Category: judiciary

The author, who is usually very critical of the Government for its indifferent attitude to the Judiciary, is full of praise this time at the grant of Rs. 5,000 crores in the Budget for modernization of the justice delivery system. He urges that much more has to be done and makes the radical suggestion that visionaries like Sam Pitroda and Nandan Nilekani should be nominated to prepare a road map to reform the judicial process

Finance Bill 2010: Judgement of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries 288 ITR 408 superseded by the Explanation to section 9 (1) (vii)

The author is full of appreciation at the stellar roles played by the ITAT and the Bombay High Court in reducing arrears. He argues that the dwindling pendency of matters has rendered the concept of the NTT redundant. He makes out a strong case for increasing the role of the ITAT by making non-appeallable orders appeallable to the ITAT

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.