TIOL-DDT 2373 · 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"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3"><s><strong><font size="2"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><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=20079"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2014_1.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records - Third Time in a row" width="250" height="123" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></s></font></strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2373 </font><br> </font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>12.06.2014 </strong><br> <strong>Thursday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax - TDS and Section 40(a)(ia) - 2012 Amendment </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DEEMED date of payment of tax by the resident payee </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, the following deduction is not allowed: </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> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Income Tax Act, a person is required to deduct tax on certain specified payments at the specified rates if the payment exceeds specified threshold. In case of non-deduction of tax in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, he is deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) in respect of the amount of such non-deduction. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, section 191 of the Act provides that a person shall be deemed to be assessee in default in respect of non/short deduction of tax only in cases where the payee has also failed to pay the tax directly. Therefore, the deductor cannot be treated as assessee in default in respect of non/short deduction of tax if the payee has discharged his tax liability. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The payer is liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) on the amount of non/short deduction of tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which the payee has discharged his tax liability directly. As there is no one-to-one correlation between the tax to be deducted by the payer and the tax paid by the payee, there is lack of clarity as to when it can be said that payer has paid the taxes directly. Also, there is no clarity on the issue of the cut-off date, i.e. the date on which it can be said that the payee has discharged his tax liability. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In order to provide clarity regarding discharge of tax liability by the resident payee on payment of any sum received by him without deduction of tax, section 201 was amended by Finance Act 2012 to provide that the payer who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax on the payment made to a resident payee shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident payee - </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">and the payer furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The date of payment of taxes by the resident payee shall be deemed to be the date on which return has been furnished by the payer. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was also stipulated that where the payer fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax on the payment made to a resident and is not deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) on account of payment of taxes by the such resident, the interest under section 201(1A)(i) shall be payable from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date of furnishing of return of income by such resident payee. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These amendments took effect from 1st July, 2012 </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Disallowance of business expenditure on account of non-deduction of tax on payment to resident payee </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A related issue to the above is the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of certain business expenditure like interest, commission, brokerage, professional fee, etc. due to non-deduction of tax. It has been provided that in case the tax is deducted in subsequent previous year, the expenditure shall be allowed in that subsequent previous year of deduction. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In order to rationalise the provisions of disallowance on account of non-deduction of tax from the payments made to a resident payee, section 40(a)(ia) was amended to provide that where an assessee makes payment of the nature specified in the said section to a resident payee without deduction of tax and is not deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) on account of payment of taxes by the payee, then, for the purpose of allowing deduction of such sum, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These beneficial provisions are to be applicable only in the case of resident payee. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These amendments took effect from 1st April, 2013 and applied in relation to the assessment year 2013-14 and subsequent assessment years. </font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Section 40(a)(ia) - Is Amendment retrospective? </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOW</strong> this amendment raised certain interesting issues. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An assessee for the assessment year 2006-07, did not deduct and pay TDS on an amount of Rs.5,01,872, which he was required to pay. The AO promptly disallowed this amount under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194 A of the Act. The assessee pleaded that in view of the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act 2012, and in view of the fact that the recipients of the interest have already included the income embedded in these payments in their tax returns filed under section 139, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked in this case. It was also contended that even though this proviso is stated to be effective 1st April 2013, since the amendment is "declaratory and curative in nature, and, therefore, it should be given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004". </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This plea did not find favour with the Department and so the assessee is before the Tribunal. The Tribunal looked into the scheme of things and observed, </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>As long as the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot come into play either. To understand the effect of this proviso, it is useful to refer to first proviso to section 201(1), which is also introduced by the Finance Act 2012 and effective 1st July 2012, and which provides that "any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident:- (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed." </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The unambiguous underlying principle seems to be that in the situations in which the assessee's tax withholding lapse have not resulted in any loss to the exchequer, and this fact can be reasonably demonstrated, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. The net effect of these amendments is that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) shall not be attracted in the situations in which even if the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the related payments for expenditure but the recipient of the monies has taken into account these receipts in computation of his income, paid due taxes, if any, on the income so computed and has filed his income tax return under section 139(1). There is also a procedural requirement of issuance of a certificate, in the prescribed format, evidencing compliance of these conditions by the recipients of income, but that is essentially a procedural aspect of the matter. The legislative amendment so brought about by the Finance Act, 2012, so far as the scheme of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, substantially mitigates the rigour of, what otherwise seemed to be, a rather harsh disallowance provision. </em></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Prospective or retrospective?</strong> The Tribunal observed, </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>When we look at the overall scheme of the section as it exists now and the bigger picture as it emerges after insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), it is beyond doubt that the underlying objective of section 40(a)(ia) was to disallow deduction in respect of expenditure in a situation in which the income embedded in related payments remains untaxed due to non- deduction of tax at source by the assessee. In other words, deductibility of expenditure is made contingent upon the income, if any, embedded in such expenditure being brought to tax, if applicable. In effect, thus, a deduction for expenditure is not allowed to the assessees, in cases where assessees had tax withholding obligations from the related payments, without corresponding income inclusion by the recipient. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>On a conceptual note, primary justification for such a disallowance is that such a denial of deduction is to compensate for the loss of revenue by corresponding income not being taken into account in computation of taxable income in the hands of the recipients of the payments. Such a policy motivated deduction restrictions should, therefore, not come into play when an assessee is able to establish that there is no actual loss of revenue. This disallowance does deincentivize not deducting tax at source, when such tax deductions are due, but, so far as the legal framework is concerned, this provision is not for the purpose of penalizing for the tax deduction at source lapses. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the ITAT held that the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) <strong>is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005 </strong>, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=OTQyMTk="><strong>2014-TIOL-289-ITAT-AGRA </strong></a></font></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Applicability of PAN requirement for Foreign Nationals - MoCA Clarifies </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN </strong>Circular No. 12/2014 dated 22.05.2014, the Ministry had clarified that <em>PAN details are mandatory only for those foreign nationals who are required to possess "PAN" in terms of provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the date of application for incorporation. Where the intending Director who is a Foreign National is not required to compulsorily possess PAN, it will be sufficient for such a person to furnish his/her passport number, alongwith undertaking stating that provisions of mandatory applicability of PAN are not applicable to the person concerned. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In continuation of the above Circular, the ministry now further clarifies: </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The provisions of the above Circular are applicable to a Foreign National who is a subscriber/promoter at the time of incorporation of the company. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>In case the said subscriber/promoter, does not possess Permanent Account Number (PAN), he/she shall furnish a declaration in the prescribed proforma, as an attachment to the Incorporation Form (INC-7). </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Further, in case of a Resident Director of the proposed company he/she shall be required to submit PAN details at the time of incorporation. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/mca_circular_16_2014.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ministry of Corporate Affairs General Circular No. 16/2014, Dated: June 10, 2014 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">400<sup>th</sup></font> Cobweb </font></strong></font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>OUR </strong>Managing Editor has managed to weave four hundred cobwebs since he started weaving one on Thursday, 12<sup>th </sup> October, 2006. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like this mail that I received some time back from an ardent fan of the column sums up the quintessence of the column. She says - <em>The most, I like the way the editor challenges diplomatic issues on taxation front, to the Bureaucrats and the Government</em>. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Welcome to the 400<sup>th</sup> episode of the <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=20640" target="_blank">Cobweb</a></strong>. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><em>"Shram-eva Jayate" </em>- Scam India to Skill India - Prime Minister Modi's Mission </strong></font> </font></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"> - Friday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font 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" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Seeds are not parts of plant - even Customs Tariff recognizes seeds for sowing and plants and parts thereof differently - Seeds imported by respondent for sowing i.e. seasonal flowers through Courier cannot be considered as being imported in contravention of Courier Import & Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 - Revenue appeal dismissed: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2004. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The respondent made import of flower seeds through courier. The adjudicating authority, after taking into consideration the provisions of Courier Import & Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, held that plants and parts thereof cannot be imported through courier as per the Regulations. In as much as he concluded that the seeds are parts of plant and hence the goods are to be considered as having been imported in contravention of the Regulations. He held that the flower seeds are liable for confiscation and allowed redemption of the same on payment of redemption fine. Penalties were also imposed. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the seeds are not plant or parts thereof and consequently allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aggrieved with this order, the Revenue is in appeal before the CESTAT. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Whether value of property declared by assessee-seller before Settlement Commission would bind the purchasers - NO: HC</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee is the wife of Mr. Gopal Gupta who was inducted as a director in a company known as <i>D.J. Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd</i>., which was allotted hotel land at Motia Khan, New Delhi in an auction by the Delhi Development Authority. Thereafter shares were allotted to <i>Gopal Infrastructures (P) Ltd</i>., a group company of Gopal Gupta Group in the DJI. The total cost of land in the books was shown to be Rs 90 crores., however, the AO considered the valuation at Rs 130 crores including a premium computed at Rs 40 crores. It was also the case of the Revenue that since 1/3rd of the shares in DJI were acquired by Gopal Infrastructures the share of the premium would be Rs 13.3 crores which was supposed to be paid by Sh. Gopal Gupta and his wife to the other Group from whom the said shares were acquired.The issue was taken to the Settlement Commission which passed an order accepting the figure of Rs 16 crores. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The issues before the Bench are - Whether the value declared before the Settlement Commission by the seller of the property can bind the purchasers and Whether when the purchaser of the property declares the difference between the value of the property and the amount shown in its return of income before the Settlement Commission, the same amounts to concealment of income. And the verdict goes against the Revenue. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Central Excise </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Investigation revealing that duty paid Naphtha on which credit was taken was diverted for adulteration of petrol and records manipulated to show consumption in factory - out of 45 purported purchasers, only 22 were found to be non-existent, whether investigation was done in respect of balance 23 purported customers is not forthcoming - Matter remanded: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellants are engaged in the manufacture of solvents, namely, Beesol-7000 and Beesol-7100 for which the main input is Naphtha. The case of the Revenue is that the appellants have fraudulently availed MODVAT credit of duty paid on the Naphtha either without actual receipt of the same in the factory or without consuming the same for manufacture of solvent. In as much the allegation is that Naphtha which is used for adulteration of petrol, diesel etc. was illegally diverted and the appellants have manipulated their records to indicate that said Naphtha has been used in the manufacture of solvents. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The allegation of diversion of Naphtha is based upon non-production of final product viz. solvents, which in turn is based upon three main evidences. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more DDT </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" 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>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p> </body> </html>