News Update

Israel shuts down Al Jazeera; seizes broadcast equipmentIndia to wait for Canadian Police inputs on arrest of men accused of killing Sikh separatist: JaishankarLabour Party candidate Sadiq Khan wins record third term as London MayorArmy convoy ambushed in Poonch sectorDeadly floods evict 70K Brazilians out of homes; 57 killed so farGovt scraps ban on export of onionFormer Delhi Congress chief Arvinder Singh Lovely joins BJP with three moreUS Nurse convicted of killing 17 patients - 700 yrs of jail-term awardedGST - Payment of pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of the prescribed Form APL-01 - Petitioner attributes it to technical glitches - Respondent is the proper authority to decide the question of fact: HC2nd Session of India-Nigeria Joint Trade Committee held in AbujaGST - Since SCN is bereft of any details and suffers from infirmities that go to the root of the cause, SCN is quashed and set aside: HC1717 candidates to contest elections in phase 4 of Lok Sabha Elections7th India-Indonesia Joint Defence Cooperation Committee meeting held in New DelhiGST - Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, the same cannot be sustained: HCMining sector registers record production in FY 2023-24GST - If the proper officer was of the view that the reply is unclear and unsatisfactory, he could have sought further details by providing such opportunity - Having failed to do so, order cannot be sustained - Matter remanded: HCAnother quake of 6.0 magnitude rocks Philippines; No damage reported so farTrade ban: Israel hits back against Turkey with counter-measuresCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implication
 
Clarifications on Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016

By TIOL News service

NEW DELHI, SEP 13, 2016: The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has come forward with 14 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules, 2016. The Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 was incorporated as Chapter X of the Finance Act, 2016 to provide an opportunity to tax payers who are under litigation to come forward and settle the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. With regard to the scheme, queries have been received from the stakeholders seeking further clarity on certain provisions of the Scheme. The major issued covered by the said FAQs are discussed below.

It was clarified that as per the Scheme, in a case where disputed tax in quantum appeal is more than Rs.10 lakh, the declarant has to pay the disputed tax, interest and 25% of minimum penalty leviable. Further, in a case where the disputed tax in quantum appeal does not exceed Rs.10 lakh, the declarant is required to pay only the disputed tax & interest and there is no requirement for payment of any amount in respect of penalty leviable.

Section 205(b) of the Act provides immunity from imposition or waiver of penalty under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act in respect of tax arrear covered in the declaration to the extent the penalty exceeds the amount of penalty referred to in section 202(I) of the Act. Hence, in both the situations (i.e. whether disputed tax in quantum appeal exceeds Rs.10 lakh or not), where a valid declaration under the Scheme is made in respect of quantum appeal, the appeal against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, relating to the quantum appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be deemed to be withdrawn and the penalty or the balance amount of penalty, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be waived.

Clarification was also provied as the applicability of the Scheme to cases where there is disputed tax. Since in the case of reduction of loss, there is no disputed tax the assessee shall not be eligible to avail the Scheme. However, if an appeal is pending before Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of penalty order framed as a result of variation in quantum loss, the declarant may file a declaration in respect of such penalty order.

In condonation cases, a declarant shall be eligible for the Scheme, if:

(i) the time limit for filing of appeal under section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has got barred by limitation on or before 29.02.2016;

(ii) the appeal and condonation application has been filed before Commissioner (Appeals) before 01.06.2016; and

(iii) the delay in filing of such appeal is condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals)

In case of an appeal relating to penalty under section 271(1)(c), the amount payable under the Scheme is 25% of the penalty amount and also the tax and interest payable on the total income finally determined. For this purpose the total income finally determined shall be the total income as determined after giving effect to the last appellate order passed on or before the date of filing declaration under the Scheme. Any variation to the total income as a result of any appellate order passed subsequent to the date of declaration shall be ignored for the purposes of computing the amount of penalty payable under the Scheme.

As per section 202(I)(b) of the Scheme, in case of pending appeal related to penalty, 25% of the minimum penalty leviable alongwith tax and interest on the total income finally determined is required to be paid. Therefore, if an assessee who has already paid an amount over and above the amounts referred to in section 202(I)(b) opts for the Scheme, he shall be eligible for refund of the excess payment already made. However, the declarant shall not be eligible for claim of interest on such refund under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

For further details the clarification issued in this regard may be referred to.


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: CLARIFICATION NEEDS RECONSIDERATION

The CBDT's clarification that appeal pending as on 29th February 2016 should also be pending as on date of filing declaration is not only against the specific provisions of the Scheme but also against the true spirit of the Scheme. The Scheme only provides that appeal should be pending as on 29th February before the CIT Appeals and not that it should also be pending as on date of declaration. This will further increase in litigation before Tribunal. Most of the assessees are not fully aware of the Scheme till date. And there was a confusion till the clarification of the CBDT vide Circular No.33 dated 12th Septemeber 2016. The CBDT clarification creates hardship to assessees who would like to settle the dispute instead of continuing the litigation before the Tribunal. Therefore the CBDT should reconsider its clarification and allow the benefit of declaration in cases where such appeals are disposed of after 1st April.

V G IRKAL
HOSPET

Posted by vasantirkal vasantirkal
 

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.