This week, the author suggests that a Anna Hazare style crusader is needed to explain to the CBDT the irrationality of its stand that the monetary limits for filing appeals will apply only to fresh appeals and not to pending appeals. Also, on the issue whether software income is assesable as “royalty”, the CBDT should abandon its ostrich-like stance and take a firm stand one way or the other like its Australian counterpart says the author

Legislature Proposes; Judiciary Disposes

Old timers will recollect the excitement that the judgement of the Tribunal in Pranav Constructions 61 TTJ (Mum) 145 had created. The Tribunal had done the unthinkabale. It held that the hafta or protection money paid by the assessee to local politicians and goons could be claimed as “business expenditure” on the footing that without such payments, business could not be conducted. Till then, unsavoury issues like hafta were meant to be confined to a fiction writer’s imagination without official cognizance.

The judgement obviously upset somebody high up in the department because in the very next Budget a retrospective amendment “for the removal of doubts” was inserted in the form of Explanation to s. 37(1) to provide that a payment for a purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law was not incurred for business purposes. In the Memorandum as well in the Explanatory Circular it was made clear that “The amendment will result in disallowance of the claim made by certain tax payers of payments on account of protection money, extortion, hafta, bribes, etc. as business expenditure“. The amendment was made effective from the date of commencement of the Act, 1.4.1962 to ensure that all traces of Pranav Construction was removed.

Read more ›

image credit: imagesofasia.com

On the occasion of the Bombay High Court’s 150th Anniversary, the author pays rich tribute to the judicial independence and integrity of the Bombay High Court and recollects the stellar contribution of the tax professionals in bringing glory to the High Court. This is the time for all professionals to re-dedicate themselves to the cause of the Judiciary exhorts the author

The Bombay High Court, which was established on August 14, 1862 & entered into the 150th year on 14th August 2011. On this auspicious day a memorable function was held at Bombay High Court to mark the beginning of the sesquicentennial celebration of the Bombay High Court.

Bombay High Court as an institution has produced what can be described as galaxy of legal luminaries. The publication titled “The Bombay High Court -The story of building – 1878-2003”. In the foreword written by then Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Mr. C. K. Thakker reads as under “There are, too men who became legends in their own life times, perhaps most of all M. C. Chagla. The Lawyers from this Court have shone bright and long in the legal firmament: Sir Dinshaw Mulla, the doyen of Indian jurisprudence, Sir Jamshedji Kanga, Nani Palkhivala, H. M. Seervai, C. K. Daphtary, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Motilal Setalwad and others” – “As much as the Judges, it is the Bombay Bar that has given the Bombay High Court its unique culture and reputation. This is a Bar that is fiercely – even frighteningly – independent. It is unforgiving of moral and legal transgressions amongst itself and its judges and yet, strangely, is gentle Bar that adopts as its own every judge who sits here”.

Read more ›

Get up to speed with the latest developments in the World of Tax. This week, the author wonders whether it is time to write an obituary for the DRP. Also another body-blow on the reopening front should shake the Babus of Aaykar Bhavan out of their reverie. And yes, don’t forget to tighten your seat belt because the CBDT Chairman’s missive on recovery might just prompt the AO to demand that you pay up that long outstanding arrear

Fasten Your Seat Belts – Its’ Recovery Time

The CBDT normally goes into “recovery & collection” mode in March when they have to report the figures of tax collection to the mandarins of South Block. So, the Chairman’s letter of 25th July telling his juniors that “focus” on “concerted efforts in certain categories may expedite cash collection” came as a bit of a surprise. However, it seems just to be more a case of saber-rattling rather than anything serious. The Chairman’s tone seemed quite casual. There was no sense of urgency in it. No words to shake the Babus of Aaykar Bhavan out of their reverie. His use of the words “I suggest” was significant. Also, the suggestions appear to have been casually made. The Chairman said “more than 20,000 crores have been stayed by courts/ITAT” and that “counsels should be advised to get the stay vacated” by bringing “the direction of the Supreme Court in the Vodafone case” to the notice of the concerned authority. Well, all that one can say politely and with humility is that a tutorial on the working of the Tribunal and the Courts may be in order! Meanwhile the ground reality is that assessees continue to enjoy unlimited stay from the Tribunal despite the clear legislative intent to the contrary. This is thanks to the blunders of the department (see Dear Department, Thank You For Giving Us Infinite Stay Of Demand). Mr. Chairman, can you do something to rectify this please?

Read more ›

The author trains his guns again on the proposed National Tax Tribunal and makes out a compelling case on why it should never be implemented. Instead, a different approach is required to solve the problems of delay and cost in justice delivery says the author. The ten-point agenda formulated by the author will, if implemented in true earnest, deliver us the Nirvana of “Sulabh Nyay Satvar Nyay” (Simple justice, Speedy justice) assures the author

The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the Land. One of the most important provisions of the Constitution of India is Article 265, which provides that “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”.

In the year 1998-99, the total pendency of tax appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were 3,00,597 it took six to seven years to hear the appeal before the Tribunal, and in High Courts the matters were heard after 10 to 15 years. Shri Palkhivala in his article “The Maddening Instability of Income Tax Law” (Income Tax Review – August-Sept, 1996 P. 57 has stated as under “A telling example of the total absence of a sense of time in our tax administration is afforded by Supreme Court’s decision rendered last November in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 2 SCALE 931. It was a case under Business Profits Tax, 1947. The accounting period was 1946-47. The amount involved was paltry sum of a few lakhs of rupees. The High Court’s order was rendered in 1965. The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to re- hear the appeal 44 years after the close of the accounting period. Is there any other civilized country where a tax payer would not know the quantum of his liability for 44 years?”.

Read more ›

The author argues that the adverse outcome of the Aditya Birla Nuvo matter was the result of shoddy drafting of the JV agreements by AT&T’s lawyers which the department’s lawyers exploited to the hilt. But its too early to write an obituary for the India-Mauritius DTAA says the author.

The judgement of the Bombay High Court in Aditya Birla Nuvo vs. DDIT must have sent a chill down the spine of foreign investors hoping to escape tax in India by routing their investments through Mauritius.

On paper, Aditya Birla Nuvo had a seemingly cast-iron case. Like hundreds of foreign investors before it, AT&T USA set up a 100% subsidiary in Mauritius, funded it with enough capital and got it to invest in the shares of Idea Cellular.

So what if AT&T Mauritius was a dummy company with no operations worth its name. It had the ‘precious’ Tax Residency Certificate from the Mauritius tax authorities and that is all that was required to wish away all tax headaches as per the CBDT’s Circular Nos 682 & 789 dated 30.3.1994 and 30.4.2000 and the judgement of the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706.

Read more ›

The author adds his voice of reason to the strident debate on the pros and cons of the Lokpal bill. The author argues that while the proposal to bring the judiciary under the scrutiny of the Lokpal is well-intentioned, it will adversely affect the fearlessness and independence of the judiciary and have disastrous consequences. Instead, the author suggests measures to curb corruption in the judiciary.

In India common citizens have full faith in the Judiciary, but their objection is against the Judiciary is delay in justice delivery system. Therefore, one need to take remedial measures to reduce the pendency of cases before various Courts. Mere introduction of Lokpal Bill may not have much impact on the present system. According to me, the legislature alone is responsible for delay in justice delivery system, because they have not increased the strength of judges and have also not been filling up the vacancy of Judges.

Read more ›

The author lashes out at the proposal of the Government to enact a new law to regulate lawyers, claiming that it will be an immense waste of public money. Instead, if the Government is really serious of protecting the interests of the public, then there is a series of steps it can take under the existing legislation to promote the rule of law and enhance standards in the profession, says the author. The author identifies 10 such steps which he claims will reform the legal sector.

The Government of India is proposing to introduce “Legal Practitioners (Regulations and Maintenance of Standards in Profession, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of law) Act, 2010“, and has requested for suggestions from the stake holders i.e., Public in General, Legal Fraternity, Educationalist, etc. Under Clause 35 of the proposed Act, until competent regulatory bodies are established by the Central Government or State Government as the case may be. The Legal Services Board shall function as the regulator for the regulatory objectives under this act for legal professionals other than those covered by the Advocates Act, 1961 as enumerated in Schedule I i.e.

Read more ›

The author raises the seminal question as to why, while the Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court, does it not have the power to punish for contempt. He cautions lower authorities that the lack of contempt power is no reason for not following the binding judgements of the Tribunal. He also makes a fervent plea to all practitioners to uphold the honour & dignity of the great Institution.

Under the Income tax Act, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a final fact finding authority.  In Ajay Gandhi v B. Singh (2004) 265 ITR 451 Apex Court observed that “The Income tax Appellate Tribunal exercises judicial functions and has the trapping of a Court”. Apex Court in ITAT v V.K. Agrawal (1999) 235 ITR 175 has held that interfering with administration of justice of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal will amount to contempt of Court. In an historic judgment then law secretary was held for contempt. It is now beyond doubt that the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has all the powers of Court. It can issue summons and  exercise all the powers vested in the Income tax authorities under section 131 of the income Tax  Act, hence any proceedings before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian Penal code. The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

Read more ›

Despite vehement protests by the legal fraternity, service-tax on legal consultancy services has become a reality of life w.e.f 1.5.2011. The author, an eminent expert in service-tax law, has prepared this Guide to assist lawyers in complying with their newly-imposed service-tax obligation. A pdf copy of the Guide (revised) is available for download

Service tax was first introduced on Legal Consultancy Service from 01.09.2009 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 by inserting cl. (zzzzm) in S. 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The coverage of taxable service was limited to service provided by a business entity to any other business entity. Further, the taxable service was restricted to advise, consultancy or technical assistance in any branch of law, in any manner, but not appearance before any court, tribunal or an authority. Thus, service provided by an individual to any person and service received by the individual from any person was not liable to tax.

This write-up is now redundant in view of changes to the law. Click here for the revised Guide

The Finance Act, 2011 (enacted on 8th April, 2011) has substantially increased the scope of the levy which is explained in this article. This amendment comes into force from 01.05.2011.

Read more ›

The author argues that the verdict of the Special Bench in Tata Communications vs. DCIT that stay of demand can be extended by the Tribunal beyond 365 days is the result of inept handling by the department. He calls the situation a “fiasco” for the department and dishes out advice on what can be done to remedy the situation

The judgement of the Special Bench in Tata Communications vs. DCIT that the Tribunal has the power to extend stay beyond 365 days despite the clear language of the Third Proviso to s. 254(2) of the Act must have come as a big surprise to even the most optimistic tax-payer. Certainly, the decision caught battle-hardened tax professionals by surprise.

The blame for the fiasco lie squarely with the department for their inept handling of the matter. Of course, it is another matter that the provision of law is itself grossly misconceived.

The Tribunal’s power to grant stay of demand was recognized by the Supreme Court as early as in the year 1969 in ITO vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi 71 ITR 815 where it was held that the power to give final relief in the appeal included the power to grant interim relief to stay the demand.

Read more ›