News Update

Saudi Arabia imposes temporary visa ban on 14 countries, including PakistanUK protests against Israel detaining two British lawmakersGovt to set up dedicated startup India desk for budding entrepreneursDelhi Govt takes stern action against steep fee hike by private schoolsUK MP Dan Norris arrested for alleged child sex offencesIndian-American country judge nabbed on money-laundering chargesAustralia pledges 2.3 bn Australian dollar to enable households buy solar batteriesIndia, Lanka sign MoU on defence cooperationCX - Mere interconnection under Income Tax law does not establish a related party transaction under Central Excise law, thereby invalidating department's demand for duty at 110% of production cost: CESTATOwaisi moves SC against Waqf Amendment ActNo TDS to be deducted u/s 194EE on payments u/s 80CCAST - Removal of smart cards for pairing with set-top boxes (STBs) constituted job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004 and thus, reversal of CENVAT credit is not required: CESTATCBIC issues AGT orders of 229 Jcs / ADCs + 308 ACs / DCs + 177 Pr Commissioners / Commissioners + 12 Pr CCs & CCsST - Activity of serving as intermediary between foreign entities & Indian customers, qualifies as export of services; commissions earned by assessee will not attract Service Tax levy: CESTATKessler Syndrome: Over 1200 objects of space debris banged into earth in 2024CX - Valuation - Specifications meant for guidance purposes per se differ from detailed engineering drawings; only the latter is to be included in assessable value: CESTATTrump grants another 75-day to TikTok to find Chinese buyerEU fears Trump beer tariffs may cost one lakh jobsTrump tosses out National Security Agency DirectorBudget Session of Parliament adjourns sine-die; 16 Bills passedHamas says Israeli offensive in Gaza is fatal for hostagesEuropean Commission votes to freeze existing sustainability rules to compete with China and USParliament passes Protection of Interest in Aircraft Objects Bill, 2025US economy adds 2.28 lakh jobs in March monthI-T - Provisions of section 50C are equally applicable to asset forming block of asset as well: ITATChina retaliates; imposes 34% tariffs on American goods
 
Clarifications on Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016

By TIOL News service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

V G IRKAL
HOSPET

Posted by vasantirkal vasantirkal