News Update

Govt orders mandatory declaration of stock position of wheatCPI gets Rs 11 Cr tax notice for using old PAN numberGST - Penalty demand of Rs.3731 crores - A person who would fall within the purview of sub-section (1-A) of s.122 should necessarily be a taxable person who retains the benefits of transactions: HCGovt issues advisory against calls impersonating DoTFATP hand-wrings over slow regulation of crypto by member-countriesGST - Threatening and pressurising petitioner who is merely an employee - Highly unconscionable and disproportionate on the part of the officer: HCECI's C-Vigil app a big hit with votersGST - Same relief was claimed in earlier petition which was withdrawn unconditionally - Fresh petition seeking same relief is barred by the estoppel principle: HCIncome tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Training Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
Cancellation/Surrender of registration under GST

DDT in Limca Book of Records - Third Time in a rowTIOL-DDT 2699
07 10 2015
Wednesday

IN the following cases, the registration can be either surrendered by the registrant or cancelled by the tax authorities:

(1) Closure of business of tax payer;

(2) Gross Annual Turnover including exports and exempted supplies (to be calculated on all-India basis) falling below threshold for registration;

(3) Transfer of business for any reason including due to death of the proprietor of a proprietorship firm;

(4) Amalgamation of taxable person with other legal entities or de-merger;

(5) Non commencement of business by the tax payer within the stipulated time period prescribed under the laws.

In case of surrender, the system will send an acknowledgment by SMS and e-Mail to the applicant regarding his surrender of registration and he will be deemed to be unregistered from the date of such acknowledgement. There will be a provision in the system to prompt such surrendered registrants to update their address and mobile number at a prescribed periodicity till all dues are cleared/refunds made.

The cancellation of registration may be done by tax authorities in the following situations:

(1) In case signed copy of the summary extract of submitted application form is not received even after a reminder;

(2) In case a tax payer contravenes specified provision of the law;

(3) In case a taxpayer has not filed any return at all during a predetermined period (say six months). In case a taxpayer has filed a nil return continuously for this period, then the provisions of cancellation will not be applicable.

(4) The cancellation of registration may be preceded by system generated notice giving 7 days time for furnishing reply by the taxpayer. Principle of natural justice to be followed before cancellation, i.e., giving an opportunity to taxpayer to be heard and passing of order.

If the taxpayer approaches the tax authority for revocation of surrendered or cancelled registration, the surrendered / cancelled registration can be revoked. The action for revocation would be initiated by that Authority which has cancelled the registration or had earlier accepted the surrender of registration.

The Law would contain appropriate provisions relating to revocation / surrender / cancellation of registration.

The action for revocation / cancellation of registration would have to be initiated by both Centre and State tax authorities. Once the registration is cancelled by one authority it would be deemed to be cancelled by other authority also.

The cancellation or surrender of registration would always have prospective effect.

These are the proposals in the Reports of the Joint Committee On Business Processes For GST. The Government has released the reports pertaining to payment process, Refund and Registration.

The legacy of the existing Central Excise Laws and procedure are proposed to be planted in GST. Concepts like pre-audit of refund claims, interest of only 6% interest for delayed refunds will all find a place in the new GST regime when (if) it comes.

Income Tax - Validation of tax-returns through Electronic Verification Code

THE Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') vide Notification No. 41/2015 dated 15.04.2015 had introduced Electronic Verification Code ('EVC') as one of the modes for validation of return of income pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-2016 which are filed electronically on or after 01.04.2015.

CBDT had further permitted validation of such returns of income through EVC in case of returns of income pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 filed electronically (without digital signature certificate) between 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, vide its subsequent order dated 20.07.2015. This order was applicable to those cases wherein time-limit for submission of ITR-V to the CPC Bengaluru was extended till 31.10.2015.

CBDT has now directed that returns of income which are filed on or after 01.04.2015 electronically (without digital signature certificate) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-2015 or returns filed in response to various statutory notices as prescribed under the Act or returns filed as a consequence of condonation of delay u/s 119 of the Act can also be validated through EVC.

CBDT Order under Section 119 in F.No.225/141/2015-ITA.II, Dated: October 06, 2015

Income Tax - Abandoned Feature Films -Non-applicability of Rule 9A

DEDUCTION in respect of the cost of production of a feature film certified for release by the Board of Film Censors in a previous year is provided in Rule 9A of Income Tax Rules, 1962.

In the case of abandoned films, however, since certificate of Board of Film Censors is not received, in some cases no deduction was allowed by applying Rule 9A of the Rules or by treating the expenditure as capital expenditure.

In the case of Venus Records and Tapes Pvt. Ltd . - 2015-TIOL-2316-HC-MUM-IT , the Bombay High Court upheld the order of the ITAT that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the cost of the abandoned film written off was a revenue expenditure.

The Revenue accepted this judgement and it has not been further contested.

Now, CBDT clarifies that Rule 9A does not apply to abandoned feature films and that the expenditure incurred on such abandoned feature films is not to be treated as a capital expenditure. The cost of production of an abandoned feature film, is to be treated as revenue expenditure and allowed as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act.

CBDT further graciously directs that being a settled issue, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers of the Department and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon.

CBDT Circular No.16/2015., Dated: October 06, 2015

Treat taxpayer as a customer of Department - Assocham

IN a pre-Budget submission to the Finance Ministry, the ASSOCHAM sought a taxation friendly environment for the start-ups which should be freed from several restrictions on shareholding pattern, as the budding entrepreneurs stay in the fund infusion phase for the initial years of their business.

“Restriction prescribed under Section 79 of Income Tax Act (IT Act) should not apply to start up ecosystem where change in shareholding pattern is due to infusion of funding by Investors without change in the management of the company run by original founders”, the chamber said in its presentation submitted to the Revenue Secretary yesterday.

The Chamber further suggested:

Rigours of section 79 of the IT Act should be restricted only in cases where the change in shareholding is effected with a view to avoid or reduce tax liability by way of a restructuring exercise.

A timely clarification to resolve this anomaly for the benefit of entire new areas, creating business and start-up culture which will lead in employment generation for millennial generation and making Digital India dream come true.

The Tax authorities should treat each taxpayer as a customer of the Tax Department and make adversarial approach between taxpayer and department a thing of the past.

Customer focus should be strengthened and taxpayers should be provided with facilitating services to encourage him to comply with the taxation rules which should be easy.

The chamber also suggested merger of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) with the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) into a single Central Board of Revenue. Administration functions should be separated from the law-making jobs. Other suggestions included carrying out impact assessment studies of various tax policy measures and trade flows trends.

Aggressive Taxation does not bring taxes but bad name

ADDRESSING the Columbia University yesterday, the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said,

Legal Corner Icon

++ Aggressive taxation did the country no good and does not bring taxes but it brought us a bad name.

++ one of the main problems of credibility related to taxation issues.

++ As far as the taxation issues are concerned, a lot needed to be done at our end and in terms of direct taxes, we'd lost credibility with the world.

++ For anyone in the government, it would be a very serious challenge where assessment orders have been passed, can only be set aside by a judicial process and not by an executive decision.

++ one by one each of those issues related to direct taxes is now being put to rest.

++ government is “keeping all options open” to resolve the taxation issues either by judicial or executive process.

++ the fears of retroactive taxation... by and large have been put to rest.

++ Over the next four years this entire rate would come down to 25 per cent. And I will be removing each one of those exemptions one by one. I am shortly going to notify all the exemptions which are going to be rationalised this very year itself.

NDPS - When minimum punishment is prescribed, no court can impose lesser punishment: SC

THE Supreme Court was dealing with a Narcotics offence case wherein the High Court had reduced the sentence. The Supreme Court observed, Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) stipulates that the minimum sentence will be ten years which may extend to twenty years and the minimum fine imposable is one lakhs rupees which may extend to two lakhs rupees. The provision also provides about the default clause which stipulates imposition of fine exceeding two lakh rupees, for the reasons to be recorded by the Court. When a minimum punishment is prescribed, no court can impose lesser punishment.

In Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, while a submission was advanced that in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the Supreme Court can impose a lesser punishment than the prescribed one, the Court ruled that:-

"...where the minimum sentence is provided, we think it would not be at all appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce the sentence on the ground of the so-called mitigating factors as that would tantamount to supplanting statutory mandate and further it would amount to ignoring the substantive statutory provision that prescribes minimum sentence for a criminal act..."

In this judgement delivered yesterday, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court judgement. We bring you the judgement today.

Please see Breaking News.

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023