Category: Miscellaneous
Union Budget 2015: TAX PROPOSALS
Union Budget 2015: TAX PROPOSALS
|
FM proposes to reduce corporate tax rate to 25% from 30% for next 4 years
|
|
Tax relief for yoga instructions, institutions
|
|
Yoga included within the definition of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of Income tax Act, says FM
|
|
Pre-cooled services for fruits and vegetables to be exempt from service tax :FM
|
|
Govt to allocate funds for roads out of Excise Duty Collection from Petrol and Diesel
|
|
Transport allowance exemption doubled from Rs 800, to Rs 1600
|
|
Interest income under Sukanya Samridhi Scheme will be exempt from tax, says FM
|
|
Additional deduction of Rs. 50,000 under Section 80CCD for contribution to New Pension Scheme
|
|
Additional deduction for differently abled person of 25,000 under Sections 80DD and Section 80U, says FM
|
|
Swachh Bharat Abhiyan: 100% deduction allowed for all contributions except CSR
|
|
100% contributions to Swacch Bharat, Clean Ganga get tax ease: FM
|
|
FM increases rate of Service tax from 12.36% to 14% (all inclusive)
|
|
Services of Common Effluent Treatmennt Plant shall be out of the purview of Service Tax
|
|
Rs. 30,000 deduction for expenditure on health treatment for super senior citizens: FM
|
|
Deduction for Senior Citizen increased from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 30,000
|
|
Deduction for health insurance premium increased from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 25,000: FM
|
|
Wealth Tax abolished and replaced with 2% additional tax on super-rich with income of above Rs. 1 crore
|
|
EC and SHEC to be subsumed in Excise Duty; Excise Duty rounded off to 12.5%
|
|
Excise duty on leather footwear having retail price of more than 1000 is reduced to 6%
|
|
Excise duty raised to 12.5%
|
|
Threshold limit for Specified Domestic Transaction increased from Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 20 Crores
|
|
FM proposes to reduce Basic Custom Duty on certain input raw material to minimize duty inversion
|
|
PM proposes to reduce customs duty on 22 items
|
|
Reduction in SAD on certain input raw material subject to actual user condition
|
|
Wealth Tax abolished and replaced with 2% additional tax on super-rich with income of above Rs. 1 crore
|
|
GAAR would apply prospectively on or after 1-4-2017
|
|
Rental income for REITs shall have a pass through regime, says FM
|
|
GAAR again defered for 2 years
|
|
10% tax rates on royalty and FTS: FM
|
|
Mere presence of Fund Manager of Offshore Funds shall not constitute of Permanent Establishment, FM says
|
|
Quoting of PAN is mandatory for purchasing an immovable property in excess of Rs one lakh, says FM
|
|
Provision to prohibit acceptance of amount of more than Rs 20,000 for purchase of immovable property: FM
|
|
A new Benami transaction bill to be introduced :FM
|
|
Undisclosed Income to be taxed at maximum marginal rate, deductions and exemptions from such income wont be allowed: FM
|
|
Non-filing of return will be liable for prosecution of upto 7 years, says FM
|
|
Offenders can’t approach Settlement Commission under the new law, when introduced: FM
|
|
Govt decides to enact a comprehensive new law on black MONEY
|
|
A new bill shall be introduced in forthcoming bill to curb black MONEY: FM
|
|
Cracking down black MONEY is our abiding commitment, says FM
|
|
Reduction in corporate tax rate to be accompanied by rationalization of exemptions and incentives
|
|
Corporate Tax Rates shall be reduced to 25% for next four years to make it more compatible with the world tax rates, FM says
|
|
GST is expected to be implemented from next year: Arun Jaitley
|
|
Various measures have been taken in last 9 months to curb black MONEY: FM
|
Union Budget 2015 Highlights
Union Budget 2015 Highlights
HC denies sec. 54F/54B relief to mother for buying properties in name of her married daughters
HC denies sec. 54F/54B relief to mother for buying properties in name of her married daughters
IT : Assessee is not entitled to sections 54F and 54B relief in respect of properties acquired in name of her married daughters
Refer< [2015] 54 taxmann.com 301 (Andhra Pradesh), HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Ganta Vijaya Lakshmi v. Income-tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Vijayawada, KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, CJ. AND SANJAY KUMAR, J., IT TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2014, APRIL 24, 2014>
JUDGMENT
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. – This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.22.7.2013, in relation to assessment year 2008-2009, on the following suggested question of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee/appellant is not entitled to claim deductions under Sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act with regard to the two properties purchased by her in the name of her two daughters, who are her only successors.”
2. We have heard Sri A.V.A. Krishna Koundinya, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant.
3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that his client is entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further submits that the words used in those Sections should be given liberal interpretation as the property has been purchased in the name of appellant’s daughters who are also her heirs. The intention of the Legislature is to extend the benefit to the members of the family which includes married daughters who are possible legal heirs.
4. We are unable to accept the contentions as the language of the aforesaid Sections is very clear that it relates to unmarried daughters. Here the undisputed fact is that the property is purchased in the name of married daughters. When the Legislature thought it fit to specify the words ‘unmarried daughters’, the Court cannot substitute the words. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order in any manner.
5. We therefore dismiss the appeal as no point of law is involved, much less substantial question of law. There will be no order as to costs.
Intimation u/s 143(1) cannot amount to completion of assessment u/s 139(5) disabling assessee from filing a revised return
Issue of intimation under section 143(1) cannot amount to completion of assessment under section 139(5) disabling assessee from filing a revised return.
Refer< [2014] 52 taxmann.com 480 (Calcutta), HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA,Tata Metaliks Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax,- III, Kolkata*, SOUMITRA PAL AND ARINDAM SINHA, JJ., IT APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2005, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 >
Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Assessment – General (Completion) – Assessment year 1999-2000 – Whether issue of intimation under section 143 for assessment cannot be said to be completion of assessment within meaning of section 139(5); hence, assesee would not be disabled from filing a revised return – Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
FACTS
| ■ | The assessee submitted that the return for the relevant assessment year was intimated to have been accepted under section 143(1) and that was not completion of the assessment in relation to such returns filed. Accordingly, the assessee sought to file a revised return, which was within the time provided under section 139(5). | |
| ■ | The revenue, submitted that by the intimation the assessee was informed that its original return had been accepted. Refund as raised stood already issued as intimated and thereafter the Assessing Officer did not resort to seeking any further particulars or evidence from the assessee in resorting to the provision of section 143(2). In these circumstances, the assessment stood completed and accepted by the assessee who then had sought to file a revised return on the last day otherwise possible. Accordingly, the said revised return was not accepted as it could not be in the facts and circumstances of the case. | |
| ■ | On appeal to the High Court:- |
HELD
| ■ | The provision of section 143(1)(i) as it stood at material time contemplates an assessment without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section whereunder the Assessing Officer shall, if he considers it necessary, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, to attend his office or to produce or cause to be produced there, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return and after taking into account all relevant materials the Assessing Officer shall by an order in writing make an assessment. Thus, the provision for assessment to be made for the purpose of issuance of an intimation under section 143(1) reserving the authority of the Assessing Officer to resort to the provisions under sub-section (2) thereof, cannot be said to be completion of assessment and, therefore, limit the time otherwise available to file revised return. |
CASE REVIEW
Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) (para 11) followed.
CASES REFERRED TO
Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC) (para 3), Tarsem Kumar v. ITO [2013] 214 Taxman 70/32 taxmann.com 83 (Punj. & Har.) (para 3),Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills 2002 (3) SCC 496 (para 5), State of Orissa v. Md. Illiyas 2006 (1) SCC 275 (para 5) and CIT v. Punjab National Bank [2001] 249 ITR 763/116 Taxman 310 (Delhi) (para 6).
J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Advocate and C.S. Das, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms.A.G. Gutgutia, Advocate for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The Court : This appeal was admitted on the following question of law:
” Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of Sections 139 and 143 and other relevant provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that issue of the intimation under Section 143(1) for the assessment year 1999-2000 on August 08, 2000 amounted to completion of assessment within the meaning of section 139(5) disabling the appellant from filing a revised return and that the revised return filed on March 31, 2001 was belated and invalid?”
2. The order from which the question was formulated for adjudication in appeal was dated 22nd February, 2005 passed by the Tribunal relating to the Assessment Year 1999-2000.
3. Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee, submitted the return for the relevant assessment year was intimated to have been accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 8th August, 2000. According to him, that was not completion of the assessment in relation to such return filed. The assessee sought to file a revised return on 31st March, 2001 which was within the time provided under Section 139(5) of the said Act. He submitted intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the said Act cannot be said to be an assessment relying on the decision reported in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC), in particular paragraph 13 thereof. He submitted by that judgement it had been held assessment could not be said to have been completed on the issuance of intimation under Section 143(1) of the said Act. He also drew our attention to the judgment in Tarsem Kumar v.ITO [2013] 214 Taxman 70/32 taxmann.com 83 (Punj. & Har.) rendered following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Ms. Ghutghutia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted by the intimation dated 8th August, 2000 the assessee was informed that its original return had been accepted. Refund as raised stood already issued as intimated and thereafter the Assessing Officer did not resort to seeking any further particulars or evidence from the assessee in resorting to the provision of Section 143(2) of the said Act. In those circumstances, the assessment stood completed and accepted by the assessee who then had sought to file a revised return on the last day otherwise possible. According to her, the said revised return was not accepted as it could not be in the facts and circumstances of the case. She submitted the order of the Tribunal should not be interfered with.
5. The Revenue relied on the decisions reported in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills[2002] 3 SCC 496 and State of Orissa v. Md. Illiyas [2006] 1 SCC 275 to submit on the point of applicability of precedents in seeking to distinguish the judgment relied on by Mr. Khaitan. According to Mrs. Ghutghutia, those judgments were distinguishable on facts. In Rajesh Jhaveri(supra), according to her, the interpretation, of assessment, if at all given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was in the context of reassessment sought to be made on a change of opinion.
6. We find the Tribunal while adjudicating the first of the three grounds raised before it being that the learned DCIT was not justified, rather, grossly erred in not accepting the revised return, treated it as invalid by relying on the decision rendered in CIT v. Punjab National Bank [2001] 249 ITR 763/116 Taxman 310 (Delhi),to hold the remedy of the assessee was to have preferred an appeal from the intimation, if it was aggrieved thereby. The Tribunal held,
“The intimation along with the refund was a decision of acceptance of self assessment was to reinforce Assessee’s assessment being final which were to be appealed against or rectified but not revised as per legal interpretation of the statute put forth by the Assessee for consideration of its revised return”.
7. The rectification which the Tribunal found was available to be made if felt necessary by the appellant, would be confined to rectification of mistake apparent from the record. Bereft of the revised return the record would show the original return filed without any indication as to any mistake appearing therein.
8. We find it necessary to quote paragraph 13 from Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.(supra):
‘One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under s. 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of s.143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under s.156, that did not per se preclude the right of the AO to proceed under s.143(2). That right is preserved and is not taken away. Between the period from 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1998, the second proviso to s.143(1)(a), required that where adjustments were made under the first proviso to s.143(1)(a), an intimation had to be sent to the assessee notwithstanding that no tax or refund was due from him after making such adjustments. With effect from 1st April, 1998, the second proviso to s.143(1)(a) was substituted by the Finance Act, 1997, which was operative till 1st June, 1999. The requirement was that an intimation was to be sent to the assessee whether or not any adjustment had been made under the first proviso to s.143(1) and notwithstanding that no tax or interest was found due from the assessee concerned. Between 1st April, 1998 and 31st May, 1999, sending of an intimation under s.143(1)(a) was mandatory. Thus, the legislative intent is very clear from the use of the word “intimation” as substituted for “assessment” that two different concepts emerged. While making an assessment, the AO is free to make any addition after grant of opportunity to the assessee. By making adjustments under the first proviso to s.143(1)(a), no addition which is impermissible by the information given in the return could be made by the AO. The reason is that under s.143(1)(a) no opportunity is granted to the assessee and the AO proceeds on his opinion on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. The very fact that no opportunity of being heard is given under s.143(1)(a) indicates that the AO has to proceed accepting the return and making the permissible adjustments only. As a result of insertion of the Explanation to s.143 by the Finance (No.2) Act of 1991 w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1991, and subsequently w.e.f. 1st June, 1994, by the Finance Act, 1994, and ultimately omitted w.e.f. 1st June, 1999, by the Explanation as introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act of 1991 an intimation sent to the assessee under s.143(1)(a) was deemed to be an order for the purposes of s.246 between 1st June, 1994, to 31st May, 1999, and under s.264 between 1st Oct., 1991, and 31st May, 1999. It is to be noted that the expressions “intimation” and “assessment order” have been used at different places. The contextual difference between the two expressions has to be understood in the context the expressions are used. Assessment is used as meaning sometimes “the computation of income”, sometimes “the determination of the amount of tax payable” and sometimes “the whole procedure laid down in the Act for imposing liability upon the taxpayer”. In the scheme of things, as noted above, the intimation under s.143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. The distinction is also well brought out by the statutory provisions as they stood at different points of time. Under s.143(1)(a) as it stood prior to 1st April, 1989, the AO had to pass an assessment order if he decided to accept the return, but under the amended provision, the requirement of passing of an assessment order has been dispensed with and instead an intimation is required to be sent. Various circulars sent by the CBDT spell out the intent of the legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) in Apogee International Ltd. vs. Union of India (1997) 137 CTR (Del) 93: (1996) 220 ITR 248 (Del). It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted s.143(1), w.e.f. 1st June, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under s.143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. It is significant that the acknowledgement is not done by any AO, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any “assessment” is done by them? The reply is an emphatic “no”. The intimation under s. 143(1) (a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under s.156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under s.143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise.’
9. From Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case (supra) we find the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the effect of Section 143 of the said Act in discussing its sub-sections as it had undergone change from time to time. The Tribunal had relied on the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) in which also we find the discussion is the same regarding assessment as provided for under Section 143(1) of the said Act, that it could not be said to be assessment was complete on intimation issued.
10. Section 143(1)(i) of the said Act as it stood in the material time is set out below :
“143.(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142,-(i)If any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a noticed of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly;”
11. We notice the said provision contemplates an assessment without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section whereunder the Assessing Officer shall, if he considers it necessary, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, to attend his office or to produce or cause to be produced there, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return and after taking into account all relevant materials the Assessing Officer shall by an order in writing make an assessment. Thus we find, the provision for assessment to be made for the purpose of issuance of an intimation under section 143(1) of the said Act reserving the authority of the Assessing Officer to resort to the provisions under sub-section (2) thereof, cannot be said to be completion of assessment and, therefore, limit the time otherwise available to file revised return. We are fortified in our finding by the judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri (supra).
12. In the circumstances and in view of the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question formulated in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is allowed.
*In favour of assessee.
†Arising out of order of ITAT, dated 22-2-2005.
Extension of due date for deposit of TDS for month of September, 2014 from 7th October, 2014 to 10th October, 2014
Extension of due date for deposit of TDS for month of September, 2014 from 7th October, 2014 to 10th October, 2014
Refer extract copy of the Order dated 01-10-2014
F.No.385/10/2014-IT(B)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
North Block, New Delhi
1″ October, 2014
ORDER UNDER SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 1961
Considering the consecutive holidays owing to the festive season and weekends during the first week in the month of October, 2014, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of powers conferred has decided to extend the due date of deposit of tax deducted at source/tax collected at source during the month of September, 2014 as prescribed under subsection 3 of section 200 read withclause b of sub-rule I of Rule 30, clause b of sub-rule 2 of Rule 30, sub-rule 2A of Rule 30, and subsection 3 of section 206C read with clause b of sub-rule I of Rule 37CA and sub-rule2 of Rule 37CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 from 7th October, 2014 to 10th October, 2014.
2. However, the due date for filing of TDS/ TCS statements for the Quarter ending 30 th September, 2014 as prescribed under sub section 3 of section 200 or sub section 3 of section 206C read with Rule 31A or Rule 3 IAA shall remain the same .
( Anshu Prakash)
Director (IT-Budget)
Copy to:
1) OSD to FM/PS to MOS (R )
2) PS to Secretary (Revenue)
3) Chairman (DT), All Members, Central Board of Direct Taxes
4) Chief Secretary, State of Jammu and Kashmir
5) All PrCCsIT/ PrDsGIT/DsGIT/CCsIT
6) All Joint Secretaries/CsIT, CBDT
7) Director/Deputy Secretaries/Under Secretaries of Central Board of Director
8) DIT (PP, PR & OL) for necessary action.
9) Pr. DG1T (Systems), New Delhi, for appropriate publicity by putting it on
departmental website and further necessary action.
10) The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002
11) CIT (Media), Official Spokesperson of CBDT
12) Database Cell with a request to upload the order on the website
http://www.irsofficersonline.gov.in .
Date for filing of return of Income for Assessment Year 2014-15 Extended from 30th September, 2014 to 30th November, 2014 for assessee who is liable to tax audit u/s 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961
Date for filing of return of Income for Assessment Year 2014-15 Extended from 30th September, 2014 to 30th November, 2014 for assessee who is liable to tax audit u/s 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961
F.No.153/53/2014-TPL (Pt.I)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
North Block, TPL Division,
New Delhi
Dated: September 26, 2014
PRESS RELEASE
Subject: Extension of due date for filing of Return of Income from 30th Sept, 2014 to 30 th Nov, 2014 in specified cases, regarding.
As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), for an assessee, who is required to obtain Tax Audit Report (TAR) under section 44AB of the Act, the due date for furnishing his return of income is 30 th September of the Assessment Year.
2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘the Board’) vide order dated 20th August, 2014 extended the due date for obtaining and furnishing of Tax Audit Report under section 44AB of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 from 30 th September, 2014 to 30 th November, 2014. Subsequently, a number of representations were received in the Board requesting for extension of the due date for furnishing of return of income also. Writ petitions were also filed in various High Courts for directing the Board to extend the due date for furnishing of return of income from 30 th September, 2014 to 30 th November, 2014 in conformity with the extension of the due date for filing of Tax Audit Report.
3. The Gujarat High Court vide judgement dated 22.09.2014 (2014-TIOL-1681-HC-AHM-IT) directed the Board to extend the due date for furnishing the return of income to 30 th November, 2014, except for the purposes of charging of interest under section 234A of the Act for late filing of return of income. Other High Courts also directed the Board to look into the practical difficulties of the petitioners and take a just and proper decision in this matter.
4. In compliance to the judgments of various High Courts and after considering the representations received for extension of the due date, the Board, in exercise of its power conferred by section 119 of the Act, has extended the ‘due-date’ for furnishing return of income from 30th September, 2014 to 30th November, 2014 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for all purposes of the Act in the case of an assessee, who is required to file his return of income by 30th September, 2014, and is also required to get his accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act or is a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under section 44AB of the Act.
5. There shall be no extension of the “due date” for the purposes of charging of interest under section 234A of the Act for late filing of return of income and the assessees shall remain liable for payment of interest as per the provisions of section 234A of the Act.
6. For removal of doubt, it is clarified that for an assessee (other than working partner of a firm which is required to obtain and furnish Tax Audit Report), who is required to file its return of income by 30 th September, 2014 but not required to obtain and furnish Tax Audit Report under section 44AB, the due date for furnishing of return of income for assessment year 2014-15 remains as 30 th September, 2014.
(Rekha Shukla)
Commissioner of Income Tax
(Media & Technical Policy)
Official Spokesperson, CBDT
Compulsory manual selection of cases for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2014-15
Compulsory manual selection of cases for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2014-15.
Instruction No. 6/2014 Dated- 2nd of September, 2014
Subject: Compulsory manual selection of cases for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2014-15-regd:-
In supersession of earlier Instructions on the above subject, the Board hereby lays down the following procedure and criteria for manual selection of returns/cases for scrutiny during the financial year 2014-2015:-
a) Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs on a substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority.
b) Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year on the issue of transfer pricing in excess of Rs. 10 crore or more on a substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority.
c) All assessments pertaining to Survey under section 133A of the Act excluding the cases where there are no impounded books of accounts/documents and returned income excluding any disclosure made during the Survey is not less than returned income of preceding assessment year. However, where assessee retracts the disclosure made during the Survey will not be covered by this exclusion.
d) Assessments in search and seizure cases to be made under section 158B, 158BC, 158BD, 153A & 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act and also for the returns filed for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which authorization for search arid seizure was executed u/s 132 or 132A of the Act.
e) Returns filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act.
f) Cases where registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act has not been granted or has been cancelled by the CIT/DIT concerned, yet the assessee has been found to be claiming tax-exemption under section 11 of the Act. However, where such order’s of the CIT/DIT have been reversed/set-aside in appellate proceedings, those cases will not be selected under this clause.
g) Cases where order denying the approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act or withdrawing the approval already granted has been passed by the Competent Authority, yet the assessee has been found claiming tax-exemption under the aforesaid provision of the Act.
h) Cases in respect of which specific and verifiable information pointing out tax evasion is given by Government Departments/Authorities. The Assessing Officer shall record reasons and take prior approval’ from jurisdictional Pr. CCIT/CCIT /Pr. DGIT/DGIT concerned before selecting such a case for scrutiny.
2. Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS): Cases are also being selected under CASS on the basis of broad based selection filters. List of such cases shall be separately intimated in due course by the DGIT(Systerns) to the jurisdictional authorities concerned.
3. It is reiterated that the targets for completion of scrutiny assessments and strategy of framing quality assessments as contained in Central Action Plan document for Financial-Year 2014-2015 has to be complied with and it must be ensured that all scrutiny assessment orders including the cases selected under the manual criterion are completed through the AST system software only. Further, in order to ensure the quality of assessments being framed, Pr. CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr. DsGIT/DsGIT should evolve a suitable monitoring mechanism and by 30th April, 2015, such authorities shall send a report to the respective Zonal Member with a copy to Member (IT) containing details of at least 50 quality assessment orders from their respective charges. In this regard, IT Authorities concerned must ensure that cases selected for publication in ‘Let us Share’ are picked up only from the quality assessments as reported.
4.These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned. If considered necessary a supplementary guideline would be issued subsequently.
5. Hindi version to follow.
(Rohit Garg)
Deputy-Secretary to the Government of India
F.No. 225/229/2014/ITA.II
F.No. 225/229/2014/ITA.II
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North-Block, IT (A-II) Division, New Delhi
Capital Gain: For computing holding period date of allotment of property is relevant & not date of registration
In order to determine taxability of capital gain arising from sale of property, it is date of allotment of property which is relevant for purpose of computing holding period and not date of registration of conveyance deed.
Refer< [2014] 48 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi), HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. Ramakrishnan S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2014 C.M. APPL NO. 4959 OF 2014 (DELAY) MARCH 18, 2014 >
Section 2(42A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Short term capital gains (Immovable property) – A plot was allotted to assessee by HUDA on 3-8-1999 – Subsequently, a conveyance deed was executed and possession of plot was given on 12-12-2005 – Assessee sold said plot through registered sale deed on 9-1-2008 – Assessing Officer brought to tax capital gain arising from sale of plot as short-term capital gain – Whether in view of order passed in case of Jitendra Mohan v. ITO [2007] 11 SOT 594 (Delhi), it is date of allotment which is relevant for purpose of computing holding period and not date of registration of conveyance deed – Held, yes – Whether, therefore, amount in question was to be taxed as long term capital gain – Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
Extension of due date for obtaining and furnishing Tax Audit report u/s 44AB for A/Y 2014-15 from 30th Sept 2014 to 30th Nov 2014
Extension of due date for obtaining and furnishing Tax Audit report u/s 44AB for A/Y 2014-15 from 30th Sept 2014 to 30th Nov 2014
F.No.133/24/2014-TPL
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
****
Room No. 147 B-II, North Block
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014
Order Under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
In exercise of power conferred by section 119 of the Income-tax Act (‘the Act’), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) hereby extends the due date for obtaining and furnishing of the report of audit under section 44AB of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 in case of assessees who are not required to furnish report under section 92E of the Act from 30th day of September, 2014 to 30th November, 2014.
2. It is further clarified that the tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act filed during the period from 1st April, 2014 to 24th July, 2014 in the pre-revised Forms shall be treated as valid tax audit report furnished under section 44AB of the Act.
(J.Saravanan)
Under Secretary (TPL-III)
Copy to:-
(i) The Chairman (CBDT), All Members, Central Board of Direct Taxes for
information.
(ii) All Cadre Controlling Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income-tax with a request to
circulate amongst all officers in their regions/charges.
(iii) The Pr. Director General of Income Tax (Admn.) Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi.
(iv) The Director General of Income Tax (Systems) with a request for uploading it on the
Departmental website.
(v) Commissioner of Income Tax (M&TP), CBDT.
(J.Saravanan)
Under Secretary (TPL-III)
Business So Simple 