Advocate Rano Jain, a former Member of the ITAT, has explained the intricacies of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules which gives a right to the Respondent before the ITAT to support the order of the CIT(A) on any ground decided against him, notwithstanding the fact that he may not have challenged the order. The learned author has analyzed the important judgements on the point and explained clearly the extent of the right and its limitations, including whether the Appellant can be worse-off as a result of the invocation of the Rule by the Respondent

INTRODUCTION

Assessments, once completed, if enter the arena of litigation, becomes a fight between the assessee and the department. There are various stages of litigation starting from the Comissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] till the Supreme Court. The CIT(A) is the first appellate authority, who himself is a part of the Income Tax Department. At this stage only assessee can be the appellant and the department cannot be aggrieved by actions of its own Assessing Officer. The ITAT is the second appellate authority and is a quasi judicial authority, where even the department can be the appellant. The High Courts and the Supreme Court decide the matter under their Appellate jurisdiction.

Read more ›

CA Sunil Maloo has pointed out that under the First Proviso to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a burden is cast upon the AO, in cases relating to reopening after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, to show that income has escaped assessment due to a failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of the material facts. The ld. author has referred to all the important judgements and submitted that the AO has to give particulars of what facts were omitted to be disclosed for valid exercise of jurisdiction and a mere bald assertion by him is not sufficient

1. Section 147 of the Act is code in itself, it provides a complete mechanism for the powers of the AO for reopening the Assessments to tax the income which has escaped assessment. However, at the same time the power conferred upon the AO by sections 147 is not an unbridled one. The provisions of section 147 contain basic conditions and the safeguards which have been inbuilt for ensuring that the assessments are reopened only for lawful reasons and in a transparent manner. The power of the AO in reopening the Assessment is hedged with several safeguards conceived in the interest of eliminating room for abuse of such power. The idea is to save the Assessees from harassment resulting from mechanical reopening of assessments. In case, any of such safeguards are flouted, it would invalidate the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 147 and 148.

Read more ›

CA Ketan Vajani has systematically analyzed the large number of amendments relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS) which have been inserted by the Finance Act 2020. He has explained the scope of these provisions with the aid of judicial precedents. He has pointed out that several provisions are complex and will lead to confusion and practical difficulties during implementation. He has identified the problem issues and requested the CBDT to issue a suitable clarification

Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS) are the most convenient mode of tax collections by the government. The cost of collection of these taxes are minimal and the same also adheres to the sound principle of collecting the taxes as the person earns the income. Classically the concept of TDS and TCS has been an accepted concept all across the globe. However ideally one needs to recognize the fact that ultimately the tax deductor / collector is working as an agent of the government and assists the government in tax collection. Over the period of past two decades or so, several amendments have been made in the Income-tax Act to ensure due compliance with the TDS and TCS provisions. There is a clear approach of a stick for default though unfortunately the carrot is never seen. We have the provisions leading to disallowance of expenses, levy of interest (as high as 18% p.a.), penalties for non-compliance, late filing fees (going upto TDS amount), the deductor being treated as assessee in default and on top of all, the fear of prosecution. All these provisions will keep on bothering the tax deductors whether one likes it or not.

Read more ›

Advocate Anuj Kisnadwala has raised the pertinent question as to whether a new asset which is lying idle due to the CoronaVirus Pandemic can be said to be “used” for business purposes so to be eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. author has explained the distinction between ‘ready to use‘ and ‘forced idleness‘. He has pointed out that the CBDT has the power u/s 119 of the Act to give relief to the assessees in such cases. He has also explained the remedies available to the taxpayer should the CBDT not be willing to grant relief

Introduction

1) Due to unprecedented Covid-19 crisis, the Central Government declared national lockdown with effect from 24th March 2020.Commencement of use of a capital asset is one task which has been, amongst others, hindered by the lockdown. Take a case of a factory which was to begin the production before 31-3-2020 but could not, due to national lockdown. Or take a case of a building scheduled to be functional in the month of April 2020, but now delayed. In all such cases, the capital asset i.e. plant, building, vehicle etc, could not be put to use due to lockdown, although the asset could have been ready and put to use but for lockdown.

Read more ›

Advocate Parveen Kumar Bansal (Former ITAT Vice President) and CA Gaurav Bansal have pointed out that the Central Processing Centre (CPC) is making adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income tax Act for alleged “mistakes” in the returns of income, without considering the objections of the assessee and giving reasons. The ld. authors have pointed out that this practice of the CPC is contrary to the law and CBDT Circulars and is leading to wasteful litigation and harassment. They have requested the CBDT to intervene and issue necessary directions. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

1.         INTRODUCTION:

1.1.      Due to the setup of the Central Processing Centre, all the income tax returns filed by the assessees are processed through computer processing. No manual intervention is done. Presently the assessees are getting notices from the income tax central processing center for adjustments under section 143(1)(a) of the Income tax Act. As per the notices issued, explanations are called for from the assessee for why adjustment should not be made in their returned income. For the said purposes, in view of the proviso to section 143(1)(a), a time of 30 days is being given to the assessee to reply the said notice. Even notices are issued to the assessee stating there in mistake in computing the income while in fact there is no mistake or inconsistency. If no reply is received from the assessee, the adjustments proposed are confirmed. However, it is noted that even wherever the assessee replies to the notice and gives its explanation but the same is not considered and without giving any reason for the rejection of the explanation, adjustment is made. The question is whether where the adjustments which are proposed are of debatable nature or where there is no mistake in the filling up of the return of income form, whether those adjustments can be made u/s 143(1)(a) under the garb of prima facie adjustment or whether even the notices can be issued in such cases.

Read more ›

CA Mohit Gupta has pointed out that under section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the prior approval of the JCIT is necessary before an assessment under sections 153A and 153C of the Act is passed. He has drawn attention to important judgements which have held that if the approval is granted by the JCIT in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, the assessment is vitiated. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

Section 153D of the act in the present Search Assessment regime mandates that a prior approval is necessary for a valid assessment under Section 153A and 153C of the act.

Read more ›

CA Nidhi Surana has pointed out that as a Covid-19 relief measure, the Government has granted an extension in the due dates and also directed issue of pending refunds to assessees. However, it has maintained a studied silence on the issue of stay of demand. She has argued that if the Department is permitted to exercise coercive measures to recover demands, businesses will collapse and there will be an economic calamity. She has pleaded that the CBDT should issue immediate instructions and stay recovery of outstanding demands

It is an undisputed fact that India Economically has entered unchartered waters.

We are clearly in unprecedented times. Running a business in such times is filled with challenges and hurdles on day-to-day basis. The basic of business management and economics revolves around the five parameters namely; – Manpower, Material, Money, Machinery and Method.

Read more ›

In PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 107 Taxmann.com 375, the Supreme Court considered the important issue whether proceedings initiated by the Department against a person who ceases to exist due to death or amalgamation is valid or not. CAs Nehal Shah and Tanupriya Patel have explained the true scope of the judgement and raised several pertinent follow-up questions. One of the interesting questions raised is whether, if the assessee’s successor omits to inform the Department of the death or amalgamation of an entity, the proceedings against the entity are curable and valid. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 An enormous litigation is going around in Income tax proceedings wherein assessment Orders or notices initiating assessment proceedings are issued/passed in the name of non-existing entities i.e. those entities which are either merged, amalgamated, wound up, etc before passing of the Assessment Order hence such entities becomenon-existent entities in the eyes of law. Whether on such facts assessment order passed in the name of erstwhile entity shall be a valid order or not?

Read more ›

Advocate Parveen Kumar Bansal (Former ITAT Vice President) and CA Gaurav Bansal have raised the interesting question whether the amendment to section 115BBE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 to tax unexplained cash credits, investments, expenditures etc under sections 68 etc at the higher tax rate of 60% can have retrospective application. The ld. authors have canvassed the convincing argument that the increased tax rate is prospective and should be confined only to additions made on account of unexplained demonetized currency and not for other additions. A large number of judicial precedents have been relied upon to support the argument. A pdf copy of the article is available for download

1.         INTRODUCTION:

1.1.       The Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 (No. 48 of 2016) was passed by the Hon’ble Lok Sabha of India on 29.11.2016 i.e. after the demonetization of legal tender of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- was launched by our Hon’ble Prime Minister on 08.11.2016. The said Second Amendment Act, 2016 received the assent of the President on the 15th December, 2016 and the section 115BBE of the Income tax was substituted by a new section 115BBE w.e.f. 1st April, 2017. Prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, it was as under: –

Read more ›

Advocates Devendra Jain and Radha Halbe have pointed out that the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic is likely to lead to defaults in payment of salaries, rent, business transactions, execution of contracts etc. The ld. authors have systematically analyzed the tax implications of these defaults and explained whether the income will still be assessable in the hands of the assessee. A plethora of important judgements have been referred to by the ld. authors in support of their analysis

1. Introduction

In the wake of the ongoing Covid-19 crises, the country has seen unprecedented times and the downfall in terms of the socio-economic environment has directly affected people at large. Temporary disruptions of trade and commerce might stress many organisations, particularly those with inadequate liquidity. In our fight against the Covid-19 Pandemic,Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled a comprehensive package of Rs 20 lakh crore under the ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan’ campaign to build a resilient India. Various measures have need taken by all at their individual levels to restore normalcy, medical and economic, at the earliest.

Read more ›