 | AccountantsWorld Daily News |
| 8/28/2014 |
|
 |
Clarified, revised SSARS approved for reviews, compilations, and engagements to prepare financial statements (JoA) The AICPA Accounting and Review Services Committee (ARSC) voted during its meeting this month to approve clarified and revised standards for reviews, compilations, and engagements to prepare financial statements. ADVERTISEMENT   Share our news via Twitter and Facebook, on your personalized news page. MORE HEADLINES Are your clients bypassing you after tax season? (CPA Insider) The annual tax filing ritual is not the only time a client may interact with the IRS—and recent trends show that your clients are more likely than ever to have an issue come up after filing. Frustrating Boston Scientific Is Not What the Investor Ordered (The Street) Boston Scientific (BSX_) continues to frustrate its shareholders. The shares peaked in January at $14.08 and have grossly underperformed its peers ever since. Where are the Best Roller Coasters for the Buck? (Fox Business) Being a hard-core roller coaster fan doesn't have to leave you with a lightweight wallet. The 10 best laptops of 2014 (so far) (PC World) We're more than seven full months into 2014, and with back-to-school shopping season underway and the holidays looming, it's a perfect time to take stock of the year in laptops thus far. Accounting/Audit Business News | TOP 5 MOST READ
 TOOLS OF THE TRADE e-BREAKS  5 Awesome Google Maps Tips   |
No Restriction on Number of Partners for Firm of CA, CMA, CS & other professionals
Raising of number of partners in CA Firm with reference to the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. – (02-09-2014)
The Council of the Institute has clarified that the earlier restriction of maximum of 20 partners permitted for firms under section 11 of the Companies act, 1956 is no more applicable to the firms as Section 464 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been notified w.e.f 01.04.2014 wherein sub-section (1) provides for a maximum number of partners permissible for business firms at 100 and sub-section (2) provides that nothing in sub section (1) shall apply to an association or partnership, if it is formed by professionals who are governed by special Acts.
Accordingly, as per proviso to the said section, Chartered Accountants firms are now allowed to be registered/reconstituted with more than 20 partners w.e.f 01.04.2014 under the Indian Partnership Act as in the case of a firm under the Limited Liability Partnership Act.
-sd-
Joint Secretary
M&C-MSS
M&C-MSS
ICAI Happy with Tax Audit Report Due date extension without extension of ITR Due Date
CA Sandeep Kanoi
ICAI President CA. K. Raghu has shown Happiness over extension of Tax Audit Report Due Date in his Messages to its member dated 22.08.2014. In his Message Mr. CA. k. Raghu has failed to take into account the anguish of fellow members over extension of Tax Audit Report Due date without extension of Income Tax Audit Report Due Date. In his message Mr. Raghu has further not mentioned, If ICAI is working or taking any step towards getting this anomaly removed, Which implies that ICAI is not taking any step to get the ITR due date extended and happy with half hearted step of CBDT.
It is to be noted that ITR cannot be filled without completion of Tax Audit Report as Computation of Income has to take into account the disallowances and adverse comments made by the Tax Auditors. In the absence of Extension of due date of ITR, extension given by CBDT is like Giving with one hand and taking with the other.
Tax Payers and Tax Professionals across the County are not happy with CBDT move to extend due date of Tax Audit Report without simultaneous extension of Due date of Income tax Return Filing. Consequence of such move can be read on following link :- Consequences of Non Filing of ITR on or before 30.09.2014
It has further come to our knowledge that many of the Members of ICAI are in the process of Filing PIL in High Court to get this anomaly removed. Last year too CBDT has initially Extended Only Due date of Tax Audit Report without simultaneous extension of due date of Income Tax Report but later it has extended due date of ITR to match the same with extended due date of Tax Audit Report.
CA Sudhir Halakhandi from Rajasthan says that " The central Board of Direct taxes by extending the date of filing of TAR without extending the date of filing of Income Tax return have produced a "round square" because practically it is not possible to file ITR without completion of Tax audit. Even the system of Income tax law and the format of ITR do not permit it and date of filing under section 44AB is linked with the date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1). This is all unnecessary meddling with Law which is not a good sign for the future of Direct taxation in India and also it is against the declared policy of the lawmakers "rationalization and simplification of taxation Laws"."
The changes in the TAR are not so important and urgent to introduce them in the middle of the year and this the basic reason for controversy which has now been exaggerated by the law makers by keeping the date of ITR before the date obtaining and furnishing of tax audit report.
Further there was a blackout on the income tax site for continuous 25 days due to the fact that there was no utility to furnish TAR from 25th July 2014 to 20th Aug 2014 and this should be the sole reason to extend the date of ITR.
Tax Payers and Professionals wants CBDT to remove this anomaly and extend the due for Assessee covered under tax audit provisions for A.Y. 2014-15 to 30th November 2014 from 30th September 2014.
Extract of ICAI Presidents Message is Reproduced below :-
Our Recommendation on Tax Audit AcceptedThe CBDT has revised the format of Tax Audit report. However, we felt that despite all the good intent of the CBDT, the timing of the revision was not convenient. Hence we represented to Hon'ble Finance Minister, Revenue Secretary, and Chairman CBDT, expressing our concerns. I am happy to inform you that acting on our recommendation, the CBDT has now extended the due date for obtaining and furnishing of Tax Audit report under Section 44AB for Assessment Year 2014-15 in case of assesses who are not required to furnish report under Section 92E of the Act from 30th September 2014 to 30th November 2014. The CBDT has also clarified that the Tax Audit report under Section 44AB of the Act filed during the period from 1st April 2014 to 24th July 2014 in the pre-revised Forms shall be treated as valid Tax Audit report furnished under Section 44AB of Income-tax Act, 1961.In the meantime, to enable our members to perform this onerous task efficiently and effectively, we are revising our Guidance Note on Tax Audit under Section 44AB of Income-tax Act, 1961 which will be made available to the members very soon. I wish you all the success in most effective completion of Tax Audits.
BANGALORE, SEPT 03, 2014: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether when assessee being a manufacturer of beer and liquor, advances loan to sister concern for setting up a new line of business, such assistance can be characterised as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business of assessee. And the verdict goes against the assessee.
Facts of the case
The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of beer and liquor. The case of the asessee is that it established a subsidiary company M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. which was also incorporated as a company and registered with the Registrar of Companies, with a view to extend the business of the assessee company. In 2001, they informed the Registrar of Companies to strike off the name of M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the reasons that the subsidiary Company could not do any business or commercial activity as laid down in the memorandum of association and that the same had become defunct. M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. was a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee. Till the financial year 1997-98, all the expenditure incurred on the executives of the subsidiary company were absorbed by the assessee as the employees were on the rolls of the assessee company. It was only later that the expenditure incurred for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 were debited to M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. Since no business was carried on by M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd., the amounts owed by M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. were written off during the year ended 31.3.2001 by the assessee. The main purpose of the said subsidiary was to put up resorts at important tourist destinations and since the date of incorporation, expenses like employee cost and other establishment costs were being incurred regularly. The said company was referred to as a division of the M/s.United Breweries Ltd., the assessee for all practical purposes. The said division was consisting of specialized staff having requisite experience in running / operating well reputed hotels and other resorts in the country. During the financial year ending on 31.3.2001, the assessee made a claim of bad debts written off, including the amount which was given as a loan to the subsidiary company.
The Assessing Officer held that there is no entity by name M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. that is in existence. While filing the returns of income, the assessee did claim the expenditure under the head 'bad debts' / 'advances written off' with a specific indication that the claim is under the head 36(1)(vii) of the Act. During enquiry, as the assessee was unable to substantiate the said claim and since such expenditure does not relate to any of the existing activities of the company, it was not allowable. The said claim was given up and withdrew the said claim under Section 36(1)(vii) and an alternative claim under Section 37 was put forth contending that it is an expenditure expend wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The Assessing Authority was of the view that the said expenditure was not incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and therefore, he disallowed the claim.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that that the impugned expenditure related to the setting up of an altogether new business pertaining to tourism like putting up resorts, etc. It is separate and distinct from the existing business of manufacture and sale of liquor and beer. The impugned expenditure cannot be considered as a business loss. The impugned expenditure cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure. It cannot be treated as a business loss since loss, if any, will be a loss on capital account and therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Authority was upheld and the appeal came to be dismissed.
Tribunal was of the view that the impugned amount was spent towards the project cost. The subsidiary company has not done any business right from the date of incorporation and is also not intending to do any business or commercial activity and had become defunct. Request to strike off the name of U.B. Resorts Limited was accepted by the Assistant Registrar of Companies. Therefore, both the companies are separate legal entities and the loss incurred by the subsidiary company in abandoning the new project cannot be allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Officer.
Assessee contended that the impugned expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the business of the subsidiary. It was contended that there was a direct nexus between the business of the assessee and the business of the subsidiary company. The business of the subsidiary if it had been carried on would have helped and expanded the business of the assessee. Therefore, any expenditure laid out or expanded fully or exclusively in the business of subsidiary had to be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the profits and gains of business or profession of the assessee.
Revenue contended that the expenditure which was incurred for expansion of business had no nexus with the business carried on by the assessee. It could not allow deductions in the hands of the assessee. It was contended that the subsidiary company was established in the year 1994 and closed in the year 2001-02 and the expenditure incurred by the subsidiary company were bunched under the head "U.B. Resorts Division" and a claim was putforth which was only an afterthought and not permissible in law.
Having heard the parties, the Court held that,
++ the Apex Court in the case of Travancore Titanium Product Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax held as under:-
The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of beer and liquor. The case of the asessee is that it established a subsidiary company M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. which was also incorporated as a company and registered with the Registrar of Companies, with a view to extend the business of the assessee company. In 2001, they informed the Registrar of Companies to strike off the name of M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the reasons that the subsidiary Company could not do any business or commercial activity as laid down in the memorandum of association and that the same had become defunct. M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. was a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee. Till the financial year 1997-98, all the expenditure incurred on the executives of the subsidiary company were absorbed by the assessee as the employees were on the rolls of the assessee company. It was only later that the expenditure incurred for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 were debited to M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. Since no business was carried on by M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd., the amounts owed by M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. were written off during the year ended 31.3.2001 by the assessee. The main purpose of the said subsidiary was to put up resorts at important tourist destinations and since the date of incorporation, expenses like employee cost and other establishment costs were being incurred regularly. The said company was referred to as a division of the M/s.United Breweries Ltd., the assessee for all practical purposes. The said division was consisting of specialized staff having requisite experience in running / operating well reputed hotels and other resorts in the country. During the financial year ending on 31.3.2001, the assessee made a claim of bad debts written off, including the amount which was given as a loan to the subsidiary company.
The Assessing Officer held that there is no entity by name M/s.U.B.Resorts Ltd. that is in existence. While filing the returns of income, the assessee did claim the expenditure under the head 'bad debts' / 'advances written off' with a specific indication that the claim is under the head 36(1)(vii) of the Act. During enquiry, as the assessee was unable to substantiate the said claim and since such expenditure does not relate to any of the existing activities of the company, it was not allowable. The said claim was given up and withdrew the said claim under Section 36(1)(vii) and an alternative claim under Section 37 was put forth contending that it is an expenditure expend wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The Assessing Authority was of the view that the said expenditure was not incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and therefore, he disallowed the claim.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that that the impugned expenditure related to the setting up of an altogether new business pertaining to tourism like putting up resorts, etc. It is separate and distinct from the existing business of manufacture and sale of liquor and beer. The impugned expenditure cannot be considered as a business loss. The impugned expenditure cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure. It cannot be treated as a business loss since loss, if any, will be a loss on capital account and therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Authority was upheld and the appeal came to be dismissed.
Tribunal was of the view that the impugned amount was spent towards the project cost. The subsidiary company has not done any business right from the date of incorporation and is also not intending to do any business or commercial activity and had become defunct. Request to strike off the name of U.B. Resorts Limited was accepted by the Assistant Registrar of Companies. Therefore, both the companies are separate legal entities and the loss incurred by the subsidiary company in abandoning the new project cannot be allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Officer.
Assessee contended that the impugned expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the business of the subsidiary. It was contended that there was a direct nexus between the business of the assessee and the business of the subsidiary company. The business of the subsidiary if it had been carried on would have helped and expanded the business of the assessee. Therefore, any expenditure laid out or expanded fully or exclusively in the business of subsidiary had to be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the profits and gains of business or profession of the assessee.
Revenue contended that the expenditure which was incurred for expansion of business had no nexus with the business carried on by the assessee. It could not allow deductions in the hands of the assessee. It was contended that the subsidiary company was established in the year 1994 and closed in the year 2001-02 and the expenditure incurred by the subsidiary company were bunched under the head "U.B. Resorts Division" and a claim was putforth which was only an afterthought and not permissible in law.
Having heard the parties, the Court held that,
++ the Apex Court in the case of Travancore Titanium Product Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax held as under:-
"6. But every item of expenditure merely because it is connected with the trade may not necessarily be treated as a permissible deduction. A fairly reliable approach for determining what may be regarded normally as expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business has to be looked into.The nature of the expenditure or outgoing must be adjudged in the light of accepted commercial practice and trading principles. The expenditure must be incidental to the business and must be necessitated or justified by commercial expediency. It must be directly and intimately connected with the business and be laid out by the tax payer in his character as a trader. To be a permissible deduction, there must be a direct and intimate connection between the expenditure and the business i.e. between the expenditure and the character of the assessee as a trader, and not as owner of assets, even if they are assets of the business."
++ Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited (1964) 53 ITR 140(SC) explaining the meaning of the word "for the purpose of business" has held as under:-
"The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". Its range is wide. It may take in not only the day to day running of a business but also the rationalization of its administration and modernization of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or assertion of hostile title; it may also comprehend payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre condition to commerce or for carrying on of a business; it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business. However, wide the meaning of the expression may be its limits are implicit in it. The purpose shall be for the purpose of the business, that is to say, the expenditure incurred shall be for the carrying on of the business and the assessee shall incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business."
++ Apex Court in the case of S.A. BUILDERS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND ANOTHER - (2006-TIOL-179-SC-IT) explaining the meaning of the word "commercial expediency" used in Section 37 of the Act has held as under:-"20. In our opinion, the decisions relating to Section 37 of the Act will also be applicable to S.36(1)(iii) because in Section 37 also the expression used is "for the purpose of business". It has been consistently held in decisions relating to Section 37 that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency, and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits thereby.21. Thus, in Atherton vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Limited (1925) 10 Tax Cases 155(HL), it was held by the House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case has been approved by this Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Limited .vs. CIT 2002-TIOL-519-SC-IT-LB, CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & company (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), etc.22. In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other IT authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the High Court and other authorities should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company(which is a subsidiary of the assessee) as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it was, it should have been allowed.23. The expression "commercial expediency" is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency".
++ further it was observed that:-
"What is relevant is whether the assessee advanced such amount to its sister concern as a measure of commercial expediency. Once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not be necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize its profit. The IT authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman."
++ then they have cautioned the Courts from being carried away by and has observed as under:-
"We wish to make it clear that it is not our opinion that in every case interest on borrowed loan has to be allowed if the assessee advances it to a sister concern. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the respective case. For instance, if the directors of the sister concern utilize the amount advanced to it by the assessee for their personal benefit, obviously it cannot be said that such money was advanced as a measure of commercial expediency. Where it is obvious that a holding company has a deep interest in its subsidiary, and hence if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would, in our opinion, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans".
++ therefore, what the sister concern did with this money has to be found out in order to find out whether it was for commercial expediency or not. In the background of the aforesaid judgments, when we look at the facts of this case, the assessee was incorporated in the year 1951. Subsequently, from time to time there is alteration of objects. It was pointed out that though the assessee is primarily in the business of breweries, in their Memorandum of Association at Clause(13) one of the object of the company was as under:-
"To carry on the business of real estate and development in all its branches, to any lands, buildings, purchase and take on lease and otherwise, acquire any lands, buildings and structure or interest of rights therein and to develop such lands into buildings, sites and/or construct and let out, sell plots of lands and buildings and structures. To construct, let out, furnish and carry on all or any of the functions or properties of flats, maisonettes dwelling houses, shops, offices, clubs, tourists houses, hotels, theatres and restaurants. To act as agents, General Agents, Land Owners, Estate Owners, Property Agents and Agencies of any other types."
++ therefore, when the assessee is in the business of manufacture and sale of beer and liquor, if they have lent money to a sister concern, may be a subsidiary, for the purpose of setting up a new line of business, it cannot be said that the money lent by them to the subsidiary company as an assistance could be characterized as an expenditure laid down and expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. In fact, the material on record discloses that the subsidiary company was in existence from 1994 to 2001. The entire money is lent and spent only towards payment of salary and travelling expenses over a period of four to five years and no deductions were claimed in each year when such payments were made. On the contrary, for the first time the claim was putforth as bad debts. After writing off the same when they could not substantiate the said claim, then as an alternative, a claim was putforth under Section 37 of the Act. Though mere mentioning of a wrong provision would not deprive the assessee of the benefit of deductions or exemptions, in trying to find out the real nature of transaction, intention of the parties at an undisputed point of time, clearly go to show that this expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. The said claim is only made after the claim was not accepted under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. If the argument of the assessee is to be accepted, whenever a holding company lends money to a subsidiary company, then the holding company would be entitled to the said benefit. That is not the intent of law. Though there is no prohibition in law for starting subsidiary company, to get the benefit of Section 37, the money lent should be laid out and expended only for the purpose of business of the assessee. There should be a direct nexus between the assessee and the business for which the money is lent. If that connection is not there, merely because the money was lent to a sister concern or to a subsidiary company would not enable the assessee to claim such deduction. The Assessing Officer and the appellate authorities on careful consideration of the material on record have recorded the finding of fact. In the circumstances, we do not see any justification to interfere with the said concurrent finding of fact recorded.
++ the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There is no merit in this appeal.
ITAT directs fresh examination to determine whether property was acquired compulsorily to attract sec. 194L TDS
September 3, 2014[2014] 48 taxmann.com 89 (Hyderabad - Trib.)
IT : Where assessee municipal corporation acquired land with structure but did not deduct TDS under section 194L on compensation related to structure portion, matter was remanded back to decide whether property was acquired by mutual consent or by way of compulsory acquisition
YES
TERDAY, DDT carried the CESTAT instruction on pre-deposit from CENVAT credit. The lingering doubt is whether the pre-deposit of penalty can be made from the CENVAT account. An appellate commissioner informed us that he has clarified to his staff and to the trade that pre-deposit of seven & a half percent can be made from CENVAT account too, as there is no bar on the same in the law.
Maybe we have to wait for the clarification from the mysterious 'Competent Authority'.
In 2010-TIOL-1863-CESTAT-MUM, the original authority had confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 57,500/- against the assessee and imposed on them equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed therein an application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. In the said application, the appellate authority directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The appellant debited the amount in their MODVAT account and claimed that they had complied with the direction for pre-deposit under Section 35F. The appellate authority did not accept this to be 'due compliance' with Section 35F. He took the view that the above amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh should have been deposited through TR-6 challan. On this basis, the assessee's appeal came to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F.
And the matter reached the CESTAT.
The Tribunal observed, "we are of the view that pre-deposit of the duty amount by way of debit in MODVAT account can be accepted as sufficient compliance with Section 35F and, therefore, the assessee need not be called upon to make any payment towards penalty through TR-6 challan. However, we are in agreement with the appellate Commissioner's view that any amount of penalty cannot be deposited through debit in MODVAT account. In the present case, debit of Rs. 57,500/- (duty) in the MODVAT account is an admitted fact and the same would suffice the purpose of Section 35F. In the circumstances, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to consider the assessee's appeal on merits in accordance with law. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, we request the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the assessee's appeal against the order-in-original, on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit."
क्या अब कर कानूनों के सरलीकरण का युग समाप्त हो चुका है
सुधीर हलाखंडी
कर कानूनों में सरलीकरण का वादा कम से कम दो दशक पूर्व किया गया था जिसे प्रत्येक सरकार एवं वित्त मंत्री ने बार –बार दोहराया है और प्राम्भिक अवस्था में इस पर काफी कार्य भी किया गया था. केन्द्रीय सरकार के साथ –साथ सभी राज्यों की सरकारों ने भी इस सम्बन्ध में अपने –अपने करदाताओं को इस प्रकार के वायदे बार –बार दोहराए है . इन सभी के पीछे लक्ष यह था कि सरकार का कर संग्रहण भी बराबर होता रहे और करदाताओं को भी कम से कम कष्ट हो .आयकर के सम्बन्ध में भी इस और काफी काम हुआ था जिसमे एक पृष्ट का "सरल" रिटर्न फॉर्म भी जारी हुआ , टैक्स ऑडिट की रिपोर्ट आयकर रिटर्न के साथ नहीं लगाने का प्रावधान भी लागू हुआ , राज्यों के वैट कर कानूनों के तहत सभी राज्यों को एक ही तरह की कर दर लगाने की शुरुआत हुई , केन्द्रीय बिक्री कर के तहत बिक्री कर की दर वैट लगने के बाद प्रतिवर्ष एक प्रतिशत गिराने की भी प्रक्रिया प्राम्भ हुई . यह सभी स्वागत योग्य कदम रहे और कही भी यह संकेत उपलब्ध नहीं है कि इससे सरकार के राजस्व में कोई कमी आई हो .
लेकिन पिछले कुछ वर्षो में एका-एक क्या हुआ कि सरलीकरण के वादे से हमारे कानून निर्माताओ ने मुंह मोड़ लिया ? एक पेज का आयकर रिटर्न कई पेज का हो गया , मांगी जाने वाली सूचनाये बिना किसी कारण से लगातार बढाई जाने लगी , स्त्रोत पर कर कटोती के प्रावधान एवं इससे सम्बन्धित रिटर्न भरने की प्रक्रिया इतनी कठोर बना दी गई कि करदाता को कर एकत्र कर जमा कराना एक जंजाल लगाने लगा. इस सम्बन्ध में लगने वाली शास्ती (पेनल्टी) के नीयम इस तरह सख्त बनाए गए है कि लगता है पेनल्टी वसूली भी एक राजस्व वसूली की तरह कर कानूनों के निर्माताओ मूल का उद्देश्य हो गया है .
आयकर रिटर्न भरने के लिए ऑनलाइन सुविधा का दायरा तो बढ़ा लेकिन इसके साथ ही इसे दुविधापूर्ण बनाने में कोई कसर नहीं छोड़ी गई. जब अंकेक्षित (ऑडिटेड) आयकर के साथ वित्तीय प्रपत्र यथा लाभ हानि खाता , बैलेंस शीट इत्यादि अपलोड करवा ही रहे है तो ये सभी राशिया फिर से आयकर रिटर्न में भी भरवाने की क्या आवश्यकता है इसके बारे में विचार करने का समय किसी के पास नहीं है , फ्रिंज बेनिफिट टैक्स के जमाने में ड्राफ्ट किये गए आयकर रिटर्न के लाभ हानि खाते के प्रारूप को आज भी जारी रखा जा रहा है जब कि इस कानून की अनुपयोगिता को स्वीकार करने हुए सरकार इस कर को ही कभी का वापिस ले चुकी है .
साझेदारी फर्म (पार्टनरशिप फर्म ) यदि अपना रिटर्न धारा 44AD के तहत 8 प्रतिशत का लाभ दिखाते हुए भरना चाहती है तो आयकर रिटर्न -5 में स्पष्ट्तया इसकी कोई व्यवस्था नहीं है इसके लिए आयकर रिटर्न -4 SSS की तरह ही आयकर रिटर्न -5S जारी करने की मांग कब से हो रही जिसकी तरफ किसी का ध्यान नहीं है क्यों कि सारी शक्ति एवं ज्ञान का उपयोग तो प्रक्रियाओं को किस तरह और कठिन एवं दुविधापूर्ण बनाया जाए इस पर लगा है . इसका सबसे बड़ा उदाहरण है मोबाइल पिन एवं ई-मेल पिन से जुडी अव्यवहारिक प्रक्रिया है जिसे बिना सोचे समझे लागू किया गया बिना यह जाने कि हर कर दाता के लिए ई-मेल अकाउंट रखना संभव नहीं है और यदि यह इतना ही उपयोगी था तो फिर इसे 30 एवं 31 जुलाई 2014 को क्यों हटा दिया गया ? यह सभी कुछ करदाताओं की सुविधा की जगह कानून निर्माताओ की सुविधा को देखते हुए हो रहा है और प्रक्रियाओं को सुविधाजनक तरीके से तोड़ा मरोड़ा जा रहा है .
केद्रीय बिक्री कर की दरो को कम करने का जो वादा किया गया था उसे कई वर्षो से 2 प्रतिशत पर ही रोक दिया गया है , राज्यों में वेट की दरो के साथ लगातार खिलवाड़ हो रहा है – 4 प्रतिशत की सामान्य दर को राज्यों ने बढ़ा कर 5 किया तो केंद्र ने इसे रोकने की जगह स्वयं ही केन्द्रीय कर कानूनों के तहत आवश्यक वस्तुओ (केन्द्रीय बिक्री कर कानून की धारा 14 के तहत वर्णित वस्तुए ) की कर दर पर लगे प्रतिबन्ध को 4 प्रतिशत से बढ़ा कर 5 प्रतिशत कर दिया गया जिससे ही पता लगता है की करारोपण को लेकर करदाताओ के साथ क्या खेल खेला जा रहा है .
कई राज्यों में वेट के रिटर्न भरने की पर्याप्त सुविधा नहीं होते हुए भी शत –प्रतिशात ऑनलाइन रिटर्न भरने को करदाताओ की सुविधा के नाम पर अनिवार्य कर दिया गया है लागातार साईट क्रेश होने या धीमी चलने के कारण रिटर्न भरने की तारीखे लगातार बढाई जाती रही है लेकिन इस सम्बन्ध में लगनी वाली पेनाल्टी के सम्बन्ध में राज्य कोई रियायत देने को तैयार नहीं है . इस सम्बन्ध में यह सवाल भी उठता है कि जब सुविधाए भी पूरी उपलब्ध नहीं है तो शत – प्रतिशत ऑनलाइन रिटर्न भरना अनिवार्य करना कन्हा की समझदारी है और यदि सुविधाओं का अभाव है तो फिर पेनाल्टी लगाने के शोक को तो थोडा रोका जा सकता है .
जी.एस. टी . के नाम पर करदाताओ को वर्ष 2006 से सरलीकरण के सपने दिखाए जा रहे है लेकिन वास्तविकता यह है कि जी.एस.टी. के असली केंद्रीयकृत रूप को तो राज्य वर्ष 2006 में ही ठुकरा चुके थे और अब दुविधा यह है कि जी.एस. टी . के जिस समझोतावादी रूप में इसे लागू करने की सहमती होने की बात की जा रही है , जिसके तहत बिक्री एवं सेवा के एक ही व्यवहार पर केंद्र एवं राज्य दोनों ही "सी.जी.एस.टी." (केंद्र द्वारा लगाया जाने वाला जी.एस. टी .) एवं एस.जी.एस.टी. (राज्यों द्वारा लगाया जाने वाला जी.एस. टी .)के रूप में अलग –अलग कर लगायेंगे, को लेकर भी केंद्र और राज्यों के बीच अभी बहुत कुछ तय होना बाकी है . अभी निकट भविष्य में जे.एस.टी लगने की बहुत ज्यादा संभावना नहीं है लेकिन जो रुख हमारे कानून निर्माताओ इस समय है वह नहीं बदला तो निश्चित रूप से जी.एस. टी .लगाने के बाद करदाताओं की मुश्किलें और भी बढ़ जायेंगी . जी.एस. टी. की सफलता के लिए जरुरी है कि सरकार एक बार फिर से कर प्रणालियों के सरलीकरण की और कोई ठोस कदम उठाए.
अभी हाल ही में केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ने टैक्स ऑडिट रिपार्ट का वर्ष के मध्य में जो नया प्रारूप जारी किया उससे तो यह हे जाहिर होता है कि अब कानून निर्माता "सरलीकरण" के साथ – साथ तार्किकता के सिद्धांत का भी त्याग कर दिया गया है क्यों कि इस प्रारूप में ऐसा कुछ भी नहीं है कि इसे वर्ष के मध्य में जारी किया जाए और अब टैक्स ऑडिट की रिपोर्ट की तारीख 30/11/2014 तक बढ़ा कर आयकर रिटर्न की तारीख अभी भी 30/09/2014 रखना इस और पूरा संकेत है कि कर कानूनों के सम्बन्ध में अब सरली कारण एवं तार्किकता के वादे को ताक में रख दिया गया है चाहे इससे करदाताओ को कितना भी कष्ट क्यों ना हो.
हो सकता हो कि इसमे नई सरकार का कोई निहित उद्देश्य या निर्देश नहीं हो क्यों कि यह कार्यक्रम तो लगातार ही चल रहा है और बिना किसी स्पष्ट निर्देश के सरकारी नोकरशाही पुरानी नीति एवं परम्पराओं का ही पालन कर रही हो लेकिन यह सच है कि इससे आम करदाता एवं उनकी मदद करने वाले विशेषज्ञों के कष्ट बढ़ाते जा रहे है जो कि किसी भी लोकप्रिय सरकार का उद्देश्य हो ही नहीं सकता जिसकी और इस सरकार का ध्यान दिलाना एवं सरकार द्वारा इस और ध्यान देना बहुत ही जरुरी है .करो का एकत्रीकरण तो निर्बाध रूप से हो लेकिन करदाताओ को होने वाले कष्ट भी कम हो सके.
Religious pilgrimage services provided by specified organizations get exemption from Service tax
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the CBEC vide its Notification No. 17/2014-ST dated August 20, 2014 has amended the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012- ST dated June 20, 2012 ("the Mega Exemption Notification") by inserting a new Entry No. 5A after Entry No. 5 which reads as under:
"5A. Services by a specified organisation in respect of a religious pilgrimage facilitated by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India, under bilateral arrangement͖"
Further, in Paragraph 2 of the Mega Exemption Notification providing definitions of various terms used therein, after clause (zf), the following clause has been inserted, namely:-
"(zfa) "specified organisation" shall mean,-
(a) Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited, a Government of Uttarakhand Undertaking; or
(b) 'Committee' or 'State Committee' as defined in section 2 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 (35 of 2002)"
Thus, consequent to said amendment in the Mega Exemption Notification, only the services provided by Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited and Haj Committee in respect of religious pilgrimage facilitated by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India under bilateral agreement will be exempted from Service tax w.e.f 20th August, 2014.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment