TIOL-DDT 1998 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=14276"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/ddt/ddt_1794.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1998 </font><br>
</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>07.12.2012 <br>
Friday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>I-T
- Whether expression 'payable' in sec 40(a)(ia) refers to entire
payment on which TDS was required to be made or only to amount outstanding
as on 31st March of every year</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHAT</strong> are the consequences of not deducting the TDS or after deducting not paying the deducted tax to the Government? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per section 201 of Income Tax Act 1961, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• Without prejudice to any other consequences, the defaulter will be deemed to be an assessee in default. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• He is liable to pay an interest at 12% P.A. from the date on which the tax was deductible till the date of actual payment. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• The TDS along with the interest will be a charge on all the assets of the defaulter. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• He is liable to rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 months, but which can extend up to 7 years and fine. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• He is liable to a penalty equal to the tax not deducted. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Knowing the above liabilities, no sane person would invite the wrath of the department by not deducting TDS or after deducting not paying to the government. But there is more! A new sub clause (ia) of Sec 40(a) had been inserted into the Income Tax Act by Finance Act (No. 2) of 2004. Under this clause if on any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professionals etc., TDS is deductible and if not so deducted or after deduction not paid, the entire expenditure will not be deducted while computing the income chargeable under Profits and gains of business or profession. Putting in English, this can be explained by the following example. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• Supposing you have paid Rs. 1.00 Crore in the previous year as Interest, fee etc, and you have either not deducted tax or after deducting not paid it to the Government, apart from the five consequences mentioned above, this one Crore will not be permitted as an expenditure in your profits and gains computation. With the result, you may have to pay a higher rate of income tax on the entire amount of Rs. 1.00 Crores in the year of default. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 40(a)(ia) reads as: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(ia) Any interest, commission or brokerage, fees for professional services or fees for technical services <strong>payable </strong> to a resident, or amounts credited or paid to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour carrying out any work), on which tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid before the expiry of the time prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 200 and in accordance with the other provisions of Chapter XVII-B : </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted under Chapter XVII-B or paid in any subsequent year, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The ITAT Special Bench, Visakhapatnam sometime back in <em>Merilyn Shipping & Transports, Visakhapatnam Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax</em>- <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=39&filename=legal/itat/2012/2012-TIOL-184-ITAT-VIZAG-SB.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2012-TIOL-184-ITAT-VIZAG-SB</font></a></strong></em>, delivered a landmark decision on Section 40(a)(ia). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this case, the assesse, a partnership firm, derived income from business of ship containers transport and handling, customs clearing and as forwarding agents. It filed its return of income for assessment year 2005-06 declaring total income of Rs.15,24,710/- on 29.03.2006. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed certain expenditure in Profit & Loss A/c., i.e. brokerage expenses of Rs.38,75,000/- and commission of Rs.2,43,253/-without deducting TDS on payment of these amounts as required under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer intimated the defaults. In response, assessee's representative accepted his failure for non-deduction of TDS at the time of making payment and agreed for the disallowance. Accordingly, Assessing Officer disallowed brokerage of Rs.38,75,000/- and commission of Rs.2,43,253/-. Before CIT(Appeals), it was submitted that at the time of assessment, the assessee was under bona fide belief that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were applicable for both the amounts 'paid' as well as 'payable'. However, on careful reading of the said provision and after going through the expert opinion, it was found that the said provisions were applicable for the amounts 'payable' only. It was, thus, submitted that since in the assessee's case, the outstanding brokerage and commission as on 31.03.2005 was only Rs.1,78,025/-, disallowance should have been restricted to only Rs.1,78,025/-. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The matter reached the Special Bench with the question, <em>"Whether Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act can be invoked only to disallow expenditure of the nature referred to therein which is shown as "payable" as on the date of the balance sheet or it can be invoked also to disallow such expenditure which become payable at any time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year? " </em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Special Bench by majority held, " <em>The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the date 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow which had been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of TDS</em>". </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If this was confusing, in brief what it meant was: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38.75 lakhs and commission of Rs.2.43 lakhs without deducting TDS. Of this only Rs. 1.78 lakhs was payable and the rest was paid. The AO disallowed the entire expenditure under section 40(a)(ia). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• Assessee argued that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be made only of the amount "<strong>payable</strong>" and not of that which had already been "paid". </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">• The Tribunal SB by majority held that Section 40(a)(ia) can apply only to expenditure which is "payable" as of 31st March and does not apply to expenditure which has been already paid during the year. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Revenue is obviously not happy with this decision and took the matter in appeal to the High Court. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=38&filename=legal/hc/2012/2012-TIOL-971-HC-AP-IT.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted Interim Suspension of the ITAT Order. </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax - Accounting Code - Total Confusion</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> harried assessee wrote to us, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"<em>I draw your kind attention to the circular clarifying the new code and its applicability for depositing the tax under the respective head. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>We find that the nsdl site has not updated the relevant code 441480 for ‘Other taxable services' [services other than the 119 listed above] and the old code 1089 continues to be reflected. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Under such circumstances, it is difficult to deposit the tax leaving no option but to deposit under the old code. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>If you could possibly highlight this so that necessary corrections and a circular granting extension to pay under the existing code is made</em>." </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Circular No. 161/2012-S.T dated 06.07.2012, CBEC clarified that there would be only one accounting code for <strong>All Taxable Services - 00441089 </strong>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Notification No. 48/2012-S.T dated 30.11.2012 and Circular No. 165/2012-S.T dated 20.11.2012, they brought back all the old code numbers with a new code for Sl. No. 120 - All other Taxable Service - 00441480. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Assessees who tried to pay the tax yesterday found that NSDL had not updated this data and there was no code 00441480. So, under what code could they pay the tax? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why does the Board harass the hapless assessees like this? Why can't they do these things in a more organised way? Why can't they get the NSDL site updated with the new code before requiring the assessees to follow the new code? Does the FM understand how complicated his officers have made the simple act of paying tax? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is the assessee an enemy of the Department and is the Department pursuing a one-point programme of making life miserable for the assessee - for no good reason! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">You collect all the taxes you want - but don't make the act of collecting such a painful requirement. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To understand these practical difficulties, each Commissioner should be asked topay a nominal amount of Re 1/- as service tax by 5 th of every month on all taxable services and file an ST 3 return online by due date and for any delay in filing the return, the Commissioner should also be asked to pay late fee of Rs 20,000/- from his salary. Then only, the system will improve. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Exchange Rates Notified </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC </strong>has notified the Exchange Rates for imported goods and export goods with effect from 07.12.2012. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2012/cnt12_108.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC Notification No. 108/2012-Cus.,(N.T.), Dated: December 06, 2012 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FTP - SION for Lead Free Powder Notified </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT has notified a new SION bearing number C- 2056 in respect of the export product "Lead Free Powder CuSn8Ni1". The new entry would be as under:- </font></p>
<table width="90%" border=1 align="center" cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 class=MsoTableGrid>
<tr>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Export Item</font></p></td>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quantity</font></p></td>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Import Items</font></p></td>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quantity allowed</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=0 rowspan=3 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lead Free Powder CuSn8Ni1</font></p></td>
<td width=0 rowspan=3 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">100 Kg.</font></p></td>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Copper Ingot</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or </font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Copper Scrap</font></p></td>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">92.82Kg</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">94.64Kg</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 2. Tin Ingot</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tin Scrap</font></p></td>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8.13 Kg</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8.29 Kg</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 3. Nickel Ingot </font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Nickel Scrap</font></p></td>
<td width=0 valign=top>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.05 Kg</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.07 Kg</font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was no SION earlier for the export product"Lead Free Powder CuSn8Ni1" in the Engineering Product Group. This has been notified now. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2012/dgft12pn035.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Public Notice No. 35 (RE: 2012)/2009-2014, Dated: December 06, 2012</strong></font> </a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DDT Cartoon </font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/men_brilliance.png" alt="" width="424" height="479" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> - Monday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"></font><font color="#663399">Central Excise </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CENVAT Credit - Commercial complex is constructed within the factory premises as per layout submitted to the department while taking registration - Prima facie appellant entitled for service tax paid on construction of commercial complex - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>INPUT</strong> Service credit has been denied on the premise that the service of Construction of Commercial complex is outside the factory premises. On perusal of the record, it is the contention of the applicant that this commercial complex is constructed within the factory premises as per layout submitted with the department for granting excise registration. If that be the situation, the applicants are entitled for input service credit. Therefore, prima facie applicant has made out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Whether when a part of residential property owned by company is occupied by Director of company and rest by shareholders, such rental income is to be treated as business income in first case and rental income in second - YES: ITAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>issues before the Bench are - Whether when a part of the residential property owned by the company is occupied by the Directors of the company and the rest by the shareholders, such rental income is to be treated as business income in the first case and rental income in the second; Whether when the rent is given at a lower rate to the shareholder of the company, the AO is justified to consider the market value as the rental income and Whether when the main business of the assessee is not lending in an organized manner and assessee has not filed any appeal in the preceding year treating the income as income from other source, it cannot be treated as business income. And the verdict partly goes in favour of the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Promotion of brand or promotion of branded goods - Matter referred to Third Member due to difference of opinion - ROM by applicant on the ground that M(J) had not given his findings on the issue of export of service and limitation, therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the records - since M(J) has given his findings on merit, therefore, he is not required to give findings on other issues - ROM dismissed: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THERE</strong> was an order passed on 20.06.2012 wherein the Member (J) has given his findings on merit that the applicant is not liable to pay service tax under the Business Auxiliary Service as alleged, therefore, he has not gone into other issues raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant. On the other hand, the Member (Technical) while having a difference of opinion with the Member (Judicial) had considered other aspects also. As Member (Judicial) had given his findings on merit, it is not required to give finding on other issues by the Member (J). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our columns Monday for the judgements </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Mondaywith more <strong>DDT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Have a Nice Weekend </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com"><strong>vijaywri te@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>