Posts

Showing posts from November, 2022

Claims for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not allowable if claims were made after expiry of the period of limitation of one year from the relevant date as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Court has held that Subordinate legislation cannot be interpreted in such a manner that parent statute may become otiose or nugatory.

"13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant is concerned, on considering the relevant provisions of Central Excise Act, namely, Sections 11A & 11B of the Act, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act with respect to claim for rebate of duty. The question involved in the Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra) was with respect to recovery of Modvat wrongly availed. In that case, it was the manufacturer who claimed the benefit under Section 11A of the Act by stating that no recovery could be made beyond the period of one year limitation under Section 11A of the Act. This Court negated that claim by observing that recovery contemplated under Section11A is different and distinct from the Modvat wrongly availed. For reaching that conclusion, thi...

After the insertion of Section 45(4), distribution/credit of capital assets to the partners’ account after revaluation of assets is deemed transfer of capital assets and assessable as capital gains in the hands of the firm

" 7.5 In the present case, the assets of the partnership firm were revalued to increase the value by an amount of Rs. 17.34 crores on 01.01.1993 (relevant to A.Y. 1993-1994) and the revalued amount was credited to the accounts of the partners in their profit-sharing ratio and the credit of the assets’ revaluation amount to the capital accounts of the partners can be said to be in effect distribution of the assets valued at Rs. 17.34 crores to the partners and that during the years, some new partners came to be inducted by introduction of small amounts of capital ranging between Rs. 2.5 to 4.5 lakhs and the said newly inducted partners had huge credits to their capital accounts immediately after joining the partnership, which amount was available to the partners for withdrawal and in fact some of the partners withdrew the amount credited in their capital accounts. Therefore, the assets so revalued and the credit into the capital accounts of the respective partners can be said to be...

The assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the IT Act on manufacturing of polyurethane foam which falls under the Eleventh Schedule irrespective of the fact that assessee sale automobile seats/car seats made of polyurethane foam. Court was of the view that assessee is not undertaking any further process to make the end product except supplying/selling the polyurethane foam in different sizes/designs/shapes.

"By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has specifically observed and held that what is manufactured and sold by the assessee is polyurethane foam which is manufactured by injecting two chemicals, namely, Polyol and Isocyanate and the polyurethane foam which is manufactured by the assessee is used as ingredient for manufacture of automobile seats. The assessee is manufacturing polyurethane foam and supplying the same in different sizes/designs to the assembly operator, which ultimately is being used for car seats. The assessee is not undertaking any further process for end product, namely, car seats. The polyurethane foam which is supplied in different designs/sizes is being used as ingredient by others, namely, assembly operators for the car seats. Merely because the assessee is using the chemicals and ultimately what is manufactured is polyurethane foam and the same is used by assembly operators after the process of moulding as car seats, it cannot be said that the e...

No penalty imposable u/s 271C of the IT Act in view of Contradictory decisions of High Courts and the arguable and nascent legal issue which required resolution by Supreme Court and these constitute reasonable cause for not deducting TDS by the air carriers at the relevant period.

"We find some parallels between the facts of the present case and the situation in Eli Lilly & Co. (Supra). The liability of an airline to deduct TDS on Supplementary Commission had admittedly not been adjudicated upon by this Court when the controversy first arose in AY 2001­02. While learned Counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Kumar, has notified us that various airlines were deducting TDS under Section 194H at that time, this does not necessarily mean that the position of law was settled. Rather, it appears to us that while one set of air carriers acted under the assumption that the Supplementary Commission would come within the ambit of the provisions of the IT Act, another set held the opposite view. The Assessees before us belong to the latter category. Furthermore, as we have highlighted earlier, there were contradictory pronouncements by different High Courts in the ensuing years which clearly highlights the genuine and bona fide legal conundrum that...

Airlines are duty bound to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the IT Act on the Supplementary Commission amounts earned and retain by the travel agent because the factum of the exact source of the payment would be of no consequence to the requirement of deducting TDS. The practicality and feasibility of making the deductions has no consequence for the purpose of Section 194H and retaining supplementary commission by travel agent will be considered as indirect payment to the travel agent.

"Our conclusion in terms of the application of Section 194H of the IT Act to the Supplementary Commission amounts earned by the travel agent is unequivocally in favour of the Revenue. Section 194H is to be read with Section 182 of the Contract Act. If a relationship between two parties as culled out from their intentions as manifested in the terms of the contract between them indicate the existence of a principal­agent relationship as defined under Section 182 of the Contract Act, then the definition of “Commission” under Section 194H of the IT Act stands attracted and the requirement to deduct TDS arises. The realities of how the airline industry functioned during the period in question bolsters our conclusion that it was practical and feasible for the Assessees to utilize the information provided by the BSP and the payment machinery employed by the IATA to make a consolidated deduction of TDS from the Supplementary Commission ...

Case Law (SC) -- The moment employees undertake travel with a foreign leg, it is not a travel within India and exemption of LTC u/s 10(5) of the Act will be lost and the employer is under statutory obligation to deduct TDS on such LTC claim.

"There was no intention of legislature to allow the employees to travel abroad in the garb of LTC available by virtue of Section 10(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has a valid objection (apart from other objections which are clearly violative of the Statute), that the intention and purpose of the scheme is also violated in the garb of tour within India, foreign travel is being availed.  16 The aforementioned order passed by the CIT(A) has rightly held that the obligation of deducting tax is distinct from payment of tax. The appellant cannot claim ignorance about the travel plans of its employees as during settlement of LTC Bills the complete facts are available before the assessee about the details of their employees’ travels. Therefore, it cannot be a case of bonafide mistake, as all the relevant facts were before the Assessee employer and he was therefore fully in a position to calculate the ‘estimated income’ of its employees. The contention of Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, lea...

Case Law (SC) -- Supreme Court exercising of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India allowed employees drawing salary more than Rs. 15000/- per month to avail pension coverage by exercising option under paragraph 11(4) of the PF scheme for a further period of four months from date of decision. So check your eligibility and avail benefit within 4 months.

"We are of the view that the time limit for coverage beyond the ceiling amount should be extended by a further period of four months from today to enable all the members of the pension fund drawing more than Rs.6500/¬ to exercise the joint option as contemplated in paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme (post 2014 amendment). Once such joint option is exercised, the transfer of fund from the provident fund corpus to the pension fund shall be effected in terms of the scheme. 44. We accordingly hold and direct:¬ (i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub¬paragraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the...

While paying the TDS on old TIN/NSDL website, if your bank is not appearing in the list then go to e-Pay Tax on new Income Tax portal (See screenshot)

Image
 

CBDT issued detailed Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2022.

Read Circular number  23/2022 dated 03.11.2022

Case Law (SC) -- A bribe giver will be held liable for the offence under the PML Act.

"15. Said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any 8 process or activity connected with proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering (emphasis added by us).  16. It is true that so long as the amount is in the hands of a bribe giver, and till it does not get impressed with the requisite intent and is actually handed over as a bribe, it would definitely be untainted money. If the money is handed over without such intent, it would be a mere entrustment. If it is thereafter appropriated by the public servant, the offence would be of misappropriation or species thereof but certainly not of bribe. The crucial part therefore is the requisite intent to hand over the amount as bribe and normally such intent must necessarily be antecedent or prior to the moment the amount is handed over. Thus, the requisite intent would always be at the co...

CBDT invited inputs on the draft Common ITR by merging all the existing returns of income except ITR-7 which may be sent electronically to the email address dirtpl4@nic.in with a copy to dirtpl1@nic.in by 15th December 2022..

 The scheme of the proposed common ITR is as follows:  (a) Basic information (comprising parts A to E), Schedule for computation of total income (Schedule TI), Schedule for computation of tax (schedule TTI), Details of bank accounts, and a schedule for the tax payments (schedule TXP) is applicable for all the taxpayers.  (b) The ITR is customized for the taxpayers with applicable schedules based on certain questions answered by the taxpayers (wizard questions).  (c) The questions have been designed in such a manner and order that if the answer to any question is ‘no’, the other questions linked to this question will not be shown to him.  (d) Instructions have been added to assist the filing of the return containing the directions regarding the applicable schedules.  (e) The proposed ITR has been designed in such a manner that each row contains one distinct value only. This will simplify the return filing process.  (f) The utility for the ITR will be ro...

CBDT allowed one more opportunity to file Form 10A if not filed earlier (on or before 31.03.2022) by condoning delay upto 25.11.2022.

CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, condones the delay upto 25.11.2022 in filing Form No.10A under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (l) of section 12A Iclause (i) of first proviso to clause (23C) of section 101 clause (i) of first proviso to sub-section 5 of section 80G I fifth proviso to sub-section 1 of section 35 of the Act, which was required to be made electronically on or before 31.03.2022. CBDT Circular No.22/2022 dated 01.11.2022