Saturday, September 28, 2013

[aaykarbhavan] Business standard news updates 29-9-2013



Ensure your TDS gets credited


ARVIND RAO

Ramesh Kumar had filed his income- tax return in July 2012 and had claimed a refund of 25,000 in the return. However, in March 2013, he received an intimation from the Income Tax Department (' the Department') requesting him to pay an amount of 20,000 towards taxes due on his income along with interest. Kumar was quite baffled. He was looking forward to getting arefund, but instead he was not only denied the refund and asked to pay up an additional amount of 20,000.

What should he do next? What is the course of action available to him? Under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, every taxpayer, who is required to file his returns has to file the same within the prescribed due date. The said return is required to be processed in the manner prescribed under section 143( 1) of Act. The total income or loss requires to be computed after making certain adjustments one of which is taking into account the arithmetical errors in the return. In the absence of any arithmetical errors or any mistake in the return, it is expected that the Department would need to grant refund under section 143( 1) of the Act, as claimed in the return.

A lot of taxpayers in the recent times have been receiving such intimations under section 143( 1), like above, whereby either the refund granted is lesser than the one filed for or are asked to pay up.

In one of the recent writ petitions that came up to the Gujarat High Court, the taxpayer had filed his return of income under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act (' the Act') electronically. The taxpayer had claimed refund to the tune of 2,11,415 after adjustment of the TDS amount of 3,78,608 against the tax payable of 1,67,193.

Further, when the return was processed by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143( 1) of the Act, the adjustment of TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) was not granted and the tax payable was determined at 1,93,429, which included both the tax amount and interest of 26,235.

The Department also contended that the taxpayer had failed to furnish all the relevant information as was required in the e- return and, therefore, the adjustment of TDS was not allowed. Further, in response to the taxpayers rectification application, the CPC had passed an order that certain required details were not furnished by the taxpayer and the same had not been corrected even at the time of rectification. In response to this, the taxpayer submitted that all the relevant details for claiming the TDS amount were submitted to the Department and all forms including Form 16A were filed with the Department along with the rectification applications. The taxpayer also claimed that with the online system of TDS available, all details of the TDS also are available online. The taxpayer's representative also claimed that lack of co- ordination between the Assessing officer and the CPC has resulted into non- grant of refund to the taxpayer. He also contended that despite extensive computerisation in the Department, no fruitful benefits were available to the taxpayer.

On examination of the documents available on record, the Honourable High Court held that, the Form 26AS, which is available online, clearly reflects different dates on which payment had been credited and the total TDS by various companies amounted to 4,00,647. The Court also held that when these details are available online, in Form 26AS and when the Department's representative had submitted these details to the Court, there is no reason why the amount should be excluded in the final computation of the e- return filed by the taxpayer.

The High Court further observed that when all the details of the TDS are available with the Department, all it has to do is to compute the income and give credit for the TDS. The Court was of the firm opinion that the objective of computerisation is facilitate easy access to the taxpayers and make the system more transparent and viable. In the event of any shortcomings of the software or any genuine mistake, the Department is expected to respond to such situations by rectifying the mistake and give the corresponding relief to the assessee.

The High Court also pointed out that while the taxpayer tried to bring the same to the notice of the Department by filing a rectification application, the Department did not rectify the mistake. In addition to those, the taxpayer was forced to approach the High Court, due to the lack of coordination on part of the Department.

Accordingly, the High Court, held the case in favour of the taxpayer and instructed the Department to issue the refund to the taxpayer.

While deciding the case, the High Court pointed out that since the e- filing process promises a taxpayer friendly regime, taxpayers cannot be expected to run from pillar- topost.

The CPC is meant for return processing, accounts, refund, storage of data, and so on. If it adds to the difficulties of taxpayers, due to lack of coordination between the back office and front office, then the e- filing and computerisation process needs a serious relook, the High Court noted.

The author is a Certified Financial Planner

Since TDS details are available online, I- T department must compute the income and give credit instantly

The Centralised Processing Centre is meant for return processing, accounts, refund, storage of data and so on. So, the lack of coordination within the CPC should not add to the difficulties of taxpayers, said the Gujarat High Court

 

Minimum guaranteed returns under NPS may not be good


ARNAV PANDYA

The National Pension System (NPS) has been in operation for quite some time now, but it has not yet found too many takers.

The number of subscribers is very low, considering that there is a dearth of avenues for investors to save for their retirement.

The passage of the Pension Bill promises several changes for investors of the National Pension System ( NPS). One of the changes proposed is assuring minimum guaranteed returns for investors. Given that the returns from the NPS cannot be predicted ( since they are dependent on market conditions), this may seem like a good option for investors. After all, who likes volatility? But insisting on minimum returns may not necessarily be a good option for investors. Read on to find out why.

Minimum assured return

The uncertainty about the returns in the NPS is different from what investors are used to in their long term investment products. The usual long term options like the Employees Provident Fund ( EPF) or the Public Provident Fund ( PPF) or some long term bonds all have an element of surety attached to them. While the capital is protected for sure, there is a certain assurance that the returns from these instruments will be of a certain level.

Though theoretically the returns from the EPF and PPF can see a sharp fall in case the overall economy sees a slowdown, there is still an element of confidence in these products.

But in the NPS even the debt option could end up in negative territory if the bond market conditions turn unfavourable. Hence, the proposal to offer a minimum assured return option for investors. This would ensure that investors are able to get a certain return that is guaranteed from the scheme.

The belief is that this will give some element of comfort to them with regard to their long term investments.

This might seem like a simple solution to the overall problem. But the fact is that this might actually do more harm than good for investors over the long run and, hence, this is something to be watched closely.

Absolute level

There is the question of the absolute level of return that will actually be earned under the minimum assured return plan. Since this has to be paid out or earned no matter what is the prevailing situation in the markets, then the absolute level is likely to be low. In such a plan, the fund manager has to ensure that the investments are made in such a manner that there is protection of capital and a specific return that does not have much volatility. To meet these requirements, it is likely that the absolute figure will be lower than the prevailing market rate. This means that there could be other investments which look better in comparison. This could be the first negative point.

Opportunity cost

Every investor who invests money into a certain fund or scheme for the long term will compare the rates that are present on various instruments in the market. This will happen to NPS. Investors will compare the returns from NPS with returns that can be earned elsewhere. In this sense the minimum assured return fund could very well turn out to be an underperformer because the returns here could very well lag other options.

In this case, the comparison is likely to be with the EPF that currently gives a return of 8.5 per cent, while the PPF gives a return of 8.7 per cent.

Another drawback is that the minimum assured plan could also end up giving the least returns especially when times are good. So this, too, will work against the NPS.

Real rate of return

The main aim of retirement planning is to invest for a very long time.

The goal of the investment is to build a decent corpus so that there is an adequate amount available as pension. The central goal of the investment is, thus, to beat inflation so that there is a real rate of return earned, which also helps in the process of wealth creation.

Selecting the minimum assured return plan is likely to result in a long- term situation where the inflation rate ends up being far higher than the amount earned. This could lead to a loss of value in purchasing power terms and this is something that investors would not want with their investment.

Mismatch of risk

Since retirement planning is for long- term period, there could be a mismatch between the right kind of risk perceived for the investment product and the actual risk.

Long- term investments are where some additional risk can be taken. But what is being proposed is just the opposite. Even the smallest amount of risk is being removed from the investment. This is not likely to give the best results at the end of the day and that is something that the investor should think about.

The author is a Certified Financial Planner

RETIREMENT PLANNING

It may lead to low returns even in good market conditions

 

 


--
 
CS A Rengarajan
9381011200

CS Benevolent Fund is a collective effort towards extending the much needed financial support to the community of Company Secretaries in times of distress  Let us lend support and join for noble cause.



SHARING KNOWLEDGE SKY IS THE LIMIT

This mail and its attachments (if any) are confidential information intended for persons to whom the email is planned for delivery by the sender. If you have received this mail in error please notify the sender of the error by forwarding the email and its attachments (if any) and then deleting the mail received in error and the relevant email trail in this connection without making any copies or taking any prints.


__._,_.___


receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment