2014-TIOL-1476- HC-DEL-IT
M/s Swarovski India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
Income Tax – Writ - Sections 147 & 148.
Keywords: reassessment, reopening of assessment, escapement of income, failure to disclose full and true particulars of income, notice
Whether escapement of income by itself is sufficient for reopening the assessment in a case covered by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act - Whether it could be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full and true particulars where in the course of the original assessment proceedings the assessee, in response to a notice under Section 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act submitted information on the point raised by the Assessing Officer with regard to the business activity of the assessee and even pursuant to the re-assessment notice the facts were clearly revealed before the Assessing Officer.- Assessee's writ petition allowed : DELHI HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1475- HC-MAD-IT
CIT Vs M/s Prabhu Spinning Mills (P) Ltd
Income Tax – Sections 31 & 37
Keywords - modernisation of machinery - reassessment
Whether before determining the nature of expenditure incurred towards modernization and replacement of machinery , the impact of such replaced materials on the productivity has to be assessed. - Matter remanded : MADRAS HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1474- HC-AHM-IT
DCIT Vs M/s Ravi Builders
Income Tax - Sections 69C, 132 & 158BC - search.
Keywords - block assessment - District Valuation Officer(DVO) - fair market cost - stock in trade - unexplained investment.
Whether addition u/s 158BD can be made only in respect of the material disclosed at the time of search or pursuant to any inquiry made in relation to the search - Whether such addition can be made as a result of an information found subsequent to search - Whether the report of the DVO can be stated to be material found during the course of the search and therefore, addition made on the basis of the DVO's report was not permissible. - Revenue' s appeal dismissed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1473- HC-AP-IT
Sri Vinod Bhargava Vs CIT
Income Tax - Sections 32 & 271(1)(c).
Whether depreciation can be allowed when though the Assessee might have installed the machinery before 31.03.1987, it was not capable of being put to use - Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when a genuine effort made by the Assessee to claim depreciation on the imported machinery was not allowed. - Assessee' s appeals partly allowed : ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1472- HC-MUM-IT
Bertha T Almeida Vs ITO
Income Tax - Section 2(47) .
Keywords - transfer - possession - rights in the property
Whether when the assessee has confirmed that according to the agreement entered into, developer has taken the possession of that land and started development work, the transaction is to be treated as Transfer of the rights in the property, to the extent of the assessee' s share. - Assessee' s appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-592- ITAT-MUM + Story
Hind Rectifiers Ltd Vs Addl.CIT
Income Tax - Sections 28, 37(1), 80IC, 143(3), 145A.
Keywords - depreciation - capital WIP - allocation - computer equipments - prior period expenses.
Whether when company' s name and products are being advertised or published, or the expenditure is for the purpose of the company as a whole, as for publishing financial results, there is any rationale for segregating the same unit-wise - Whether in case the nature of expenses incurred is not clear, it can be bifurcated on the basis of turnover strightaway - Whether in case assessee operates through different production units, the common expenditure at the entity or the corporate level is necessarily required to be allocated to the different operating units to determine the income attributable thereto, on some reasonable basis - Whether when the assessee has enough reserves to meet its capital WIP requirement, the question of disallowance of interest on amount borrowed for such purpose would arise - Whether irrespective of the method of accounting being regularly followed by the assessee in computing the business income assessable to tax u/s.28, section 145A, to the extent applicable, could be given effect to. - Both Revenue and Assessee' s appeal partly allowed : MUMBAI ITAT
2014-TIOL-591- ITAT-CHD
M/s International Institute Of Neuro Science & Oncology Ltd Vs Addl.CIT
Income Tax - Sections 36(1)(va), 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 131, 143(3), 201(1).
Keywords - Credit card - TDS - commission paid to directors -
Whether expenditure incurred by a company in connection with issue of shares, with a view to increase the share capital, is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company - Whether disallowance is warranted u/s 40A(3) of the Act, in case the payment was made through imprest account - Whether expenditure incurred for payment of ROC fee for increase in Authorised Capital can be allowed as a revenue nature expenditure u/s 37(1) - Whether disallowance on account of commission paid to doctors for referring the patients to the hospitals can be added as income u/s 69C. - Assessee' s appeal partly allowed : CHANDIGARH ITAT
Indirect Tax Basket
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2014-TIOL-1477- HC-MUM-ST + Story
Lear Automotive India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Tribunal appears to be proceed in undue haste and uncalled hurry to pass orders - Even if a lengthy order is necessitated the Tribunal must not fail to deliver it - Eventually justice is not only to be done, but must be seen to be done – Order quashed and matter remanded to CESTAT: High Court - Appeal allowed as remand : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1641- CESTAT-MUM
Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd Vs CCE
ST - The value of goods and materials supplied free of cost by service recipient to the provider of taxable commercial or industrial construction service, being neither monetary or non-monetary consideration paid by or flowing from the service recipient, accruing to the benefit of service provider, would be outside the taxable value or the gross amount charged, within the meaning of the expression in Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the value of free supply by service recipient does not comprise the gross amount charged under Notification No. 15/2004-ST, including the Explanation thereto as introduced by Notification No. 4/2005-ST - Appeals of the appellant allowed - Appeals filed by the Revenue for enhancement of penalties dismissed as infructuous: CESTAT [para 4 and 5] - Assessee appeal allowed/Revenue appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1637- CESTAT-AHM
M/s Laxmi Exports Vs CCE
Service Tax - Stay / dispensation of pre deposit – Business Auxiliary Services - commission allowed in the appellant' s invoices which is to be paid to an unidentified overseas agent through the buyer of the exported goods - Revenue viewed that the same is chargeable to Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65 (105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 under reverse charge mechanism; demands adjudged with interest and penalties and agitated herein.
Held: it is observed from the export related documents that the price of the goods is paid less on account of a commission paid - As the appellant has also availed DGFT benefit on these payments as 'commissions&# 39;, prima facie, it appears that commissions are paid to the foreign agents through the buyer of the goods but are directly borne by the appellant - Adjudicating authority has also brought out the role of such agent, who is to contact the appellant for requirement, negotiate the price and other conditions, ensure that the consignment reaches in time, the same is delivered to the consignees without any problem, and that payment is made in time to the consignor - exemption under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dt.06.10.2007 is conditional, by way of refund only after Service Tax is paid under reverse charge, and is not automatic - Appellant has, therefore, not made out a case for complete waiver of the confirmed dues – Considering payment already made, appellant ordered to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) within eight weeks. - Pre deposit ordered : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1635- CESTAT-MUM + Story
Ahmednagar Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd Vs CCE & C
ST - General Clauses Act defines a month as a British Calendar month and it is not defined in terms of number of days - the Commissioner (A) is empowered to condone a delay of a further period of one month - thus total time period of 3 months is available to file the appeal - holding that appeal has been filed after expiry of 91 days from the date of communication of order is improper - Matter remanded for decision on merits: CESTAT [para 6, 7] - Matter remanded : MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2014-TIOL-1642- CESTAT-DEL
M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs CCE
Central Excise – Refund sanctioned, but adjusted against alleged irregular CENVAT credit – While confirmed demand can be adjusted from the amount of refund, there is no provision to adjust unconfirmed demand from the amount of refund - It is seen that there has been no show cause notice given to the appellants for showing cause as to why the cenvat credit amount of Rs.11,18,182/ - (adjusted from the amount of refund sanctioned) was inadmissible to them and how the same was recoverable under what provision of law and how it was not hit by time bar in spite of having been taken in the year 2005-06. Having sanctioned the full amount, there was no legal authority to adjust the amount of refund against the demand of CENVAT credit as the same cannot be held to be a confirmed demand – Impugned order set aside. - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1640- CESTAT-MUM + Story
Kankariya Enterprises Vs CCE
CE - Purchasing 98% concentrated sulphuric acid and diluting the same with de-mineralised water as per customer requirement to get diluted sulphuric acid (28-50%), which is marketable and used by battery manufacturing units is a process amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of CEA, 1944 - CE duty payable - appellant entitled to take CENVAT credit on inputs & price recovered is to be treated as cum-duty price - penalty u/s 11AC of CEA, 1944 not imposable as issue involves interpretation of law: CESTAT [para 5, 6] - Appeal disposed of : MUMBAI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1639- CESTAT-MUM
M/s Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CE – Valuation - Appellant manufactures lubricating preparations as per the specifications of various customers - additives were purchased from the vendors specified by the brand owners at the prices negotiated by the brand owners - department alleges that the appellant is a job worker of the brand owner and hence valuation under Rule 10A of Valuation Rules, 2000 should apply – adjudicating authority confirming duty demand of Rs.9,07,83,384/ - and imposing penalties and interest – appeal to Tribunal. HELD : In the appellant' s own case, the co-ordinate Bench at Ahmedabad has taken a view that the transaction would not come under the provisions of Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, 2000 - Therefore, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for grant of unconditional stay - - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT [Para 2, 5].- Stay granted : MUMBAI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1638- CESTAT-AHM
CCE Vs M/s Aarti Indutries Ltd
Central Excise – Issue disputed by Revenue is on exercise of remand power by Commissioner (Appeals) and issue agitated by Party is on denial of refund of education cess as per the formula prescribed in Rule 3(7)of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Held: Issue of remand already stands settled as per this Bench decision in the case of Bacha Motors - On merits of restriction of CENVAT Credit as per Rule 3(7)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the opening sentence of Rule 3(7)(a) states that the provision will be applicable to the inputs or capital goods produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU, but cleared on de-bonding – Factual matrix in the instant case the disputed goods were not produced or manufactured by the appellant' s 100% EOU; even otherwise, credit of cesses have been held to be admissible as per the case laws cited - appeals filed by the Revenue rejected and appeal filed by the Party is allowed with consequential relief. - Appeals disposed of : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
2014-TIOL-1636- CESTAT-MUM
M/s Microland Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant submitting that last hearing was held before the adjudicating authority on 23.08.2003 and thereafter, they submitted written submissions on 04.11.2003 and order was passed only on 31.01.2006 – Appeal to CESTAT. Held: Despite CBEC Circular No. 732/48/2003- CX dated 05.08.2003 directing the adjudicating authorities to pass order within a period of one month from the date of conclusion of personal hearing impugned order was passed with an inordinate delay of more than two years – written submissions also not considered in entirety - Order set aside and the matter remanded: CESTAT [Para 5.4 to 5.11, 6] - Matter remanded : MUMBAI CESTAT
M/s Swarovski India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
Income Tax – Writ - Sections 147 & 148.
Keywords: reassessment, reopening of assessment, escapement of income, failure to disclose full and true particulars of income, notice
Whether escapement of income by itself is sufficient for reopening the assessment in a case covered by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act - Whether it could be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full and true particulars where in the course of the original assessment proceedings the assessee, in response to a notice under Section 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act submitted information on the point raised by the Assessing Officer with regard to the business activity of the assessee and even pursuant to the re-assessment notice the facts were clearly revealed before the Assessing Officer.- Assessee's writ petition allowed : DELHI HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1475- HC-MAD-IT
CIT Vs M/s Prabhu Spinning Mills (P) Ltd
Income Tax – Sections 31 & 37
Keywords - modernisation of machinery - reassessment
Whether before determining the nature of expenditure incurred towards modernization and replacement of machinery , the impact of such replaced materials on the productivity has to be assessed. - Matter remanded : MADRAS HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1474- HC-AHM-IT
DCIT Vs M/s Ravi Builders
Income Tax - Sections 69C, 132 & 158BC - search.
Keywords - block assessment - District Valuation Officer(DVO) - fair market cost - stock in trade - unexplained investment.
Whether addition u/s 158BD can be made only in respect of the material disclosed at the time of search or pursuant to any inquiry made in relation to the search - Whether such addition can be made as a result of an information found subsequent to search - Whether the report of the DVO can be stated to be material found during the course of the search and therefore, addition made on the basis of the DVO's report was not permissible. - Revenue' s appeal dismissed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1473- HC-AP-IT
Sri Vinod Bhargava Vs CIT
Income Tax - Sections 32 & 271(1)(c).
Whether depreciation can be allowed when though the Assessee might have installed the machinery before 31.03.1987, it was not capable of being put to use - Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when a genuine effort made by the Assessee to claim depreciation on the imported machinery was not allowed. - Assessee' s appeals partly allowed : ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1472- HC-MUM-IT
Bertha T Almeida Vs ITO
Income Tax - Section 2(47) .
Keywords - transfer - possession - rights in the property
Whether when the assessee has confirmed that according to the agreement entered into, developer has taken the possession of that land and started development work, the transaction is to be treated as Transfer of the rights in the property, to the extent of the assessee' s share. - Assessee' s appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-592- ITAT-MUM + Story
Hind Rectifiers Ltd Vs Addl.CIT
Income Tax - Sections 28, 37(1), 80IC, 143(3), 145A.
Keywords - depreciation - capital WIP - allocation - computer equipments - prior period expenses.
Whether when company' s name and products are being advertised or published, or the expenditure is for the purpose of the company as a whole, as for publishing financial results, there is any rationale for segregating the same unit-wise - Whether in case the nature of expenses incurred is not clear, it can be bifurcated on the basis of turnover strightaway - Whether in case assessee operates through different production units, the common expenditure at the entity or the corporate level is necessarily required to be allocated to the different operating units to determine the income attributable thereto, on some reasonable basis - Whether when the assessee has enough reserves to meet its capital WIP requirement, the question of disallowance of interest on amount borrowed for such purpose would arise - Whether irrespective of the method of accounting being regularly followed by the assessee in computing the business income assessable to tax u/s.28, section 145A, to the extent applicable, could be given effect to. - Both Revenue and Assessee' s appeal partly allowed : MUMBAI ITAT
2014-TIOL-591- ITAT-CHD
M/s International Institute Of Neuro Science & Oncology Ltd Vs Addl.CIT
Income Tax - Sections 36(1)(va), 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 131, 143(3), 201(1).
Keywords - Credit card - TDS - commission paid to directors -
Whether expenditure incurred by a company in connection with issue of shares, with a view to increase the share capital, is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company - Whether disallowance is warranted u/s 40A(3) of the Act, in case the payment was made through imprest account - Whether expenditure incurred for payment of ROC fee for increase in Authorised Capital can be allowed as a revenue nature expenditure u/s 37(1) - Whether disallowance on account of commission paid to doctors for referring the patients to the hospitals can be added as income u/s 69C. - Assessee' s appeal partly allowed : CHANDIGARH ITAT
Indirect Tax Basket
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2014-TIOL-1477- HC-MUM-ST + Story
Lear Automotive India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Tribunal appears to be proceed in undue haste and uncalled hurry to pass orders - Even if a lengthy order is necessitated the Tribunal must not fail to deliver it - Eventually justice is not only to be done, but must be seen to be done – Order quashed and matter remanded to CESTAT: High Court - Appeal allowed as remand : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2014-TIOL-1641- CESTAT-MUM
Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd Vs CCE
ST - The value of goods and materials supplied free of cost by service recipient to the provider of taxable commercial or industrial construction service, being neither monetary or non-monetary consideration paid by or flowing from the service recipient, accruing to the benefit of service provider, would be outside the taxable value or the gross amount charged, within the meaning of the expression in Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the value of free supply by service recipient does not comprise the gross amount charged under Notification No. 15/2004-ST, including the Explanation thereto as introduced by Notification No. 4/2005-ST - Appeals of the appellant allowed - Appeals filed by the Revenue for enhancement of penalties dismissed as infructuous: CESTAT [para 4 and 5] - Assessee appeal allowed/Revenue appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1637- CESTAT-AHM
M/s Laxmi Exports Vs CCE
Service Tax - Stay / dispensation of pre deposit – Business Auxiliary Services - commission allowed in the appellant' s invoices which is to be paid to an unidentified overseas agent through the buyer of the exported goods - Revenue viewed that the same is chargeable to Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65 (105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 under reverse charge mechanism; demands adjudged with interest and penalties and agitated herein.
Held: it is observed from the export related documents that the price of the goods is paid less on account of a commission paid - As the appellant has also availed DGFT benefit on these payments as 'commissions&# 39;, prima facie, it appears that commissions are paid to the foreign agents through the buyer of the goods but are directly borne by the appellant - Adjudicating authority has also brought out the role of such agent, who is to contact the appellant for requirement, negotiate the price and other conditions, ensure that the consignment reaches in time, the same is delivered to the consignees without any problem, and that payment is made in time to the consignor - exemption under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dt.06.10.2007 is conditional, by way of refund only after Service Tax is paid under reverse charge, and is not automatic - Appellant has, therefore, not made out a case for complete waiver of the confirmed dues – Considering payment already made, appellant ordered to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) within eight weeks. - Pre deposit ordered : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1635- CESTAT-MUM + Story
Ahmednagar Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd Vs CCE & C
ST - General Clauses Act defines a month as a British Calendar month and it is not defined in terms of number of days - the Commissioner (A) is empowered to condone a delay of a further period of one month - thus total time period of 3 months is available to file the appeal - holding that appeal has been filed after expiry of 91 days from the date of communication of order is improper - Matter remanded for decision on merits: CESTAT [para 6, 7] - Matter remanded : MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2014-TIOL-1642- CESTAT-DEL
M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs CCE
Central Excise – Refund sanctioned, but adjusted against alleged irregular CENVAT credit – While confirmed demand can be adjusted from the amount of refund, there is no provision to adjust unconfirmed demand from the amount of refund - It is seen that there has been no show cause notice given to the appellants for showing cause as to why the cenvat credit amount of Rs.11,18,182/ - (adjusted from the amount of refund sanctioned) was inadmissible to them and how the same was recoverable under what provision of law and how it was not hit by time bar in spite of having been taken in the year 2005-06. Having sanctioned the full amount, there was no legal authority to adjust the amount of refund against the demand of CENVAT credit as the same cannot be held to be a confirmed demand – Impugned order set aside. - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1640- CESTAT-MUM + Story
Kankariya Enterprises Vs CCE
CE - Purchasing 98% concentrated sulphuric acid and diluting the same with de-mineralised water as per customer requirement to get diluted sulphuric acid (28-50%), which is marketable and used by battery manufacturing units is a process amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of CEA, 1944 - CE duty payable - appellant entitled to take CENVAT credit on inputs & price recovered is to be treated as cum-duty price - penalty u/s 11AC of CEA, 1944 not imposable as issue involves interpretation of law: CESTAT [para 5, 6] - Appeal disposed of : MUMBAI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1639- CESTAT-MUM
M/s Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CE – Valuation - Appellant manufactures lubricating preparations as per the specifications of various customers - additives were purchased from the vendors specified by the brand owners at the prices negotiated by the brand owners - department alleges that the appellant is a job worker of the brand owner and hence valuation under Rule 10A of Valuation Rules, 2000 should apply – adjudicating authority confirming duty demand of Rs.9,07,83,384/ - and imposing penalties and interest – appeal to Tribunal. HELD : In the appellant' s own case, the co-ordinate Bench at Ahmedabad has taken a view that the transaction would not come under the provisions of Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, 2000 - Therefore, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for grant of unconditional stay - - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT [Para 2, 5].- Stay granted : MUMBAI CESTAT
2014-TIOL-1638- CESTAT-AHM
CCE Vs M/s Aarti Indutries Ltd
Central Excise – Issue disputed by Revenue is on exercise of remand power by Commissioner (Appeals) and issue agitated by Party is on denial of refund of education cess as per the formula prescribed in Rule 3(7)of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Held: Issue of remand already stands settled as per this Bench decision in the case of Bacha Motors - On merits of restriction of CENVAT Credit as per Rule 3(7)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the opening sentence of Rule 3(7)(a) states that the provision will be applicable to the inputs or capital goods produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU, but cleared on de-bonding – Factual matrix in the instant case the disputed goods were not produced or manufactured by the appellant' s 100% EOU; even otherwise, credit of cesses have been held to be admissible as per the case laws cited - appeals filed by the Revenue rejected and appeal filed by the Party is allowed with consequential relief. - Appeals disposed of : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
2014-TIOL-1636- CESTAT-MUM
M/s Microland Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant submitting that last hearing was held before the adjudicating authority on 23.08.2003 and thereafter, they submitted written submissions on 04.11.2003 and order was passed only on 31.01.2006 – Appeal to CESTAT. Held: Despite CBEC Circular No. 732/48/2003- CX dated 05.08.2003 directing the adjudicating authorities to pass order within a period of one month from the date of conclusion of personal hearing impugned order was passed with an inordinate delay of more than two years – written submissions also not considered in entirety - Order set aside and the matter remanded: CESTAT [Para 5.4 to 5.11, 6] - Matter remanded : MUMBAI CESTAT
Violation of sec. 13 results in denial of benefits in assessment and isn't relevant to allow registration to trust
September 2, 2014[2014] 48 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.)
IT : A trust or institution which is carrying on educational activities will fall within ambit of charitable purpose under section 2(15) even if it incidentally involves carrying on of commercial activities
IT : When there is an unverifiable donation or if there is violation of section 13(3), consequence will follow in assessment of relevant year but verification of donation or verification of violation of section 13(3) is not a relevant consideration for grant of registration of trust under section 12AA
NIL TDS – File Declaration for Non-filing of TDS statement on TRACES
Your urgent attention is invited to relevant CBDT Circulars and provisions of the Income Tax Act, mandating filing of TDS Statements and Issuance of TDS Certificates downloaded from TRACES. But If you are not required to submit TDS statement for FY 2013-14 and not filed any TDS Statements in FY 2013-14 , than you are required to submit a declaration by taking appropriate action as suggested under "Action to be taken" in this Article.
Currently, if there is no TDS to be deducted, no action is taken in terms of filing TDS return for the particular quarter. Due to this practice of non-intimation, the Income Tax department is not able to find out the difference between the following two types of deductors- 1. Deductors required to file return but not filed and 2. Deductors not required to file return due to NIL TDS. Henceforth, the persons who are not required to submit a return of TDS due to non applicability in any particular quarter shall have to submit a Declaration for the same on Traces as suggested in Point No. 3 of this article.
1. Mandatory filing of TDS Statements: Under the provisions of section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 31A, which reads as follows:
Every person responsible for deduction of tax under Chapter XVII-B, shall, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200, deliver, or cause to be delivered, the following quarterly statements to the Director General of Income-tax (Systems) or the person authorised by the Director General of Income-tax (Systems), namely:
a. Statement of deduction of tax under section 192 in Form No. 24Q;
b. Statement of deduction of tax under sections 193 to 196D in-
- Form No. 27Q in respect of the deductee who is a non-resident not being a company or a foreign company or resident but not ordinarily resident; and
- Form No. 26Q in respect of all other deductees.
It is, therefore, advised to file the applicable TDS Statements at the earliest to comply with the above provisions.
2. Implications of Non/ Late filing of TDS Statements:
- For Deductors: In case of late filing of TDS Statements, a fee shall be levied on the deductor u/s 234E of the IT Act which reads as under:
• Where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues
- For Tax payers: Non/ Late filing of TDS statements results into the TDS Credit not being available to the deductees. They, therefore, will not be able to claim the credit for tax already deducted from the payments made to them. Please note that TDS Certificates will not be available until the TDS Statements are duly filed.
3. Actions to be taken and Procedure for filing of Nil TDS return/ declaration for non filing of TDS statement:
- Please file the relevant TDS Statement without any further delay.
- If you are not required to file the same, please submit a declaration for Non-filing on TRACES. For this purpose, you can login to TRACES, navigate to "Statements/ Payments" menu and submit details under "Declaration for Non-Filing of Statements.
"Declaration for Non-Filing of a statement has been enabled on TRACES"
--
Best Wishes
CA. V.M.V.SUBBA RAO
Chartered Accountant
Door No.24-2-1885,
I Floor, Flat No.5,
Siddivinayaka Residency, I Cross,
Central Avenue, MSR Nagar,
Magunta Layout,
Nellore-524 003
Andhra Pradesh
India
Mobile:+91 - 0 9390221100
+91 - 0 9440278412
e-Mail: vmvsr@rediffmail.com
vmvsr@yahoo.co.uk
http://pdicai.org/MyPage/203038.aspx
CA. V.M.V.SUBBA RAO
Chartered Accountant
Door No.24-2-1885,
I Floor, Flat No.5,
Siddivinayaka Residency, I Cross,
Central Avenue, MSR Nagar,
Magunta Layout,
Nellore-524 003
Andhra Pradesh
India
Mobile:+91 - 0 9390221100
+91 - 0 9440278412
e-Mail: vmvsr@rediffmail.com
vmvsr@yahoo.co.uk
http://pdicai.org/MyPage/203038.aspx
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment