Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
18.03.2020 - Voice of CA presents - Useful Updates
Wednesday, March 18, 2020


  I. Headlines Today:   

  1. President gives assent to the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020  (Click for detail)
  2. Govt. introduces Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2020 in Lok Sabha  (Click for detail)
  3. Centre set to overhaul audit regime to check lapses in governance  (Click for detail)
  4. From PPF to NPS, top 10 tax saving investments under Section 80C  (Click for detail)
  5. MCA has invited Public Comments on Draft Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Amendment Rules 2020  (Click for detail)

II. Direct Taxes Case Laws: 

1.   M/s Indus Towers Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P.(C.) No. 10289/2019, Date of Pronouncement: 04.03.2020, Delhi High Court

Whether a petitioner invoking the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court is expected to approach with clean hands. Held: Yes

Where any relief from recovery of tax demand raised and there is gross suppression & misstatement, which led to a false projection of the outstanding liability due from the petitioner, then merits would be allowed to the assesse. Held: No

Brief Facts:
The issue is, whether, in terms of the O.M. dated 29.02.2016, the petitioner is required to deposit 20% of the demand raised by the respondent of Rs. 690.73 crore, or 20% of the tax on the amount in dispute. The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that 20% of the tax on amount in dispute. Considering that the court restrained the respondents (i.e. Revenue) from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the demanded amount. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment of the hearing of the appeal pending before the CIT (A). After that, the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent revenue has, firstly, submitted that the petitioner disobeyed the direction of this Court inasmuch, as, the petitioner sought adjournments before the CIT (A) on two occasions. Further, the issue raised is that of gross suppression and misstatement by the petitioner, which led to a false projection of the outstanding liability/ refund due from/ to the petitioner.

Held:
Considering the fact, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the petitioner could not have disregarded the condition imposed upon it by us in our order dated 23.09.2019, and continued to enjoy the stay granted by us due to pendency of the appeal for the earlier assessment year. Further, on second issue, the court has observed that If the petitioner were to be fair to the Court, the petitioner would have reflected the amount of Rs. 2,247,073,334/ – which was the minimum tax liability of the petitioner, assuming that its return based on the consolidated financial statement, were to be accepted. Similarly, if the said amount would have been reflected, it would have completely changed the equation that was projected before us by the petitioner.   

Thus, the Hon’ble court further held that “the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of such a petitioner.”

Accordingly, the Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 5 lakh.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  PCIT Vs. National Stock Exchange, I.T.A. No. 1171 of 2017, Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2020, Bombay High Court

Penalty levied under Section 105(a) of the Securities Transaction  Tax (STT) falling under Chapter VII of Finance (No.2 ) Act, 2004, Where the assessee had  failed to collect the STT or had failed to pay such STT to the  credit of  the Central Government, it would not ipso-facto lead to imposition of penalty: Held Yes

Whether the assessee is required to be provided reasonable opportunity of hearing  to prove that there was reasonable cause for such failure: Held Yes

Brief Facts:
In the present case, the penalty was levied under Section 105(a) of the Securities Transaction  Tax (STT) falling under Chapter VII of Finance (No.2 ) Act, 2004 in view of the failure  of the assessee  to discharge its statutory  liability  to  collect the  STT  at prescribed  rates under section 100(4) of the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) falling under Chapter VII of Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. However, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1187 of  2017, has already affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of assesse that the respondent was not liable  for  any alleged short deduction of STT and therefore, no fault  can be  prescribed to the  respondent and to hold  the respondent  to be in default for short collection of  STT and accordingly, penalty on the same was also deleted by the ITAT. As results, this appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A  of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Held:
The Hon’ble High Court Held that as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the expression ‘penalty’ is a word of wide significance, but in substance penalty is in the nature of punishment. Therefore, before imposing penalty the Assessing Officer must come to the conclusion that there was deliberate defiance of the law or wilful contravention of the law by the assessee. Merely because in the assessment order the Assessing Officer comes to a conclusion  that the assessee had  failed to collect the STT or had failed to pay such STT to the  credit of  the Central Government, it would not ipso-facto lead to imposition of penalty.  Once such a conclusion is reached, the assessee is required to be provided reasonable opportunity  of hearing and during the hearing if the assessee can prove that there was reasonable cause for such failure, no penalty shall be imposed.

Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

Golden Rules:

  "Difficulties are of AMAZING NATURE.
For some these are SPEED BREAKERS and
for others these are OPPORTUNITIES to JUMP" 

                                       
 

Thanks & Regards

  Team

Voice of CA 

« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now