“Higher wisdom has to prevail over better wisdom” is the mantra judges mumble when they are forced to follow a precedent that they don’t quite agree with. However, judges do find ways of getting out of having to follow a judgement of a higher court. The latest salvo on this front is the Third Member judgement in Kanel Oil which shows that a High Court judgement, though superior in status to the Tribunal, may have to yield to the latter. In this case, the Bench was faced with a piquant situation. It had to decide whether an assessee liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”) under section 115JA of the Act was also liable to pay advance tax under sections 234B and 234C for default in paying advance tax. The issue as such was covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in Ashima Syntex 117 ITD 1 but the assessee must have been very smug during the hearing because there was a subsequent judgement of the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India 313 ITR 170 which held, following the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kwality Biscuits 284 ITR 434, that assessees paying tax on book profits u/s 115JA were not liable to pay advance tax. The Judicial Member did oblige and decided in favour of the assessee by following the judgement of the Bombay High Court. However, the Accountant Member wrote a detailed dissenting judgement and followed the judgement of the Special Bench. This is how the matter landed up before the Third Member.
Year: 2009
Depreciation Dreams Dashed
The twin losses in quick succession on the depreciation front have put depreciation – aficionados in a sense of gloom. First, in Techno Shares & Stocks, they were told in no uncertain terms that their esoteric arguments on the intangible assets front was far fetched. Second, in Plastiblends, they were told that their gambit to extract maximum deduction u/s 80-IA while postponing the claim for depreciation for later years when the s. 80-IA relief would run out was not going to work.
Death of a Circular
Circular No. 23 dated 23rd July 1969 held the fort valiantly for 40 years but in the end met an unceremonious death. The Circular, issued in an era where fair play was still respected, was a masterful analysis of section 9 which provided a tax liability on non-residents from income accruing or arising through or from business connection in India. The Circular was essentially a series of illustrative instances and guidelines designed to guide befuddled taxpayers from the labyrinth of tax laws. Written in a simple and easy-to-understand style, it told you in clear terms whether your transaction was taxable or not and the reasons for the same.
Temporary reprieve from Daga Capital
The decision of the President of the ITAT to stay hearing of appeals involving Daga Capital 119 TTJ 289 (Mum) (SB) has provided temporary reprieve to beleaguered assesses reeling under the twin losses of Daga Capital and Cheminvest. In Daga Capital, it was held that Rule 8D though inserted vide notification No. 45/2008 dated 24th March 2008 would apply to pending matters as well. Though the Special Bench was not concerned with the mechanics of Rule 8D, its ruling cast a gloom because Rule 8D, if literally applied, can result in the quantum of disallowance exceeding the quantum of exempt income! Of course, the correct interpretation, according to some experts, is that Rule 8D is meant as a measure of last resort only; i.e., when it is not possible to work out the disallowance correctly having regard to the accounts.
A Code Full Of Problems!
The author is chillingly polite when he says that even the draftsmen of the Direct Taxes Code have not realized the far reaching consequences that their proposals will have. He identifies ten conceptual problems with the Code and warns that unless these are addressed, the Direct Taxes Code will become a draconian piece of legislation. He implores tax professionals to rise to the occasion and come forward with objective suggestions which will help simplify and rationalize tax laws and procedures
Psst …. Phir se settlement karne ka hai …??
The author slams the Government for repeatedly trying to scuttle the settlement mechanism. He argues that a statutory provision designed to bring taxpayers who have gone astray onto the right path must be implemented in a pragmatic manner. He lauds the Bombay High Court for reading down the ill-conceived amendments to the settlement provisions by the Finance Act, 2007 and exhorts the Government to accept the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the right spirit and not exacerbate the matter by filing an appeal. The author also uses his rich experience to set out a road map to be followed by all the stake-holders for a speedy disposal of the settlement applications.
No funds for the temple of justice …
The author is aghast that while the Finance Minister has been generous in providing funds to the other sections of society, he has totally overlooked the judiciary. He implores the Government not to ignore the judiciary and warns that unless financial independence is given to the judiciary, judicial reforms are not possible.
Dear Finance Minister, this Budget, I want ….
The author puts on his thinking cap and conjures up a 10-point wish-list of conceptual changes that need to brought about in the tax policy to ensure effective compliance. He also puts his vast experience in the field of tax laws to good use to identify specific loop holes and suggests measures to plug the same.
Lamb (Tax payer) vs. Wolf (corrupt official)!
The author does some soul-searching to discover the reasons why fellow-Indians do not pay their taxes honestly even though they know it is their constitutional duty to do so. He argues that the poor policies of the tax administration are responsible for this sorry state of affairs and suggests a few solutions to set things right.
Judges on Contract!
The author is severely critical of the proposal of the Government to appoint Members of the Tribunal on contract basis for 5 years subject to renewal at the discretion of the Government. He warns that making the Members insecure about …