added in the Act
which have increased the compliance burden of the taxpayers. The assessees and
their tax advisers will have to be more vigilant to ensure compliance with
these provisions and to meet the time limits provided for their compliance.

 

(ii) In last year’s
Budget, rates of Income-tax for certain domestic companies were reduced on the
condition that they forgo certain deductions and tax incentives. The scope of
deductions to be forgone has been widened and such companies will not be able
to claim deductions under all sections of chapter VIA, excluding sections
80JJAA and 80M. Similar benefit is now given to Individuals, HUFs and
Co-operative Societies who will pay lower tax if they opt to forgo various
deductions and tax incentives. Considering the list of deductions and
incentives to be forgone, it is possible that very few assessees will exercise
the option for lower rate of tax.

 

(iii) Dividend
Distribution Tax, hitherto levied on companies for over two decades, has now
been removed. Now, dividend on shares and income distribution on units of
Mutual Funds will be taxed in the hands of the share / unit holders. This is
one of the major steps taken in this Budget. This change will bring many
persons within the tax net as the exemption enjoyed by them so far has been
withdrawn.

 

(iv) By several
amendments made in the provisions relating to exemption granted to Charitable
Trusts, Educational Institutions and Hospitals, the compliance burden of such
institutions will increase. These amendments made in the Income-tax Act are
unfair.
When the Government is propagating for ease of doing business and ease of
living, it has made the life of Trustees of such Trusts more difficult. With
these new provisions, there will no ease of doing charities. In particular,
these provisions will make the life of Trustees of small trusts difficult. The
provisions for renewing registration of trusts every five years, renewing
section 80G
certificates every five years, filing particulars of donors every year and
issuing certificates to donors are time-consuming. Further, any delay in
compliance with these provisions will invite late filing fees and penalty. If
the Government wanted to keep track of the activities of such trusts, these
provisions could have been made applicable to Trusts having net worth exceeding
Rs. 5 crores or those who receive donations of more than Rs. 1 crore every
year.

 

(v) Several
amendments are made in the provisions relating to Tax Deduction and Tax
Collection at Source. Now, tax is required to be collected from persons
remitting foreign exchange under the LRS Scheme. The scope of the provisions
for TDS / TCS is now widened and, in some cases, tax will be collected at
source even on items which do not constitute income of the deductee.

 

(vi) Amendments
relating to residential status will bring some of the persons who could avoid
tax by planning their visits to India every year under the tax net. Now, many
persons will find it difficult to avoid tax liability in India.

 

(vii) The new
section 271AAD providing for 100% penalty for an alleged false entry or
omission of any entry is a harsh provision. This will raise many issues of
interpretation. This will create hardship to the assessees where arbitrary
addition is made by the tax authorities and penalties are levied under this
section. An incidental question arises whether this provision is retrospective
or applies to accounting entries relating to transactions entered into on or
after 1st April, 2020.

 

(viii) One welcome feature of this year’s Budget is statutory
recognition of a ‘Taxpayer’s Charter”. CBDT has to prescribe the Rules for this
Charter which will declare the rights and duties of a taxpayer. Let us hope
that CBDT provides a comprehensive document when this Chapter is announced and
that the Income-tax Authorities respect the rights of taxpayers in the letter
and spirit of this document.

 

(ix) Another
welcome feature of this year’s Budget is the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad
Se Vishwas
Act. The objective of this Act is to reduce Direct Tax
litigation pending before the Appellate Authorities. Considering the liberal
provisions of this Act, it is possible that many assessees will avail the
benefit of this scheme for settlement of many pending tax disputes.

 

(x) This year’s
Finance Bill was introduced in both the Houses of Parliament on 1st
February, 2020. The various provisions of the Bill were not discussed in Parliament.
More than 125 amendments to the original Bill were moved by the Finance
Minister on 23rd March, 2020 and the Bill with the amendments was
passed by both Houses of the Parliament without any
discussion due to Covid-2019 which affected India and the entire world. Some of
the harsh provisions in the Finance Act, 2020, as pointed out above, have not
undergone legislative scrutiny. It is possible that these harsh provisions are
removed or suitably modified in the days to come.

 

(Like many
committed authors of the BCA Journal, Shri P.N. Shah has been authoring
an article on the Finance Act for as long as I can remember. This year due to
Covid-19 and non-availability of staff, we have received it much later than we
would have liked. The article summarises key direct tax provisions [except
co-operative societies, rate reduction of specified companies, taxation of
non-residents and provisions relating to DTAA and transfer pricing which we
couldn’t carry due to space constraints] and serves as a summary analysis of
the key changes – Editor)