Friday, June 24, 2011

ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) ACT, 2010 & RULES 2011

ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) ACT, 2010 & RULES 2011
 
INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 have been enacted w.e.f. 1-5-2011. The old FCR Act and Rule, 1976 have been repealed. In this issue, we are discussing the major changes and the impact thereof.

THE SCOPE OF FCRA EXPANDED

2.1 The new FCRA, 2010 has a much broader applicability; it is applicable to individuals, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), Association and a section 25 company. In the old Act, the term 'person' was not defined and generally the Act referred to the term 'Association'. However, now it is very clear that FCRA applies to the above category of persons.

DOES FCRA APPLY TO COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS ORGANISATIONS

3.1 Movement of foreign funds in the normal course of commerce and business is outside the purview of FCRA. Therefore, business organisations are not covered by FCRA 2010 also. However, the provision of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which is a financial legislation, would be applicable.

WHAT IS FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION

4.1 Foreign Contribution includes all kind of transfers from foreign sources. The new act retains the older definition which includes any kind of transfer, delivery or donation of currency, article or securities. The notable change in the new act is that Foreign Contribution does not include commercial receipts. In other words, an NGO can receive consultancy or other commercial receipt from foreign sources even without having FC registrations. FC registered NGOs should receive such receipt in their domestic account and the commercial receipt are not required to be reported to the FCRA department.

PANCHAYAT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS LEGISLATURE

5.1 'Panchayat' has been included under the definition of 'Legislature' under section 2(1)(k). The implication of this change is that a member of a Panchayat cannot receive any foreign contribution. Secondly, NGOs who are working closely with Panchayat will have to be careful and ensure that their activities are not interpreted as of political nature.

FC FROM RELATIVES OR SCHOLARSHIP, STIPEND ETC.

6.1 The term 'Relative' has been defined for the first time giving it the same meaning as under section 2(41) of the Companies Act, 1956.

6.2 No permission is required to obtain foreign contribution from a relative under section 4 which is a relaxation. However, rule 6 provides that any gift from relatives above Rs. 1,00,000 in one year shall be intimated to the FCRA department in Form FC-1. Therefore, the rules seems to be in contravention of the Act.

6.3 Similarily scholarship, stipend etc. received from foreign sources are excluded under section 4. This again is a relaxation over the old Act.

** ** **

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO FC REGISTERED ORGANISATIONS

8.1 The Act prohibits transfer of funds to any other organisation unless the recipient organisation also possesses FC registration. However, there is some confusing requirement under Rule 24(2) which requires filing of Form 10 for prior permission even for transfer to registered FC organisations. This issue has been clarified by the FCRA department in writing. It has been clarified that there is no need for obtaining prior approval for transfer of FC funds to organisations which are having FC registration.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO UNREGISTERED ORGANISATIONS

9.1 The old Act prohibited transfer of funds to any other organisation unless the recipient organisation also possesses FC registration. However, the new Act allows of FC funds to even unregistered organisation.

9.2 Section 7 of FCRA, 2010 provides that foreign contribution can also be transferred non FC organisation with prior approval. Rule 23(4) provides that an organisation may apply in Form FC-10 for transfer of FC funds to unregistered organisations. Such transfer could be made to multiple recipients through one prior approval. However, the total amount of transfer to unregistered organisations shall not exceed 10% of the total foreign contribution received. Further, a recommendation from the District Magistrate have to be obtained. The aforesaid rule has practically defeated the purpose of this amendment as prior permission was in any case available to all organisations. Further, suppose a donor organisation wants to transfer funds to various districts, then certificate from District Magistrate would have to be obtained serparately for each district. In other words, the purpose of this new provision will not be achieved and the small CBOs and registered SHGs will continue to be deprived of FC funds.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

10.1 Under the new FCRA, 2010 there is a new provision which prohibits administrative expenses beyond 50%. The definition of administrative expenses includes various expenses such as rent, vehicles etc. which can also be incurred for programme purposes.

10.2 This amendment may cause hardship in interpreting the Rule 5 constituted in this regard. The definition of Administrative Expenditure briefly is as under :

- Remuneration and other expenditure to Board Members and Trustees

- Remuneration and other expenditure to persons managing activity

- Expenses at the office of the NGO

- Cost of accounting and administration

- Expenses towards running and maintenance of vehicle

- Cost of writing and filing reports

- Legal and professional charges

- Rent and repairs to premises

10.3 The Rule further provides that the following salaries shall not be considered as administrative in nature :

- Salaries of personnel engaged in training or for collection or analysis of field data of an association primarily engaged in research or training (1st proviso)

- Expenses related to activities for example salaries to doctors of hospital, salaries to teachers of school etc. (2nd proviso)

10.4 From the above definition of administrative expenses the followings issues need greater clarity :

- All kinds of vehicle expenditure has been considered as administrative in nature. However, the last proviso provides that expenses for furtherance of activity shall be excluded. Therefore, it should be expected that all programme related vehicle expenses and other expenditures are excluded from calculation of administrative expenses.

- The Rule includes the salaries of persons engaged in management of activity and at the same time the proviso as discussed above also applies. Therefore, it is expected that all direct programme salaries shall be excluded.

- In case of network organisations, the programme is implemented through partner organisations. In such cases, it is not clear how the admn. expenditure of the mother NGO shall be determined. It is expected that the programme expenses incurred by the subsequent organisation will be considered as a part of programme expenses of the mother NGO as well.

** ** **

POWERS FOR REJECTING AN APPLICATION

12.1 The FCRA, 2010 has provided considerable powers to the authorities for rejecting an application for prior permission or registration. Under section 12, various strict conditions have been provided which include that the applicant should not have been prosecuted or convicted for indulging in activities aimed at conversion or creating communal tension. It may be noted that the word `prosecuted' has been used which implies that even if there is a Court proceeding pending, then also FCRA registration could be denied.

SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE

13.1 Section 13 of the new Act allows the power to suspend the registration pending cancellation of certificate, for a period upto 180 days. During suspension the organisation cannot receive any foreign funds without prior approval. However, such organisation can utilise the existing foreign funds to the extent of 25%, that to with prior approval from FCRA department. Before suspending any organisation, the FCRA department shall record the reasons in writing. One very important issue under this section is the absence of any provision for an opportunity of being heard, before suspension which seems to be very harsh and unfair.

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE

14.1 Under section 14, the Central Government may cancel the registration certificate for various reasons. However, no certificate shall be cancelled unless reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided. The reasons for cancelling the certificate are :

(i) Providing false information

(ii) Violating the terms and conditions like filing of return, etc.

(iii) Violating the Act or the Rules

(iv) Acting against public interest

(v) No reasonable activity for 2 years.

14.2 Once a registration certificate is cancelled, such person shall not be eligible for registration or prior permission for the next 3 years from the date of cancellation.

14.3 The term "reasonable activity" has not been defined. It may so happen that an NGO may have activity from local sources. Therefore, it is expected that reasonable activity whether from FC or local sources should be there for retaining FC registration.

FOREIGN COMPANY & FOREIGN SOURCE

15.1 The old FCRA, 1976 considered Indian companies, where more than 50% of equity is held by foreigners, as foreign source. For example : companies like ICICI Bank, Infosys etc. were foreign source and donations cannot be accepted from them without FCRA registration. Unfortunately this provision has been retained in the new FCRA, 2010, though the stated intent of the Government was to exclude such companies. This provision could be a drafting error as the FCRA, 2010 has defined a foreign company under clause (g) of section 2, which does not include Indian Companies. This clause is apparently inserted to exclude Indian companies having more than 50% of Foreign equity holding. However section 2(j) which defines the term `foreign source' includes an Indian company under the category of foreign source if more than 50% of its equity is held by foreigners.

15.2 This provision shall create problem in flow of funds from such organisations to various genuine NGOs as only FC registered NGOs can accept such contributions.

BUSINESS/CONSULTANCY INCOME OF AN NGO

16.1 As discussed earlier, the new Act excludes consultancy or commercial receipts from the purview of foreign contribution. This amendment was very necessary but it comes with a lot of potent controversies and trouble for the NGOs. As per the new provisions, any fee or cost against business, trade or commerce shall not be considered as foreign contribution. In other words, such receipts can be treated as local income. However the problem is that this provision is in contradiction with the amended section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act which prohibits trade or business related receipts beyond Rs.25 lakh. Therefore, NGOs should be careful in treating consultancy income and other receipts as local income even though it is now permissible under the proposed Act.

PERSONS SPECIFICALLY DEBARRED FROM RECEIVING FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION

17.1 Section 3 of FCRA, 2010 specifies that the following persons cannot receive foreign contribution:

(a) candidate for election.

(b) correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, editor, owner, printer or publisher of a registered newspaper.

(c) Judge, Government servant or employee of any corporation.

(d) member of any legislature

(e) political party or office-bearer thereof.

(f) Organisation of a political nature.

(g) Association or company engaged in broadcast of audio or visual news.

(h) Correspondent, columnist etc. related with the company refered in clause (g).

** ** **

RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION EVERY 5 YEARS

18.1 The FCRA, 2010 provides for renewal of registration of NGOs every 5 years. However, the Act has provided relief to all the existing NGOs for the first 5 years from the date of enactment. In other words, all existing NGOs have to renew their registration at the end of the period of 5 years from the date of enactment of FCRA, 2010. This implies that the renewal of all the existing NGOs will become due on 1st May, 2016.

18.2 Rule 12 provides the procedure for renewal application. All NGOs have to apply in Form FC-5 six months before the due date. Therefore, all the existing NGOs have to file their FC-5 for renewal before 1st November, 2015. The Rule further provides that NGOs implementing multi year projects shall be eligible to apply for renewal twelve months before the date of expiry of the certificate of registration.

18.3 In case an NGO fails to apply for renewal within the due date, its registration shall become invalid. However, the department may condone the delay if satisfactory reasons for not submitting the renewal application are provided. Such delay should not be for more than 4 months after the expiry of the original certificate of registration.

POWER TO PROHIBIT SOURCES FROM WHICH FC CAN BE ACCEPTED

19.1 The Act provides power to the Central Government under section 11(3)(iv) to notify such source(s) from which foreign contribution shall be accepted with prior permission only. It implies that the Central Govt. may notify specific donors or countries from which foreign funds could not be received or shall be received with prior permission only.

MULTIPLE BANK ACCOUNT

20.1 Section 17 of FCRA, 2010 provides that multiple bank accounts can be opened for the purposes of utilisation provided only one bank account is maintained for receiving foreign contribution. This amendment provides a great reilef to all the NGOs which were struggling under the arbitrary disallowance of multiple bank accounts under FCRA, 1976.

20.2 Under Rule 9 it is provided that the NGOs may open one or more bank accounts for the purpose of utilisation. However, in all such cases an intimation in plain paper should be sent to the FCRA department within 15 days of the opening of such account.

DISPOSAL OF FIXED ASSETS ON DISSOLUTION

21.1 Section 22 of the FCRA, 2010 provides that, in case of dissolution, the Central Govt. shall have the power to determine the process of disposal of FC assets. The Central Govt. may specify the manner and procedure in which such asset shall be disposed of.

SPECULATIVE ACTIVITIES

22.1 Rule 4 specifies the circumstances under which an investment could be treated as speculative in nature.

22.2 Rule 4(1)(a) prohibits investment in shares & stocks even through mutual fund. This provision is in conflict with section 11(5) of the Income-tax Act which provides investment in certain stock linked mutual funds.

22.3 Rule 4(1)(b) prohibits investment in high return schemes or in land if it is not directly linked to the declared aims and objectives of organisation. This provision may create needless controversies as it will be very difficult to make distinction between investment in land in relation to the objectives and otherwise. Infact, NGOs cannot invest anything beyond the objectives. All investments have to be towards fulfilment of the long term objectives.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IF RECEIPTS EXCEED Rs. ONE CRORE

23.1 Rule 12 provides that if the contributions received during the year exceed Rs. one crore, then the organisation has to keep in the public domain all data of receipts and utilisation during the year and also in the subsequent year. The rule also states that the Central Government will also upload such summary data through its website.

23.2 The manner of disclosure or meaning of `public domain' has not been explained. It seems that all such organisations are required to have their own website where such data should be uploaded.

CUSTODY OF FUNDS AND ASSETS IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION

24.1 Rule 14 provides the procedure regarding the custody of foreign funds and assets in the event of cancellation of registration.

24.2 In case of available bank balances, the respective banking authority will become the custodian till the Central Government issues further directions.

24.3 If funds have been transferred to another NGO after cancellation, then the funds in the bank account of such NGO will also go to the custody of the banking authority.

24.4 All other assets of the organisation whose certificate has been cancelled or has become defunct shall go to the interim custody of the District Magistrate or any other authority which the Central Government may direct. This provision seems unfair, because the direction for repossession of asset should only be issued when all appellate remedies are exhausted.

REPORTING BY BANKS

25.1 Rule 15 provides that the bank should report to the FCRA department within 30 days under two circumstances :

(i) if any foreign contribution is received without registration or prior permission,

(ii) if foreign contribution is receive in excess of Rs. one crore during a period of 30 days, this rule will apply to all FC funds received through valid registration or prior permission.

FILING OF RETURN & METHOD OF ACCOUNTING

26.1 Rule 16 provides that the annual return accompanied by Income and Expenditure statement, Receipt and Payment Account and Balance Sheet shall be submitted by 31st of December. The law regarding filing of returns remains, more or less unchanged. However, the notable changes are as under :

- The return shall be filed in Form FC-6 and not FC-3

- For the first time, FC rules are asking for submission of income and expenditure account

- A copy of bank statement certified by the bank has to be submitted

- A nil return is required to be filed if there is no activity

26.2 The FCRA, 2010 and the Rules thereof do not specify any method of accounting. Section 19 of the FCRA, 2010 just provides that accounts with regard to FC receipt and utilisation should be maintained. In the past, it was assumed that FCRA required cash basis of reporting (if not accounting). However, with the new requirement of filing Income and Expenditure account raises the question whether accrual basis of accounting is also permissible. On a plain reading of section 19 of FCRA, 2010, Rule 16 and Form FC-6, it seems that the requirement is to report FC funds received and utilised during the year. In other words, the receipt of funds shall be on cash basis only but there is no direction regarding utilisation on payment basis only. FCRA, 2010 does not seem to be prescribing any fixed method of accounting. Any method of accounting may be followed by the organisation but the receipt of FC funds should be reported on cash basis only. It seems due to the inclusion of Income and Expenditure account, the utilisation will be permissible on accrual basis also if the organisation consistently follows accrual basis of accounting. However, the proposed Direct Tax Code (DTC) prescribes cash basis of computation only.

WHICH RETURN SHOULD BE FILED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR

27.1 The new Rules provide that the annual return shall be filed in Form FC-6. However it is not clear which form shall be used for filing of return for the year 2010-11, as the act became effective from 1st May, 2011. To our understanding all return should be filed in the new form FC-6.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF FILING FORM FC-7

28.1 All NGOs are required to file Form FC-7 alongwith a certificate for Chartered Accountant, if they receive contribution in kind. In the old act, there was no such requirement for filing a separate return for foreign contribution received in kind. It may be noted that old Form FC-3 and the new Form FC-6 both have a column for contribution received in kind. Therefore, it was not necessary to have an additional requirement of filing Form FC-7. However, as it stands, FC-7 has to filed in case of receipt of contribution in kind.

PRESERVATION OF ACCOUNTING RECORDS FOR 6 YEARS

29.1 The Rule 17(7) provides that accounting statements shall be preserved for 6 years. This is a very welcome change. Earlier it was seen that the NGOs were asked to provide books and records for past 10-15 years which was practically not possible. This rule will provide a lot of relief to the existing NGOs.

COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCE

30.1 Section 41 read with Rule 21 provides that the Ministry of Home Affairs may compound any offence punishable under the FCR Act. When an offence is compounded, then such organisation is not prosecuted. This is also a positive change which will help in avoiding needless legal cases.

AO is to follow instruction

Administration instruction No. 9 of 2004 dated 20-9-2004 which provides for scrutiny for return filed in financial year 2004-05 is binding on income-tax authorities - [2011] 11 taxmann.com 241 (Chhattisgarh).

=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog (itronline.blogspot.com)and will sent to the group on various dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day.
=========================================================================

Thursday, June 23, 2011

HC (P&H) : penalty if quantum is deleted

Where Tribunal had decided issue in quantum proceedings in favour of assessee, no case was made out for imposition of penalty for concealment of income - [2011] 11 taxmann.com 259 (Punj. & Har.)
.
=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog (itronline.blogspot.com)and will sent to the group on various dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day.
=========================================================================

Payment to a NZ Co for rendering liaison & coordinating

Payment made to a New Zealand company for rendering liaison & coordinating services qua DNA testing at USA does not fall within ambit of royalty & FTS

Income-tax : Nature of payment made by assessee to New Zealand company is of liaisoning and coordinating to ensure that blood samples collected by assessee is properly received at US and reports are received in time and as per terms fixed by US Embassy; neither of these services can be termed as services in nature of managerial, technical or consultancy nature; it is also not providing services of technical or other personnel; therefore, it also cannot be said that such services fall within term `fee for technical services.' as contemplated by Article 12 [Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident - Indo - New Zealand DTAA - Article 12 (Royalties & Fees for Technical Services)] - [2011] 10 taxmann.com 123 (Delhi - ITAT)

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

ITAT(DEL): Penalty u/s 271C

Imposition of penalty under section 271C of IT Act

Where the assessee was prohibited by reasonable cause for not deducting the TDS, the penalty imposed under section 271C was liable to be quashed.

ITAT, DELHI BENCH `H' NEW DELHI

Sahara India Fianncial Corpn. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
ITA NOS. 97 TO 100/DEL/2006
MARCH 20, 2009
RELEVANT EXTRACTS:

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
3. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. Learned Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(Appeals) have given much emphasis on the point whether assessee has committed a default within the meaning of sec. 194-A by not deducting the TDS when interest was credited to the interest provision account, In their opinions, assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, therefore, on an accrual basis, it should have been deducted the TDS when interest was transferred to such interest provision account. The stand of the assessee on the other hand was that even if it is assumed that assessee has committed a default then also there was a reasonable cause for not deducting the TDS at that point of time. As far as quantification of the tax and its payment on such interest income is concerned, there is no dispute that tax was determined on actual payment of interest and paid to the government exchequer. The ITAT in the case of M/s. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd(supra) has examined this aspect in detail and found that the assessee was prohibited by reasonable cause for not deducting the TDS, more so, according to the ITAT, there was no default on the part of the assessee, relevant observations of the order of the ITAT are as under:

"We have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the effect that unless the payment forms income of the payee, it cannot be said that income has accrued to the payee. As mentioned earlier, Chapter XVII is a mode of recovery/collection of taxes. Deducting tax at source is one of the modes for recovery/collection of taxes. In some cases, the tax has to be deducted at source irrespective of the fact whether paid amount was the income of the payee whereas in other cases, the taxes have to be deducted at source for paying the amount as income. Both the circumstances may be explained by following examples."

27, Section 192 of the Act provides that any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "salary" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income tax on the amount payable. This section has used the words "for paying any income chargeable under the head "salaries". But sec. 194 which is applicable to the dividends provides that the Principal Officer of the company which has made the prescribed arrangement for the declaration and payment of dividends within India shall, before making any payment, deduct from the amount such dividend, income tax at the rates in force. Similarly, certain sections provided for the deduction of tax at source at the time of actual payment whereas some sections have provided for deduction of tax at source if the amount is credited to the accounts of the payees. For example, in respect of payment of salary, the tax is to be deducted at source at the time of payment the sections 193, 194-A, 194-C provided for deduction of tax at source when the accounts of the payee is credited, In respect of payments covered u/s. 193, 194-A,194-C, the Explanations have also been added providing that if an amount is credited to an assessee's account or interest payable accounts or any similar accounts, it will be deemed that the account of the payee has been credited.

28. Section 194-A includes all these concepts namely, an income by way of interest was being paid credited and also the Explanation attached to this section. If the provisions of sec. 194-A are read carefully, it is clear that this section only speaks that the payment should be in the nature of income of the payee. In other words, if such income was beyond the scope of income then no tax has to be deducted at source. But if such income was an income though below taxable limit, the provisions of this section will still be applicable Thus, the use of the word "income" in this section has been made to indicate that the payment should form part of the income of the payee, may be such income was exempt under any provisions of law or the same was below taxable limit Thus, much significance cannot be attached to the arguments of the learned counsel in this regard.

29. Section 194A provided for deduction of tax at source at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment whichever is earlier. Admittedly, in the instant case, the tax has been deducted at source at the time of actual payment. The reading of the Explanation to sec. 194A makes it clear that the moment the income by way of interest is credited to any account, the liability of the assessee to deduct the tax will arise. The learned counsel's argument against such proposition bears no force and is to be dismissed.

30. However, it is settled law that penalty u/s. 271-C is subject to the provisions of sec. 273-B of the Act. This section reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of sec. 271, section 271-A, Section 271,–AA, section 271-B, section 271,-BA, section 271-BB, section 271-C, section 271-D, section 271-E, section 271F, section 271-G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272-B sub-section (1) of sec. 272-BB or sub-section (1) of sec. 272-BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of sec. 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure."

31. We have, therefore, examined whether there was any reasonable cause with the assessee to feel that the tax was not to be deducted at source as the interest payable by the assessee had not accrued to the payee.

32. Admittedly, but for the Explanation there is no violation of the provisions of sec. 194-A because the assessee has not credited the account of the payees and the tax has been deducted source at the time of actual payment The Explanation which was added to the section is a deeming provision. It says that if the income by way of interest is credited to any account in the books of account, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee. Whether the deeming provisions could exceed the main provision is always debatable. Moreover, whether the provision of sec. 194A will be applicable even in a case where the payment has not become due to the payee was also an equally debatable issue. As mentioned earlier, as per various deposit schemes, the payee has right to receive the interest only on maturity of the scheme. The right to receive the interest does not vest in the payee prior to the maturity. Even if the payee does not have right to receive any income by way of interest and if the assessee transfers the amount to a separate account whether the provisions of sec. 194-A will be applicable was also a highly debatable issue. The amount which was being transferred to a separate account has not partaken the character of income in the hands of the payee. The assessee could always take such explanation and such explanation has to be treated as bona fide. This claim is fortified by the conduct of the Department. As mentioned earlier, the assessee has claimed the deduction of interest on such deposits in assessment year 1995-96 on yearly basis and the same was also allowed by the A.O. But the learned CIT, by invoking the provisions of sec. 263, observed that as the payees do not have any vested right of receiving the interest, the assessee cannot suo moto transfer the amount of interest to a separate account and claim deduction of the same. The learned CIT held such liability to be a contingent liability and set aside the order of the A.O. Subsequently, in the assessment year 1996-97 also, the AO. himself has treated the interest liability claimed on yearly basis attributable to assessment year 1996-97 as contingent liability. It is another issue that on appeal the learned CIT(Appeals) has allowed such deduction. Needless to say that if the liability was contingent whether the provisions of sec. 194A will be applicable was a contentious issue. The reason is obvious. Section 194A enjoins upon a person to tax at source who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest". If the liability was contingent then there was no responsibility of the assessee to make the payment. Similarly, the provisions are applicable to "any person who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest". But if the interest is not due to the payee and the right to receive the interest is not vested in the payee whether such interest could be the income of the payee was also a debatable issue. On this ground also the explanation furnished by the assessee was bona fide.

33. Moreover, it is not a case of non-deduction of tax at source or non-payment of tax deducted. The tax has been deducted and the same has been paid also. It is also not a case of short deduction of tax or short payment of tax. The dispute was only limited to the time when the tax was to be deducted at source. The assessee felt that unless the order u/s.201(l) was passed holding the assessee in default, no penalty u/s. 271-C was warranted. Admittedly, because the tax was deducted at source and the same was paid, no order u/s 201(1) was passed As there was delay in payment of tax after deduction, the interest u/s. 201(1A) was levied which was also paid by the assessee.

34. We have also perused the provisions of sec. 271-C of the Act. It reads as under:

"(1) if any person fails to

(a) deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B;

or

(b) pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under:-

(i) sub-section (2) of section 115-O or (ii) second proviso to section 194-B, then, such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid, (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner."

35. The section postulates a condition for levying of penalty u/s.271-C, i.e. if the assessee has failed to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII- B. The assessee can always have a bona fide belief that as the taxes have been deducted at source, there was no default on the part of the assessee and, no penalty u/s. 271-C was warranted.

36. Even assuming that there was a minor default of non-deducting the tax at source at the time when the amount was transferred to interest payable account, though there was no liability of the assessee to transfer this amount to such account, the default was venial in nature. While relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26, the assessee could always claim bona fide and there is nothing unreasonable in such claim.

37. Looking to these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee had reasonable cause in not adhering to the provisions of sec. 194A read with sec. 271-C of the Act and the assessee's explanation being bona fide, was covered by section 273-B of the Act, Under these circumstances, no penalty u/s. 271-C of the Act was warranted. We, therefore, cancel the penalty u/s. 271-C sustained by the learned CIT(Appeals) for all the years".

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed by the learned CIT is liable to be quashed Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed under sec. 271-C and allow all the four appeals filed by the assessee.
.
=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog and will sent to the group on carious dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day it is spread on various dates. 
regards. R R Makwana
=============================================================================

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Some - Case Laws

Income Tax - 2009 - TMI - 32988 - HC
Power to issue warrant for search - Mere empowering certain specified Deputy Directors of Income-tax (Investigation) and Deputy Commissioners by virtue of the mere re-designation of Deputy Directors of Income-tax as Joint Directors of Income-tax, would not, itself mean that a Joint Director of Income-tax is also empowered – held that there is no notification issued by the CBDT specifically empowering any Joint Director of Income-tax (Investigation) to authorize action under Section 132(1)

Income Tax - 2009 - TMI - 32987 - HC
Whether the loss determined by the Assessing Officer, being different from the loss as claimed by the assessee in the return, can be carried forward in view of the provisions of Section 80 r.w.s. 139(3) - Whether the tribunal has erred in law in holding that the AO had exceeded its jurisdiction in not allowing the carrying forward of the loss after the tribunal had issued directions in the earlier round - Both questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Income Tax - 2009 - TMI - 32986 - HC
Held that that interest under sections 234B and 234C is to be charged after the tax credit (MAT credit) available under section 115JAA is set off against tax payable on the total income - Tribunal was correct in law in holding that rectification could not be made by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the issue regarding charging of interest under Section 234-B of the Act without giving set off of MAT credit available to the Assessee was highly debatable

Income Tax - 2009 - TMI - 32984 - HC
Challenge to ruling of AAR – held that Authority while giving a finding of fact that none of activities mentioned in Ex. (2) to S. 9(1)(1) is carried on by the petitioner in India, it then erroneously applied the ratio of decision of SC in the case of R.D.Aggarwal and Anglo French Textile Co., to hold that the activity of liaison offices of the petitioner constituted a `business connection' in India and hence, income shall be deemed to accrue/arise in India, to petitioner in UAE

Income Tax - 2009 - TMI - 32983 - HC
Whether reopening of the assessment beyond four years is justified – reassessment order on ground that goodwill is not an intangible asset and, therefore, not eligible for depreciation u/s 32(3)(b) – since there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose all facts, the reopening of the assessment after the expiry of 4 years cannot be sustained - ingredients of section 147 are not fulfilled by revenue - notice issued u/s 148 after the expiry of four years is quashed and set aside

Income Tax - 2009 - TMI - 32982 - HC
Trust – huge demands - Whether C.I.T. (A) is justified in declining to grant absolute stay of demands during pendency of appeals – CIT (A) directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the demands i.e.1.5 crore now and remaining till disposal of appeal - fact that the undisclosed income on account of donation been taxed in the hands of trust as well as the principle trustee, order of C.I.T. (A) is modified - stay of recovery shall be subjected to furnishing of bank guarantee in sum of 1.50 crore

Income Tax - 2009 - TMI - 32981 - HC
Power to issue warrant for search - Mere empowering certain specified Deputy Directors of Income-tax (Investigation) and Deputy Commissioners by virtue of the mere re-designation of Deputy Directors of Income-tax as Joint Directors of Income-tax, would not, itself mean that a Joint Director of Income-tax is also empowered – held that there is no notification issued by the CBDT specifically empowering any Joint Director of Income-tax (Investigation) to authorize action under Section 132(1)

=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog and will sent to the group on carious dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day it is spread on various dates.  Regards. R R Makwana
=============================================================================
Tags 132 , 12, 147,AAR ,MAT,

EXTRA ORDINARY ISSUE ******The right to privacy

EXTRA ORDINARY ISSUE

Pritish Nandy

Idon't use a Blackberry. My son and daughters do. I use the world's most boring phone, the one which has been left miles behind in the smartphone race. Once a much admired brand, Nokia now looks like a left behind. The Blackberry and the iPhone have won the popularity stakes. So why don't I use them instead?

My reasons are ridiculous. One: I find touch phones a bit sick. I love touching food and eating it with my fingers. I love touching beautiful women. But to caress a phone to make it respond to me is a bit unnerving at my age. I guess I'm plain old fashioned. I can't snog a robot, pet a tamagotchi or shag an iPad. My romances begin and end only with real people of the opposite sex. As for the Blackberry, I find it as exciting as Queen Latifah on steroids. It's simply much too much for me to handle. Plus, I like phones with great designs and the Blackberry doesn't quite fit that bill. It's dowdy, boring, unimaginative.

But why am I discussing phones here? No, it's not about phones stupid. It's about technology. The Blackberry uses a technology that allows you and me to talk to each other, share our little secrets, crack silly jokes, strike the odd deal, and say all those wonderfully inconsequential things to our friends and lovers that we don't want others to hear or know about. Our Constitution entitles us to this privacy. This is your and my right as Indian citizens. For years now, the Government has been trying every trick in the trade to eavesdrop on our conversations and often does so without us ever knowing. Even Cabinet Ministers and senior Opposition leaders have their phone chats listened in on. Why would they spare us? This means any petty Government official who has a bone to pick with you, whether it's for parking your car in front of his house or because his wife once smiled at you at a party and said hello, can instantly target you as a security risk or an anti-national.

The amount of raw data one must wade through to catch criminals through phone conversations or messaging is impossible to handle in a country as vast and talkative as ours where millions of people are constantly chatting away on their handsets in many languages, many dialects by voice, sms, emails, chat service and social networking sites. So if the intent is to catch criminals at random — terrorists, tax evaders, bribe takers — this is no way to do it. One can spend an entire lifetime listening to sick jokes, porn chats, astrological predictions, sales talk and couples squabbling without getting one piece of authentic, credible, actionable information that can nail a wrongdoer. In any case, intercepted phone chats are not exactly evidence that courts like to hear.

So what's the purpose of such snooping? What's this paranoia that drives us to pursue the dubious examples of Saudi Arabia and UAE (Bahrain too, one hears) to lean on RIM, the company that makes the Blackberry, to open up their security codes to Government scrutiny so that snooping becomes possible? Is it the argument of the State that the privacy of millions of Indian citizens should be made subservient to what it sees as national interest, which in this case is the right to snoop on everyone so that security concerns of the State are addressed? To my knowledge, no terrorist has ever been caught with a Blackberry. They use sat phones. And even if the Blackberry is banned or its encryption codes forced open by the Government by arm twisting RIM, there will be Skype and many more internet phone systems still open to criminals. By the time the Government gets down to banning those, new technologies will emerge. Terrorists and criminals are clever people. They are always one step ahead of the law.

So why ban the Blackberry? It will only hurt people like you and I who will now be sharing our private conversations with eager, State-hired eavesdroppers. What they will make out of such conversations we don't know. But what we do know are two things. One: The word privacy will vanish from our lexicon with every State agency listening on to everything we say and do. Two: More and more innocent people will be harassed by these agencies in their constant attempt to justify their snooping. Witch hunts will increase. Journalists, RTI activists, whistle blowers will be pre-empted, blackmailed, possibly even set up for a kill if they know too much. Is this is the kind of nation we want India to be, in the name of national security?
If RIM refuses to cave in, even I will switch over to the Blackberry to show my support for the cause of free speech, aesthetics be damned. Right now, the Blackberry has come to represent my right to privacy and I am not going to give it up so easily. Nor should you.

Views expressed by columnists in Bombay Times are their own, and not that of the paper .

=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog and will sent to the group on various dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day it is spread on various dates. 
regards. R R Makwana
=============================================================================

Monday, June 20, 2011

Scrutiny, submission by Assessee

In action on part of assessee can be costly in assessment and penalty proceedings- learning from recent ruling.

Duties of assessee:

It can be said that duties of an assessee include inter alia furnishing a correct return of tax base say income or other subject matter of taxation as the case may be. To furnish related documents and to make his explanations as required under law by filing relevant reports and statements or as may be required by the Assessing Authority for ascertaining tax base (say income) and tax payable (say income-tax). The assessee is required to prove genuineness of his transactions and reliability of his accounts and other statements relied on by him.

Evidence to be produced:

The assessee is also required to produce evidence about his claims of income, exempted income, allowable expenditure, assets and liabilities and various claims made by him to seek relief and to determine income properly as per law.

In respect of liabilities in nature of current liabilities or loan liability and some receipts which are claimed as not taxable, assessee is required to produce reasonable evidence and basis on which he had preferred his claims.

When the AO asks for any evidence, assessee must provide reasonable evidence so that at least it can be said that he has discharged his onus. For example, in case of liabilities he must give particulars of creditors ( name , address, PAN , purpose and nature of liability etc.) to discharge initial burden or onus. In fact the assessee in his own interest must make full efforts to produce latest confirmations, and new address etc. If the AO has asked to produce creditors, he must make sincere efforts to produce them and must also inform the AO about his efforts and results. Even if his own efforts does not yield result and the creditor is not willing to come forward, then assessee can request the AO to issue notices to creditors for their appearance etc.

If the assessee does not discharge his preliminary responsibility of furnishing relevant details and evidence, he may be burdened with additions and tax thereon as well as penalty for concealing particulars of income.

Evidence Act:

In this regard section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is also relevant and has been applied by court in a recent ruling. The said provision with high lights reads as follows:

106. Burden of proving fact specially within knowledge - When any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Illustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had ticket is on him.

On reading of the above provision we find that when a fact is specially within knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, when a fact is especially in knowledge of assessee, it is on him to prove the fact. Therefore, accounting entries and adjustments made by assessee are considered as fact within his knowledge, therefore assessee is required to prove the facts. If he fails to prove the facts, adverse inference can be drawn against him.

However, in this regard, it is necessary to consider all other aspects related with a transaction. If a transaction took place long ago, and there is no continuity of dealing with party concerned, the assessee can only give the last known address of concerned party. However, there must be at least that much effort to establish facts as they prevailed on the day of transaction. If there is no action by the assessee to prove facts, then authorities can definitely draw adverse conclusions. In view of author, production of third parties cannot be considered as fact in special knowledge of assessee, and therefore, this provision should not be applied in that regard. With respect, author feels that the Tribunal and High Court In the case of M/s. Aggarwal Financers, were not correct in applying this provision, merely because assessee could not produce the creditors before the AO.

Recent case before Punjab and Haryana High Court:

In case of M/s. Aggarwal Financers, Ladwa Vs. CIT 2011 -TMI - 203225 decided on 19 April 2011 a matter of penalty levied for concealment of income which was confirmed by the ITAT, came for consideration on appeal of assessee. The honorable High Court considered the provisions Sections 68 and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and section 106 of the Evidence Act .

In this case the Tribunal has recorded a finding that in spited of repeated opportunities the assessee failed to establish the nature, source and creditworthiness of liabilities shown by assessee.

Court held that on a harmonious construction of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and Section 68 of the Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the credit worthiness of his credit - The burden is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction - In the present appeal, since in spite of various opportunities provided to the assessee, the creditors could not be produced, therefore, it can be said that the assessee attempted to conceal the particulars by furnishing inaccurate particulars .

The court further held that the addition made on this account would not automatically justify the imposition of penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that it does, However, in the present appeal, since the assessee has not explained cash credits, therefore, the penalty has been rightly levied. The impugned order of the ITAT was thus upheld and the appeal of assessee was dismissed.

Questions before the High Court:

The following substantial questions of law were claimed for determination of the High Court ( with highlights provided by author):

"(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the action of the authorities below, in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act thereby holding the concealment of income, when all the cash credits were duly explained by the appellant assessee, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case the action of the authorities below in imposing penalty even when the onus was discharged by the appellant assessee in toto is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

(iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case the action of the authorities below in imposing penalty for concealment of income, merely on the basis of presumptions, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

(iv) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case the action of the authorities below in passing orders (Annexure A-1 to A-3) even when the genuineness of the transactions were fully explained by the appellant assessee, therefore, discharging its onus, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

(v) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case the action of the authorities below in passing the impugned orders (Annexure A-1 to A-3) are legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

Comments of author:

A reading of above questions, particularly highlighted portions suggest that the assessee has claimed to have discharged his onus by furnishing explanations and evidence about cash credits and that tax authorities have applied some presumptions. However, there is no challenge of facts as found by Tribunal as wrong or perverse.

The assessee must have challenged the facts as recorded by Tribunal as wrong and perverse. Without that, the facts as found by the Tribunal have to be considered as final.

Facts as noticed by the High Court:

the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99, on 31.10.1998, declaring income of Rs. 6,889/-.

The assessing officer, however, made assessment under Section 148 of the Act.

Certain short-comings and deficiencies were detected by the assessing officer in the return filed.

The AO noticed that the deposits made by the creditors of the assessee as shown in the books of account were not genuine.

No confirmation and verification had been furnished by the assessee.

The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,97,000/-.

The AO also disallowed 1/4th of the actual expenses of Rs. 67,767/- he added a sum of Rs. 16,942/-.

Pursuant to the additions and disallowances notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued. The assessing officer, vide order dated 24.12.2004, held that there was concealment of income by the assessee and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 68,949/-

Appeals against the imposition of penalty carried by the assessee before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal both were dismissed. Thus CIT(A) and Tribunal had concurrently held that there was concealment of income and assessee was liable to penalty.

Observations and order of the High Court:

High Court heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The Tribunal while upholding the findings of CIT(A) and the assessing officer, imposing penalty had recorded as under ( highlights added by author for analysis):

"We are aware that the penalty is not imposable if there is no conscious breach of law as was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 1969 -TMI - 39958 – (SUPREME Court) and at the same time, for imposition of penalty, the conduct of the assessee must be conscious. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of AM Shah & Co. vs. CIT (108 Taxman 137) (Guj.) even went to the extent that the concealment/ inaccuration occurring up to final stage must be considered. Even otherwise, a harmonious construction of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and Section 68 of the Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the credit worthiness of his credit. The burden is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. In the present appeal, since in spite of various opportunities provided to the assessee, the creditors could not be produced, therefore, it can be said that the assessee attempted to conceal the particulars by furnishing inaccurate particulars. We are aware that the addition made on this account would not automatically justify the imposition of penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that it does. In the present appeal, since the assessee has not explained cash credits, therefore, we are of the view that the penalty has been rightly levied. The impugned order is upheld. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed."

High Court's ruling:

The Tribunal on appreciation of material had affirmed the orders of the authorities below and arrived at the conclusion that there was concealment of income on the part of the assessee.

The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had, thus, been rightly levied.

Nothing could be shown that the findings recorded by the authorities below were perverse or erroneous in any manner.

In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal is dismissed.

Observation of author:

The Tribunal has recorded facts as follows:

That in spite of various opportunities provided to the assessee, the creditors could not be produced, therefore, it can be said that the assessee attempted to conceal the particulars by furnishing inaccurate particulars.

that the assessee has not explained cash credits.

It seems that Tribunal in its order has not at all recorded facts about what evidences were produced by assessee, whether assessee furnished names, address, PAN, confirmations etc. is not recorded.

Apparently the Tribunal has come to conclusions of concealment only because the assessee could not produce creditors. In view of the author either the counsels of assessee did not provide any evidence before authorities or the approach of the Tribunal was not fully correct. Production of creditor may not always be within control of the assessee.

If assessee based on his information and record is able to prima facie establish the nature and source of credit then primary onus of assessee stands discharged. For production of creditors the tax authorities are empowered to issue notices, there is no finding about issuance of notices by assessee or the AO to the creditors to produce creditors before AO.

In this case the assessee should have challenged findings of Tribunal as incomplete, incorrect and perverse and should have produced some evidence in this regard before the High Court. In absence of the same the high Court took the findings of Tribunal as final and confirmed penalty by holding that there is no substantial question of law.

With due respect the author also differ from the views of the High Court. This is because, the Tribunals finding is based only on one factor that is failure of assessee to produce creditors.

Failure to produce third party- not hit by S.106 of Evidence Act:

As noted earlier as per section 106 of the Evidence Act - When any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Now the question comes is whether production of a third party before the AO can be considered as covered by this provisions. In view of the author, to produce a third party is not covered by this provision. It cannot be considered as `specially within the knowledge of assessee…. , therefore, with due respect, author feels that the Tribunal has not applied this provision correctly in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learning from this case:

The assessee should have furnished whatever evidence he had about creditors – even old confirmations, evidence of receipt of money like money receipt issued by assessee, evidence of payment of interest and receipt of creditor, clearing of cheques received and paid etc.

The assessee could have issued notices to the creditors and requested them to present evidence before his AO.

If creditors did not respond, the assessee could have requested the AO to issue notices to creditors.

Assessee could have given reasons for his inability to produce creditors and produce evidence available with him.

The assessee should have made petition before Tribunal to make a reference of evidence produced before lower authorities and Tribunal. Non recording of such facts should have been challenged before High Court also. Not challenging the facts found by Tribunal was apparently a serious mistake.

The assessee must have made out a case of discharge of primary onus for explanation of the nature and source of money. Before the High Court also any evidence was not produced. That is why the High Court has recorded that "nothing could be shown that the findings recorded by the authorities below were perverse or erroneous in any manner".

The assessee must have challenged findings of Tribunal as perverse and should have made out case about reasonable evidence available.

The assessee must have claimed that in the facts and circumstances of the case Section 106 of the Indian Evidence act was not applicable.

By: C.A. DEV KUMAR KOTHARI .
=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog and will sent to the group on carious dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day it is spread on various dates. regards. R R Makwana
=============================================================================

FBT - In absence of proximate purpose of expenses incurred by assessee com

FBT - In absence of proximate purpose of expenses incurred by assessee company for agencies cannot be treated as fringe benefit

BANGALORE, AUG 09, 2010: THE issue is - When there is no proximate purpose of the expenses paid by the assessee company for its agencies other than the employees then whether the same can be considered as fringe benefit under the deeming provision of section 115WB(2) of Act. And the answer is NO.

Facts of the case

Assessee, an Electricity Supply Company, filed the return of income on 27.11.2006 declaring NIL income and book profit of Rs.27,86,58,020/- u/s 115JB. The A.O. assessed the income at Rs.32,33,81,280/- after making certain disallowances and additions. The assessee also filed the return of fringe benefit u/s 115WE declaring total value of fringe benefits at Rs.11,55,82,989/-. A notice u/s 115WE(2) was issued to the assessee on 6.8.2008 calling for the details of the fringe benefits. The assessee vide letter dated 15.12.2008 furnished the details, according to which, the vehicle hire expenses were of Rs.1,02,05,805/- and the assessee stated that the vehicles were hired by the company to be used by the officers exclusively for the official purpose and not used for any tours and travel. The AO was however not satisfied with the assessee's explanation and held that this is a facility provided by the assessee company to its employees/officers for conveyance purpose and therefore, it is covered by section 115WB(F) in respect of fringe benefit and added 20% of the vehicle hiring charges i.e. Rs.20,41,161/- to the total value of the fringe benefits.

CIT(A) observed on the basis of the Circular No.8/2005 dated 29.8.2005 issued by the CBDT, that the word "purposes" used in sub-section 2 refers to the proximate purpose and not the distant purpose and that the proximate purpose of expenses is for conveyance of employees within the meaning of clause (F) of section 115WB(2) and the proximate purpose of expenses mentioned in clause (iii) of paragraph 5 is for conveyance of employees within the meaning of clause (F) of section 115WB(2). He thereafter held that the A.O. was right in including vehicle hire charges as the total value of fringe benefits to the extent of Rs.33,15,367/- representing conveyance paid indirectly to employees and directed the AO to restrict the addition to 20% of the same which works out to Rs.6,63,073/-. As regards to the remaining addition, he deleted the same, as these are the expenses incurred for agencies other than employees.

Being aggrieved the Revenue filed appeal before the tribunal which held that:

++ 115WB(3) provides that for the purposes of sub-section (1), the privilege, service, facility or amenity does not include perquisites in respect of which tax is paid or payable by the employee [or any benefit or amenity in the nature of free or subsidized transport or any such allowance provided by the employer to his employees for journeys by the employees from their residence to the place of work or such place of work to the place of residence.

++ It can be seen that what is intended to be taxed is a benefit attributable to employees collectively but the transport services for workers and staff are to be outside the tax net. In the case before us, items 1, 2 and 3 considered by the CIT(A) are for the purposes of carrying on the business activities of the assessee company by the agencies of the assessee company and it is only item 4, which is spent on the employees for attending the meetings, inspections and other official functions. From the reading of the provisions of section 115WB(2), it is clear that the benefits given to an employee directly or indirectly only would be taxable under Chapter XII-H. As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A), the other expenditure is incurred for agencies other than the employees, who are outside the scope of the provisions of section 115WB(2). Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 

=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog and will sent to the group on carious dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day it is spread on various dates. 
regards. R R Makwana
=============================================================================
._,___

Recent Case law

[2011] 11 taxmann.com 333 (MUM. - ITAT)
IT : If appeal filed by assessee is only defective, it assumes validity on removal of such defect or irregularity; whereas payment of such tax is mandatory but requirement of paying such tax before filing appeal is only directory
===================================================
[2011] 11 taxmann.com 332 (MUM. - ITAT)
IT : Where assessee, owner of a trademark, entered into licence agreements with various Indian hotels in terms of which said hotels became licensees of assessee's trademark and, assessee, besides receiving licence fee, received marketing and reservation contribution from Indian hotels, in view of fact that said amount was received with a corresponding obligation to use it for agreed purposes, it could not be regarded as assessee's income and, moreover, since assessee did not have a PE in India, amount in question could also not be treated as business profits in terms of article 7 of Indo-US DTAA
===================================================
[2011] 11 taxmann.com 331 (MUM. - ITAT)
IT : In view of Explanation 1 inserted to section 90 by the Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962, tax rates prescribed in Finance Act are to be applied even if an assessee-company is covered by provisions of DTAA
===================================================
[2011] 11 taxmann.com 330 (MUM. - ITAT)
IT : Transfer pricing : Where assessee sought stay of demand of tax without showing any financial hardship, same could not be accepted
===================================================
.
=============================================================================
Dear Friends : The emails are schedule to be posted in the blog and will sent to the group on carious dates and time fixed. Instead of sending it on one day it is spread on various dates. regards. R R Makwana
=============================================================================