B&B Tax

  CIRCULAR NO. 20/2023 dated 28.12.2023 CBDT issued guidelines replying following question: “ 3. Guidelines 3.1 Who should deduct tax at source where there are multiple e-commerce operators (ECO) involved in a transaction? 3.2 E-commerce operators may be levying convenience fees or charging commission for each transaction and seller might levy logistics & delivery fees for the transaction. Payments may also be made to the platform or network (e.g. ONDC) provider for facilitating the transaction. Would these form part of "gross amount" for the purposes of TDS under  section 194-O  of the Act? 3.3 How will GST, various state levies and taxes other than GST such as VAT/ Sales tax/ Excise duty / CST be treated when calculating gross amount of sales of goods or provision of services as per the provisions of  section 194-O  of the Act? 3.4 How will adjustment for purchase-returns take place? 3.5 How will discounts given by seller as an e-commerce parti...

IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899 [2023 INSC 1066] dated 13.12.2023   “223. We agree with these observations in Career Institute Educational Society (supra). Vidya Drolia (supra) did not deal with the issue of the effect of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument on the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the reasoning in Vidya Drolia (supra) does not lead to the conclusion that Garware Wall Ropes (supra) was rightly 176 2023 SCC OnLine SC 586 decided either on the aspect of examination and impounding of unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument with respect to arbitration proceedings, or the validity of on arbitration agreement contained in an unstamped or insufficiently stamped underlying contract. Conclusions 224. The conclusions reached in this judgment are summarised below: a. Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are...

Shah Originals v. CIT [2023 INSC 1014] dated 21.11.2023 “The policy behind the deductions of profits from the business of exports is to encourage and incentivise export trade. Through Section 80HHC, the Parliament restricted the deduction of profit from the assessee's export of goods/merchandise. The interpretation now suggested by the assessee would add one more source to the sources stated in Section 80 HHC of the Act. Such a course is impermissible. The strict interpretation is in line with a few relative words, namely, manufacturer, exporter, purchaser of goods, etc. adverted to in Section 80 HHC of the Act. From the requirements of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 80 HHC, it can be held that the deduction is intended and restricted only to profits of the business of export of goods and merchandise outside India by the assessee. Therefore, including other income as an eligible deduction would be counter-productive to the scope, purpose, and object of Section 80 HHC of the Ac...

“We find that in the later statements, Shri S.K. Gupta had categorically stated that he had rendered services to the assessee. He also mentioned that the name of the assessee was not referred to as one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation bills in his earlier statement. He had categorically stated that he had rendered service to the assessee and that the assessee had not obtained any bogus accommodation bills from him. Assessing officer had dis-believed the affidavit as well as the subsequent statement of Shri S.K. Gupta without any justifiable and cogent reason. That apart when the revenue had relied upon the retracted statement of Shri S.K. Gupta, it ought to have provided an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine Shri S.K. Gupta which was however denied. Thus, revenue was not justified in disallowing the claim of professional expenses of the assessee on account of payment to Shri S.K. Gupta and his group of companies. 52. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the H...

CIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Limited [2023 INSC 1053] dated 06.12.2023   Questions/issues 1.     Whether the assessee was inflated the profits of eligible business of captive power generation plants by adopting an excessive sale rate per unit for power supply to the assessees own industrial units for captive consumption as opposed to the rate per unit at which power was supplied by the assessees to the power distributing companies i.e. the State Electricity Boards which is contended to be the market rate? 2.    2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Tribunal that compliance to statutory provisions of exercising option to adopt WDV method in place of straight line method prescribed under the statutory provision on the assets used for power generation can be waved in the case of the assessee? Holding for first question “Under the statutory regime in place, the assessee ...