Category: Others

The CBDT has issued Circular No. 23/2015 dated 28.12.2015 stating that in the case of UCO Bank (Writ Petition No. 3563 of 2012), the Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 194A do not apply to fixed deposits made in the name of Registrar General of the Court on the directions of the Court during the pendency of proceedings before the Court. It is pointed out that in such cases, it is not known who the beneficiary of the fixed deposits will be till the Court passes the appropriate orders in the matter. The amount and year of receipt is also unascertainable. The High Court quashed Circular No. 8 of 2011 and stated that the person who is ultimately granted the funds would be determined by orders that are passed subsequently. The Board has accepted the aforesaid judgment and clarified that interest on FDRs made in the name of Registrar General of the Court or the depositor of the fund on the directions of the Court, will not be subject to TDS till the matter is decided by the Court. However, once the Court decides the ownership of the money lying in the fixed deposit, the provisions of section 194A will apply to the recipient of the income. The CBDT has also directed that such issues should not be contested in appeal and pending litigation, if any on the issue before various Courts/Tribunals should be withdrawn/not pressed upon

The CBDT has issued a press release dated 23.12.2015 stating that the Finance Act, 2015 has amended, with effect from 01.04.2016, the provisions of Income-tax Act relating to determination of residence of a company. In accordance with the amended provisions a company would be said to be resident in India in any previous year, if it is an Indian company or its Place of Effective Management (POEM) in that year is in India. It is further stated that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2015 stated that a set of guiding principles for determination of POEM would be issued for the benefit of the taxpayers as well as the tax administration

The CBDT has issued Instruction No. 18/2015 dated 23.12.2015 clarifying the position with regard to the applicability of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on foreign companies for the period prior to 1.04.2015 in the wake of instruction No.9 dated 02/09/2015, Press Release dated 24.09.2015 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Castleton Investment Ltd

The CBDT has issued a letter dated 15.12.2015 stating that the Revenue Secretary has directed that henceforth any notice/letter/communication issued by any officer under Department of Revenue; including CBDT, its directorates and field formations; to the tax payers, members of public should invariably contain mention of email address and office phone numbers, of the officers signing such, communications/notice/letters for facilitating tax payers’ electronic interface with the Department. The CBDT has requested everyone to ensure that the above directions are strictly followed

Accordingly, w.c.f. 1.4.1988, the settled position is that if the assessee deposits any sum payable by it by way of tax, duty, cess or fee by whatever name called under any law for the time being in force, or any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, on or before the ‘due date’ applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) or the Act, no disallowance can be made under section 43B of the Act

The CBDT has issued a press release dated 17.12.2015 stating that section 195 of the Income-tax Act (‘the Act’) empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes to capture information in respect of payments made to non-residents, whether chargeable to tax or not. Rule 37BB of the Income-tax Rules has been amended to strike a balance between reducing the burden of compliance and collection of information under section 195 of the Act

The CBDT has issued an Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2015 in which it is noted that in a recent decision of the Bombay High Court (DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez), the manner in which the department files appeals was termed as being “casual and callous”. It is noted that there are other cases where the ITAT and the High Courts have adversely commented on the filing of frivolous appeals by the department. The CBDT has accordingly decided to extend the Collegium system to consider withdrawal of appeals filed in the High Court which are no longer considered prosecutable. The CBDT has specified the responsibilities of the CCIT in each region and also directed that a monthly report of the progress be submitted to it

The CBDT has issued Notification No. 90/2015 F.No. 142/7/2014-TPL dated 14.12.2015 by which it has amended the Safe Harbour Rule specified in Rule 10D(2A) and specified the information and documents required to be maintained by an eligible assessee

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has made the grim announcement that a high-ranking Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in Mumbai has been arrested for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 5 lakh from a real estate developer for not initiating action and ‘settling’ an income tax matter. The officer was earlier accused by the authorities of not only “causing loss of revenue but was playing mischief with assessment records by manipulating, back dating order sheet entries, after passing assessment orders

The CBDT has, as a measure for reducing litigation, issued Circular 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 increasing the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the department before the ITAT and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court. The notable aspect is that the CBDT has directed that the said instruction shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals and that all appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn/ not pressed. However, appeals before the Supreme Court are to be governed by the limits operative at the time that the appeal was filed