Messages

Sirs, X a lecturer in University aided college having only  Salary Income ,received salary arrears for past years uploaded his Return of Income(ROI)  for AY18-19 . Though Form 10E was given to institution, and relief was claimed in ROI . However, since Form 10E  was not uploaded in department site properly while filing his ROI, it resulted in  . Intimation and demand for tax and interest . Later,this was rectified by uploading 10E and return reprocessed .Now he has received fresh Intimation demanding the interest as per the original intimation. This appears not to be proper .Please guide (1) whether the fresh demand is proper(2) Is there any case laws /Circulars that can be cited against the demand (3) How the dmenad can be rectified.  Kindly guide       

Sirs,  AN assessee   filed his return electronically and made a claim for refund of excess tax  for the year ended 31.3.2013 based on the tax credits displayed by 26AS. Th return was processed, intimation u/s143(1)(a) sent  and refund received. On regularization of TDS defaults by awarer (the income whereof has been already considered in return filed ) , additional  TDS amount get reflected  in 26AS of the year as at present. How the assessee could claim this additional TDS -whether by fresh e-return  or by direct request to the AO?If e-return how the refund already received is to be shown 

With best regards
K S Iyer
     

[TRACES]

TRACES, central processing wing of tds returns; may be  after processing TDS  returns of past many years,  are seen to be  issuing  demand /intimations to TDS deductotrs towards short deduction  etc. for past years (I have seen to be even from fy2008-09).In a case where such a deductee concerned had already  paid balance tax claimed refund based on  original  TDS by due date for return in past and his return is processed /refund given based on that, whether the present  payment of TRACES demand  would not result in duplication and how would the deductee would come to know about such 'enhanced' deduction -especially when such deductees are not traceable / were under one time deals/ stopped business/ no more  ?? . Also, the demand for interest and interest on interest could be  logical upto the date of payment of tax by deductee . I am not sure whether this aspect would have been considered by TRACES ? If not , is there any justification/ legality in  collecting taxes both from deductees and later on now  from deductor by present scheme followed ? Would the department follow up the eligible deductees and make refund of 'excess tax' with interest??

Sirs,
Thanks a lot for the practical tips

Sirs
Thanks a lot . This is what I explained to the deductee . Since the error started from the data uploaded by deductor, he only can file rectification - but till such time ,what best the ordinary deductee can do ??
With warm  Regards
Subbu

Sirs
CBDT  prescribed in May 2011 that  Company/ banks  TDS deductors have to mandatorily issue TDS certificate in Form 16A with unique certificate number as downloaded from TIN site . One of my client despite informing PAN to his  public sector bank where he has FDs , deducted TDS @ 20% u/s206AA (for FY 11-12) and the explanation was that concerned  staff omitted to feed the same in their system .Over and above  The bank  issued Form 16A prepared manually  rather than downloading it from TIN site and says the same has not been implemented in their branch and says that they are " helpless" as these are taken care at their Corporate office  . Unless tax is reflected in 26AS department generally do not give credit.  My request for valuable views are  (a) is it possible to for bank to get  Form 16A from site where TDS is made u/ s206AA (b)what best recourse is available to the client  to get the credit (c) whether CBDT is aware of these difficulties of assessee for none of his fault  who is put to trouble and deductor remain spectator after starting the trouble  .Pls share

Recently in a seminar on MAT /AMT , the resource person claims  that on a stricter view (i)CA Report in Form 29B/29C as the case may be should be furnished with the jurisdictional Income Tax officer (ii)  that Form 29B is required to be obtained even if the Company is to pay  income tax under normal method . I would like understand if this view is correct OR that (i) those reports need to be obtained by assessee and need to be furnished on demand by AO and (ii) Form 29B need to be obtained only if tax liability is under sec115 JB/JC ( as this is evident in ITR format itself) .Please share your expert thought on this 

Thank you Sir for sharing the method that you followed

Sirs
An NRE account holder has  transferred in past certain sum on various occasions  from his NRE account  to NRO account . The NRE is based in Quatar . He also has credited the sales proceeds of inherited property sold on which he has paid capital gains tax  . Recently RBI has allowed transfer of funds from NRO to NRE account and he accordingly he  requested the bank for such  transfer . (below 1million dollars only) But the bank is asking him to get Form 15CB from a CA .  How would one fill up the form since there is no remittance involved (only transfer) and no TAN obtained.? I believe that sec. 195 is intended to cover a resident making remittance to a non-resident .? May I get expert guidance on these matters  and the expert views on the subject .
With best regards
K S Iyer

 
Sirs
Can any one help me in getting the decision :Asst CIT v Kin Ship  Services ( India ) ( P ) Ltd ( 2010 ) 128 TTJ ( Coch ) 108.

Thanks
Subbu

An assesee ( a private ltd Company)  filed return belatedly for AY 2005/06 in Oct 2006.The AO has in Month of May 2010 issues notices u/s 143(2) fixing date of hearimng and 142(1)requesting to file certain details as given by him in the Annexure attached to the notice .

a) In my humble view , since the notice U/ s 143(2) issued is the after 6 months from the end of the financial year ended on 2006, the same is not a valid service . Am I correct
b) In this case I believe that 142(1)(i) does not apply since there is a return filed belatedly .However, I do not find any time limit fixed under the Act for notice requiring to produce, or cause to be produced, such accounts or documents as AO as he may require . As such is the action of AO can be considered within a  reasonable period . What  could be considered as a reasonable period in such cases? I beleive the proper measure for  AO should have been by resorting to sec 147/148, which he skipped . Is it a case of defective notice ?
c) In the Annexure to the notice , the AO is asking the details of bank accounts of directors , their details of assets/liabilities etc. Is it proper to ask for such details , before any adverse findings in the course of examination of books/records during his  assessment procedings
I believe that  , if there is  co-operatation  with the proceedings  the assessment proceedings would be deemed to be valid by fiction of law  .Kindly enlighten , preferably by quoting case laws  relevant to the case  .

Kindly specify the assessment year involved. There are many cases which has held that if department does not have any proof of on money payment , difference cannot be added as unexplained investment under sec. 69.

Sir
The facts are relevant to the year ended on March 31,2010. I am sorry that , I missed to state the  period relevant to the issue involved, which is very important

Thanks & regards
Subramaniam

Hi

In a peculiar case , an assessee acquired a piece of land , whose document value acceptable to the Registering authorities was higher than that of real price at which it was settled . Truly the seller has to pay CGT based  on document value. As the  purchaser has not paid the value as shown in document , they  raises a doubt as to whether the difference would be brought to tax and how this can be defended . Infact the  concern's governing body resolution authorising the purchase was only for lesser sum , but  despite their objections  they  agreed to  for higher document value and  complete the  purchase process within the agreed time schedule .
How the purchaser could legitimately explain  his case and is their any case law in support of  his cause. Please share expert views

With best regrads

subramanian 

Satyanveshi  Sir

Thanks for sharing your views and for valuable time

With regards
K S Iyer

As for the facts mentioned in the problem, the agent will prepare his P & L account crediting the same with the commission received from principal. The principal prepares his P & L account by debiting the expenditure paid to the contractors ( infact paid by the agent without deducting the TDS). Therefore, the expenditure claimed by the principal will be disallowed because TDS is not deducted. It is immaterial whether the payment is made by the agent on behalf of the principal or the principal had directly made the payment. The amount debited in the P & L account of the principal will be disallowed since no TDS is deducted.

Satyanveshi Sir

Thanks for your learned views and I note the application of Principal's liability for the acts and omissions of his Agent in general law. This is really tedious for a Principal who is caught unaware, especially one who is at a distant place and comes to know about the agent's ignorance and failure  belatedly. In a case where it relates to 194C, not only that such a principal's 100% expense is disallowed for failure to deduct a 2% but becomes liable for consequential liabilities!

Lets once more see sec 40(ia)  that disallows various sums if ......" tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted ...." . In Chapter XVII , See 194 C that begins with...."  Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor........ and sec 204 (iii) that explains  "Meaning of person responsible for paying." ..in the case of credit, or, as the case may be, payment] of any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act, the payer himself, or, if the payer is a company, the company itself including the principal officer thereof."  On a combined reading of 194C and Sec 204 , I note that the  Agent is squarely responsible . Since sec 40(ia) prescribes for dis allowance  with reference to  TDS provisions contained in  Chapter XVII-B , is it fair to penalize a Principal  in genuine cases ? Are there any case laws where such dis allowance are disputed and settled against principal . Is it because of  lack of clarity of governing provisions due to failure to conceive such cases? Please throw some light .

With reagrds
K S Iyer