CA Rajkamal Shah, an expert on service-tax, has explained the implications of the amendment by the Finance Bill 2016 from 1.4.2016 read with Notification No. 18/2016-ST and Notification No. 9/2016 – ST with respect to the levy of service-tax on senior advocates
The Chamber of Tax Consultants has released a publication titled “Bird’s Eye-View Of The Finance Bill 2016”. The publication is authored by several well-known professionals such as Nihar Jambusaria, Nilesh Kapadia, Mayur Nayak, Apurva Shah, Ashok Sharma, Sameer Dalal and others. Leading Senior Advocates Dinesh Vyas and Dr. K. Shivaram have provided valuable inputs. The publication contains an in-depth analysis of the provisions of the Finance Bill relating to Direct tax and indirect tax and identifies several problem areas. Where feasible, the learned authors have offered suggestions on how the problems can be overcome. The publication is available in a pdf format and can also be viewed on the website of the Chamber of Tax Consultants. The publication will prove to be invaluable to all professionals and taxpayers who are grappling with the intricacies of the Finance Bill.
The CBDT has issued Circular No. 07/2016 dated 07.03.2016 in which it has pointed out that a consortium of contractors is often formed to implement large infrastructure projects particularly in Engineering, Procurement and Construction (“EPC’) contracts and Turnkey Projects. The tax authorities, in many cases have taken a position that such a consortium constitutes an Association of Persons (‘AOP’) i.e. a separate entity for charging tax The claim of taxpayers, on the other hand, is contrary to this view. This has led to tax disputes particularly in those cases where each member of the consortium, although jointly and severally liable to the contractee, has a clear distinction and role in scope of work responsibilities and liabilities of the consortium members. With a view to avoiding disputes, the CBDT has issued clear-cut guidelines on the attributes that a consortium arrangement for executing EPC/Turnkey contracts must possess for it not to be treated as an AOP
The CBDT has issued an Office Memorandum dated 07.03.2016 stating that in view of the large volume of pending refunds which are subject to proceedings u/s 245 and the timeline of 30 days for responding to the notice allowed to the assessee and the same time period allowed to the assessing officer to confirm/ correct the demand, it is taking too long for the demand to be verified and the refunds to be issued, leading to rise of grievances. With a view to clear the pendency of refunds which are subject to verification under section 245, the CBDT has been decided that the timeline of 30 days for the assessee and the assessing officer specified in the O.M. dated 29.01.2016 may be reduced to 15 days with regard to the notices under section 245 to be issued in the balance period of the current financial year. This is a one-time measure to clear the backlog of refunds and accordingly the reduced timeline of 15 days shall be valid only till 31.03.2016
Eminent Jurist Shri. S. E. Dastur addressed a distinguished audience of professionals and taxpayers on Friday, 4th March 2016, on the implications of the Finance Bill 2016. The function was organised by the Bombay Chartered Accountants’ Society (BCAS). This was Mr. Dastur’s 28th talk on the Finance Bill, which is probably a World record in itself. With his usual eloquence and clarity of expression, Mr. Dastur enthralled the audience as he unravelled nuances of the Finance Bill 2016
The CBDT has issued Circular No. 02/2016 dated 25.02.2016 in which it has clarified that the provisions of the India-UK DTAA would be applicable to a partnership. that is a resident of either India or UK, to the extent that the income derived by such partnership, estate or trust is subject to tax in that State as the income of a resident, either in its own hands or in the hands of its partners or beneficiaries
The CBDT has issued Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 in which it has clarified the issue of taxability of surplus on sale of shares and securities. The CBDT has explained the circumstances in which such surplus can be assessed as capital gains or business income. The said instructions have been issued in order to reduce litigation
The CBDT has issued a directive dated 18.02.2016 by which it has directed Assessing Officers to conduct immediate verification of outstanding demands where intimation u/s 245 has been issued by CPC and taxpayers have disputed the demands