Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
26.09.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Thursday, September 26, 2013

  

 I.  Today's Headlines   

1.    Members who have prepared their TAR in e-PR 11 with software or with e-PR11 utility but have not yet uploaded the same, may kindly OPEN THE  XML (prepared in software or e-PR11) IN PR 12 AND VALIDATE IT UNDER ePR12. SAVE THE SAME AND UPLOAD IT. (However, in case you have reported anything against clause 30 or 31 of TAR in e-PR11, please re-enter those two clauses in e-PR12 to avoid swapping of the information for these two clauses).
 
2.    CBDT lays down standard operating procedure for monitoring of cases of non-filers of I-T returns vide INSTRUCTION NO. 14/2013 [F.NO.225/153/2013/ITA.II], DATED 23-9-2013. (Click here for detail).
 
3.    RBI dispenses with requirement of filing statement in Form ORA for bank. (Click here for detail).
 
4.    Article on Implications of Haryana VAT on Builders Joint Development Agreements. (Click here for detail).
 
5.    FAQ on Delhi VAT Amnesty Scheme (comprising voluntary disclosure and disputes settlement) introduced with effect from 20.09.2013. (Click here for detail).
 

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

 

1. Marc Bathing Luxuries Ltd. versus Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr., WPC NO. 1900/2013, Date of decision: 18th September, 2013, High Court of Delhi

Held :

Once an application for admission u/s 245Cis filed before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, then the said application must be dealt with in accordance with law, i.e., refer to the contentions of the petitioners, the contention of the Revenue and then an objective, considered and a reasoned decision has to be taken. This is only when the stand of the two sides are fully noticed and considered before an order under Section 245D(2C) is passed. The petitioners must come clean and be honest and admit their faults and cannot but declare their true and full undisclosed income. However, their plea and explanation that their declarations are genuine and truthful, cannot be rejected without a legitimate and fair consideration.

The two searches were conducted in earlier years and not in the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Settlement Commission’s order has not referred to any specific issues and documents or made references to the contentions of the Commissioner. Facts stated are incorrect or that Commissioner had not objected to the stock reduction is not adverted to. May be the applications deserve dismissal for the said reasons but full factual position should be noted, before opinion is formed whether there has been full and true disclosure. There has been error and failure in the decision making process and the failure vitiates the order passed.

In view of the above the impugned setaside and an order of remand was passed. The proceedings directed to be commenced from the same stage as on the last date of hearing, and the direction given to rehear the the parties, and a fresh order without being influenced by the earlier order will be passed. The Settlement Commission will deal with the application in accordance with law. The effect of the present order is that the settlement application will be treated as pending and necessary consequences in law will flow. Merits of the case will be examined, without being influenced by the present order. Nothing stated in this decision, will be treated as binding opinion on merits of the case of the parties.

 

(Please click here to view the Judgment)

 

2. India Trade promotion Organization vs. CIT, ITA No. 167/2012 & 168/2012, Date of decision: 6th September, 2013, High Court of Delhi.

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in denying interest of Rs.1,60,30,495/-, which it is claimed was payable alongwith the interest on refund U/S 244A?

Held No. 

Interest payable under Section 234B and 234C become part of the demand notice issued under Section 156 and it is on this amount, i.e., the tax payable plus interest payable under Sections 234B and 234C that interest under Section 220(2) is calculated from the date mentioned in the notice of demand till the date of actual payment. Under Explanation to Section 140A(1), it is stipulated where the amount paid by an assessee under self-assessment falls short of the aggregate amount of tax and interest aforesaid, the

amount paid shall first be adjusted towards the interest payable and the balance, if any, shall be adjusted towards the tax payable. The interpretation given by us follows the same principle, when Revenue defaults and makes part payment of the amount refundable. The aforesaid interpretation also ensures that the Assessing Officer/Revenue refund the entire amount, which is due and payable, including interest payable under Section 244A. It discourages part payment. There is no other provision under the Act under which an Assessing Officer/Revenue can be made liable to pay interest when part payment is made and the entire amount, which is refund able is not paid to the assessee. Otherwise the Assessing Officer/Revenue can refund the principal amount and not pay the interest component under Section 244A for an unlimited period with impunity and without any sanction, which would amount to granting premium to a noncompliance of law. In the present case, the interest component was withheld for the period ranging between 9 to 13 years.

(Please click here to view the Judgment)

 

 

 Golden Rules:

"Patience is not the ability to wait,

but to keep a good attitude while waiting"

 

  Thanks & Regards

Team

Voice of CA

« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now