Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


 

Finance Bill 2013 may overrule Following Court decision.

1. Proposed Amendment  in Application of seized assets under section 132B

The existing provisions contained in section 132B of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, provide that seized assets may be adjusted against any existing liability under the Income-tax Act, Wealth-tax Act, the Expenditure-tax Act, the Gift-tax Act and the Interest-tax Act and the amount of liability determined on completion of assessments pursuant to search, including penalty levied or interest payable and in respect of which such person is in default or deemed to be in default.

Various courts have taken a view that the term “existing liability” includes advance tax liability of the assessee, which is not in consonance with the intention of the legislature. The legislative intent behind this provision is to ensure the recovery of outstanding tax/interest/penalty and also to provide for recovery of taxes/interest/penalty, which may arise subsequent to the assessment pursuant to search.

Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid section so as to clarify that the existing liability does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII of the Act.

This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2013.

May Overrule an Bombay High court ruling in the case of Shri Jyotindra B. Mody, Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the seized cash amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/and the amount of Rs.1.98 Crores deposited by the Assessee on 31st January, 2007 could be adjusted against the Advance Tax liability while computing the interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Held, yes

2. Proposed Amendment in Clarification of the phrase “tax due” for the purposes of recovery in certain cases

Section 179 of the Income-tax Act provides that where the tax due from a private company cannot be recovered from such company, then the director (who was the director of such company during the previous year to which non-recovery relates) shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of such tax unless he proves that the non-recovery of tax cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part. This provision is intended to recover outstanding demand under the Act of a private company from the directors of such company in certain cases. However, some courts have interpreted the phrase ‘tax due’ used in section 179 to hold that it does not include penalty, interest and other sum payable under the Act.

In view of the above, it is proposed to clarify that for the purposes of this section, the expression “tax due” includes penalty, interest or any other sum payable under the Act. Amendments on the similar lines for clarifying the expression ‘tax due’ is proposed to be made to the provisions of section 167C.

These amendments will take effect from 1st June, 2013.

May Overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 53191 (DELHI) the Court is of the opinion that the structure and construct of the Act has consciously used different words to create constructive liability on third parties, in the case of default in payment of taxes by an assessee. The treatment of the same subject matter by using different terms - in some instances expansive and in others, restrictive, mean that the Court has to adopt a circumspect approach and limit itself to the words used in the given case (in the present case, "tax due" under Section 179) and not "travel outside them on a voyage of discovery" (Magor & St. Mellons RDC v. Newport Corporation 1951 (2) All ER 839). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made liable for anything more than the tax (defined under Section 2 (43)). The respondent is consequently directed to determine the liability of the Petitioner, in the light of the finding.

3. Proposed Amendment in Tax Residency Certificate - Section 90 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Central Government to enter into an agreement with the Government of any foreign country or specified territory outside India for the purpose of –

(i) granting relief in respect of avoidance of double taxation,

(ii) exchange of information and

(iii) recovery of taxes.

Further section 90A of the Income-tax Act empowers the Central Government to adopt any agreement between specified associations for above mentioned purposes.

In exercise of this power, the Central Government has entered into various Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) with different countries and has adopted agreements between specified associations for relief of double taxation. The scheme of interplay between DTAA and domestic legislation ensures that a taxpayer, who is resident of one of the contracting country to the DTAA, is entitled to claim applicability of beneficial provisions either of DTAA or of the domestic law. Sub-section (4) of sections 90 and 90A of the Income-tax Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 makes submission of Tax Residency Certificate containing prescribed particulars, as a condition for availing benefits of the agreements referred to in these sections.

It is proposed to amend sections 90 and 90A in order to provide that submission of a tax residency certificate is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for claiming benefits under the agreements referred to in sections 90 and 90A. This position was earlier mentioned in the memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2012, in the context of insertion of sub-section (4) in sections 90 & 90A.

These amendments will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2013 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2013-14 and subsequent assessment years.

May Overrule the case reported in (2003) TaxCorp (INTL) 1732 (SC) held that FIIs based in Mauritius are entitled to exemption from capital gains tax; CBDT Circular dated April 13, 2000 upheld legal and valid

4. Proposed Amendment in Additional Income-tax on distributed income by company for buy-back of unlisted shares

Existing provisions of Section 2(22)(e) provide the definition of dividends for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. Section 115-O provides for levy of Dividend Distribution Tax(DDT) on the company at the time when company distributes , declares or pays any dividend to its shareholders. Consequent to the levy of DDT the amount of dividend received by the shareholders is not included in the total income of the shareholder.

The consideration received by a shareholder on buy-back of shares by the company is not treated as dividend but is taxable as capital gains under section 46A of the Act.

A company, having distributable reserves, has two options to distribute the same to its shareholders either by declaration and payment of dividends to the shareholders, or by way of purchase of its own shares (i.e. buy back of shares) at a consideration fixed by it. In the first case, the payment by company is subject to DDT and income in the hands of shareholders is exempt. In the second case the income is taxed in the hands of shareholder as capital gains.

Unlisted Companies, as part of tax avoidance scheme, are resorting to buy back of shares instead of payment of dividends in order to avoid payment of tax by way of DDT particularly where the capital gains arising to the shareholders are either not chargeable to tax or are taxable at a lower rate.

In order to curb such practice it is proposed to amend the Act, by insertion of new Chapter XII-DA, to provide that the consideration paid by the company for purchase of its own unlisted shares which is in excess of the sum received by the company at the time of issue of such shares (distributed income) will be charged to tax and the company would be liable to pay additional income-tax @ 20% of the distributed income paid to the shareholder. The additional income-tax payable by the company shall be the final tax on similar lines as dividend distribution tax. The income arising to the shareholders in respect of such buy back by the company would be exempt where the company is liable to pay the additional income-tax on the buy-back of shares.

These amendments will take effect from 1stJune, 2013.

May Overrule the case reported in (2012) TaxCorp (INTL) 4300 (AAR) Held that the capital gains arising out of the proposed buyback of shares is not taxable in India in view of paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the DTAC between India and Mauritius.

5. Proposed Amendment in Direction for special audit under sub-section (2A) of section 142

The existing provisions contained in sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, provide that if at any stage of the proceeding, the Assessing Officer having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get his accounts audited by an accountant and to furnish a report of such audit.

The expression “nature and complexity of the accounts” has been interpreted in a very restrictive manner by various courts.

It is, therefore, proposed to amend the aforesaid sub-section so as to provide that if at any stage of the proceedings before him, the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialized nature of business activity of the assessee, and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, direct the assessee to get his accounts audited by an accountant and to furnish a report of such audit.

This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2013.

May Overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 52339 (DELHI) held, Irregularities can be examined and verified by the Assessing Officer and for this purpose, special audit is not required.

6. Proposed Amendment in “Keyman insurance policy”

The existing provisions of clause (10D) of section 10, inter alia, exempt any sum received under a life insurance policy other than a keyman insurance policy. Explanation 1 to the said clause (10D) defines a keyman insurance policy to mean a life insurance policy taken by a person on the life of another person who is or was the employee of the first-mentioned person or is or was connected in any manner whatsoever with the business of the first-mentioned person.

It has been noticed that the policies taken as keyman insurance policy are being assigned to the keyman before its maturity. The keyman pays the remaining premium on the policy and claims the sum received under the policy as exempt on the ground that the policy is no longer a keyman insurance policy. Thus, the exemption under section 10(10D) is being claimed for policies which were originally keyman insurance policies but during the term these were assigned to some other person. The Courts have also noticed this loophole in law.

With a view to plug the loophole and check such practices to avoid payment of taxes, it is proposed to amend the provisions of clause (10D) of section 10 to provide that a keyman insurance policy which has been assigned to any person during its term, with or without consideration, shall continue to be treated as a keyman insurance policy.

The above amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessments years.

May Overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 51593 (DELHI) Held that, The insurance company has itself clarified that on assignment, it does not remain a keyman policy and gets converted into an ordinary policy. It is not open to the Revenue to still allege that the policy in question is  keyman  policy and when it matures, the advantage drawn there from is taxable; no doubt, the parties here, viz., the company as well as the individual taken huge benefit of these provisions, but it cannot be treated as the case of tax evasion. It is a case of arranging the affairs in such a manner as to avail the state exemption as provided in Section 10(10D); law is clear. Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and t see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax. If that is permissible, no further scrutiny is required and this would not amount to tax evasion.

7. Proposed Amendment in “Taxability of immovable property received for inadequate consideration”

The existing provisions of sub clause (b) of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, provide that where any immovable property is received by an individual or HUF without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property would be charged to tax in the hands of the individual or HUF as income from other sources.

The existing provision does not cover a situation where the immovable property has been received by an individual or HUF for inadequate consideration. It is proposed to amend the provisions of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 so as to provide that where any immovable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual or HUF as income from other sources.

Considering the fact that there may be a time gap between the date of agreement and the date of registration, it is proposed to provide that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of the immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value may be taken as on the date of the agreement, instead of that on the date of registration. This exception shall, however, apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of such immovable property.

This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years.

May Overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 53279 (DELHI) , Section 50C enabling the revenue to treat the value declared by an assessee for payment of stamp duty, ipso facto, cannot be a legitimate ground for concluding that there was undervaluation, in the acquisition of immovable property.

8. Proposed Amendment in “Taxation of Securitisation Trusts”

Section 161 of the Income-tax Act provides that in case of a trust if its income consists of or includes profits and gains of business then income of such trust shall be taxed at the maximum marginal rate in the hands of trust.

The special purpose entities set up in the form of trust to undertake securitisation activities were facing problem due to lack of special dispensation in respect of taxation under the Income-tax Act. The taxation at the level of trust due to existing provisions was considered to be restrictive particularly where the investors in the trust are persons which are exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Income-tax Act like Mutual Funds.

In order to facilitate the securitisation process, it is proposed to provide a special taxation regime in respect of taxation of income of securitisation entities, set up as a trust, from the activity of securitisation. It is proposed to amend section 10 and also insert a new Chapter XII-EA for providing a special tax regime. The salient features of the special regime are :-

(i) In case of securitisation vehicles which are set up as a trust and the activities of which are regulated by either SEBI or RBI, the income from the activity of securitisation of such trusts will be exempt from taxation.

(ii) The securitisation trust will be liable to pay additional income-tax on income distributed to its investors on the line of distribution tax levied in the case of mutual funds. The additional income-tax shall be levied @ 25% in case of distribution being made to investors who are individual and HUF and @ 30% in other cases. No additional income tax shall be payable if the income distributed by the securitisation trust is received by a person who is exempt from tax under the Act.

(iii) Consequent to the levy of distribution tax, the distributed income received by the investor will be exempt from tax.

(iv) The securitisation trust will be liable to pay interest at the rate of one percent. for every month or part of the month on the amount of additional income-tax not paid within the specified time .

(v) The person responsible for payment of income or the securitisation trust will be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of amount of tax payable by him or it in case the additional income-tax is not paid to the credit of Central Government.

This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2013.

May overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 51024 (BOMBAY) held, that administrative directions for fulfilling recovery targets for the collection of revenue should not be at the expense of foreclosing remedies which are available to assessees for challenging the correctness of a demand. The sanctity of the rule of law must be preserved. AOs and appellate authorities perform quasi-judicial functions under the Act. Applications for stay require judicial consideration. Rejecting such applications without hearing the assessee, considering submissions and indicating at least brief reasons is impermissible.

9. Proposed Amendment  in “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks”

Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, in computing the business income of certain banks and financial institutions, deduction is allowable in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by such entities subject to certain limits specified therein. The limit specified under section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act restrict the claim of deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts for certain banks (not incorporated outside India) and certain cooperative banks to 7.5% of gross total income (before deduction under this clause) of such banks and 10% of the aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such banks. This limit is 5% of gross total income (before deduction under this clause) under sections 36(1)(viia)(b) and 36(1)(viia)(c) for a bank incorporated outside India and certain financial institutions.

Provisions of clause (vii) of section 36(1) of the Act provides for deduction for bad debt actually written off as irrecoverable in the books of account of the assessee. The proviso to this clause provides that for an assessee, to which section 36(1)(viia) of the Act applies, deduction under said clause (vii) shall be limited to the amount by which the bad debt written off exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under section 36(1) (viia) of the Act.

The provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act are subject to the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act. The clause (v) of section 36(2) of the Act provides that the assessee, to which section 36(1)(viia) of the Act applies, should debit the amount of bad debt written off to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under section 36(1) (viia) of the Act.

Therefore, the banks or financial institutions are entitled to claim deduction for bad debt actually written off under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act only to the extent it is in excess of the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. However, certain judicial pronouncements have created doubts about the scope and applicability of proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and held that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies only to provision made for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural advances.

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act contains three sub-clauses, i.e. sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) and sub-clause (c) and only one of the sub-clauses i.e. sub-clause (a) refers to rural advances whereas other sub-clauses do not refer to the rural advances. In fact, foreign banks generally do not have rural branches. Therefore, the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia) of section 36(1) and referred to in proviso to clause (vii) of section 36(1) and section 36(2)(v) applies to all types of advances, whether rural or other advances.

It has also been interpreted that there are separate accounts in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debt under clause (viia) for rural advances and urban advances and if the actual write off of debt relates to urban advances, then, it should not be set off against provision for bad and doubtful debts made for rural advances. There is no such distinction made in clause (viia) of section 36(1).

In order to clarify the scope and applicability of provision of clause (vii), (viia) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), it is proposed to insert an Explanation in clause (vii) of section 36(1) stating that for the purposes of the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(v), only one account as referred to therein is made in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and such account relates to all types of advances, including advances made by rural branches. Therefore, for an assessee to which clause (viia) of section 36(1) applies, the amount of deduction in respect of the bad debts actually written off under section 36(1)(vii) shall be limited to the amount by which such bad debts exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under section 36(1)(viia) without any distinction between rural advances and other advances.

This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years.

May overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 51147 (SC) had consider whether a bank was eligible to claim a deduction for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of its (rural & urban) advances and also claim a provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) in respect of its rural advances in view of the Proviso to s. 36(1)(vii) which provides that only the excess over the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made u/s 36(1)(viia) can be claimed and held that held that bad debts written off in respect of urban debts were eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) without any limits specified in proviso thereto, as the same were not covered by the provisions of Sec 36(1)(viia).

10. Proposed Amendment in “Deduction for additional wages in certain cases”

The existing provisions contained in section 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act provide for a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent of additional wages paid to the new regular workmen employed in any previous year by an Indian company in its industrial undertaking engaged in manufacture or production of article or thing. The deduction is available for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such employment is provided.

No deduction under this section is allowed if the industrial undertaking is formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing undertaking or amalgamation with another industrial undertaking.

The tax incentive under section 80JJAA was intended for employment of blue collared employees in the manufacturing sector whereas in practice, it is being claimed for other employees in other sectors also. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the provisions of section 80JJAA so as to provide that the deduction shall be available to an Indian Company deriving profits from manufacture of goods in its factory. The deduction shall be of an amount equal to thirty per cent of additional wages paid to the new regular workmen employed by the assessee in such factory, in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such employment is provided.

It is also proposed to provide that the deduction under this section shall not be available if the factory is hived off or transferred from another existing entity or acquired by the assessee company as a result of amalgamation with another company.

This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years.

May overrule the case reported in (2008) 115 TTJ 976 (BANGALORE)

11. Proposed Amendment in S. 50C - Computation of income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” for transfer of immovable property in certain cases

Currently, when a capital asset, being immovable property, is transferred for a consideration which is less than the value adopted, assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, then such value (stamp duty value) is taken as full value of consideration under section 50C of the Income-tax Act. These provisions do not apply to transfer of immovable property, held by the transferor as stock-in-trade.

It is proposed to provide by inserting a new section 43CA that where the consideration for the transfer of an asset (other than capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the stamp duty value, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration for the purposes of computing income under the head “Profits and gains of business of profession”.

It is also proposed to provide that where the date of an agreement fixing the value of consideration for the transfer of the asset and the date of registration of the transfer of the asset are not same, the stamp duty value may be taken as on the date of the agreement for transfer and not as on the date of registration for such transfer. However, this exception shall apply only in those cases where amount of consideration or a part thereof for the transfer has been received by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement.

These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years.

May Overrule the case reported in (2012) 6 TaxCorp (DT) 51567 (ALLAHABAD) held that section 50C has no application as it was a case of transfer of plots which was stock in trade. An income earned from such transaction is liable to be taxed as income from business activity.

“Knowledge is power, Information is liberating, Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family.”

Round the clock updates on tax law through email

Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational and for knowledge purpose and for non commercial use. Reader shall check contents with original government publication and notification. Neither have I accepted any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Rupesh Srivastava

E.mail:  ropsrivastava@gmail.com, rupesh@thetaxcorp.com

For any support or queries please feel free to contact 24X7

 

"Loved reading this piece by Rupesh Srivastava?
Join CAclubindia's network for Daily Articles, News Updates, Forum Threads, Judgments, Courses for CA/CS/CMA, Professional Courses and MUCH MORE!"




Tags :



Category Income Tax, Other Articles by - Rupesh Srivastava 



Comments


update