CIRCULARS

it16cir17

Clarifications on the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016

it16cir16

Explanatory Notes on provisions of the Income declaration scheme, 2016 as provided in chapter IX of Finance Act, 2016

it16cir15

Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

it16cir14

Digital Reporting of Form No. 60

NOTIFICATIONS

itnot32_2016 + itnot33_2016

Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016

CASE LAWS

2016-TIOL-980-HC-MUM-IT

CENZER INDUSTRIES LTD Vs ITO: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Date: May 2, 2016)

Income tax - Sections 37(1) & 115JB.

Keywords - purchase of gold coin - reimbursements - selling & distribution expenses.

Whether where an affidavit evidence is relied upon by a party and the same is challenged by other side, then an opportunity to cross examine the deponent of the affidavit is a necessary ingredient of principle of natural justice, before any reliance can be placed upon it - YES: HC

Whether it is open to an assessee to claim deduction u/s 37(1) on account of selling & distribution expenses, where no such expenditure has been proved by the assessee to be incurred for the purpose of its business - NO: HC

Assessee's appeal dismissed

2016-TIOL-979-HC-KOL-IT

RANGLAL BAGARIA HUF Vs ACIT: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (Date: May 4, 2016)

Income Tax - Sections 54, 147 & 148.

Keywords - change of opinion - disclosure of material facts - reasons for reopening & reassessment.

Whether before reopening an assessment, it is mandatory for the AO to demonstrate that a fact which would have had a material bearing on the assessment is not disclosed by the assessee prior to the previous assessment or, that any false or misleading information is furnished by the assessee during assessment to materially affect the same - YES: HC

Whether any reassessment is warranted in a case, where the recorded reasons for seeking to reassess the assessee's income for the relevant A/Y cannot disclose any material that would amount to the failure of true or full disclosure of the primary facts pertaining to the transaction relating to the property - NO: HC

Whether where the fact of change of leasehold rights into ownership rights prior to the execution of sale deed is known to the AO during course of origional assessment and he had allowed deduction on the same, then the AO is deemed to have taken such matter into consideration and any reassessment on such score would amount to mere change of opinion or review which is impermissible - YES: HC

Whether a subsequent attempt of the AO to question the valuation report in respect of a property which was earlier available with him and was examined during origional assessment, would amount to change of opinion, and hence no reopening based upon such opinion can be sustained -YES: HC

Assessee's petition allowed

2016-TIOL-978-HC-DEL-CUS

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: February 26, 2016)

Cus -Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - Assistant Commissioner (Refund) rejected the refund claimsfiled u/s 27 observing that the claimant (petitioner) has filed the refund of duty on the bills of entry which are already assessed and once the assessment order was passed, duty was payable in terms thereof unless such assessment order was reviewed or modified in an appeal - appeal to High Court.

HELD - In the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-566-HC-DEL-CUS it is held that the assessee was entitled to maintain the refund claim notwithstanding that there was no appeal filed against the assessed B/Es -as long as customs duty or interest has been paid or borne by a person, a claim for refund made by such person under section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, as it now stands, will have to be entertained and an order passed thereon by the authority concerned even where an order of assessment may not have been reviewed or modified in appeal - the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) appears to have not noticed the decision of this Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. - further, he failed to notice that the said provision has undergone a significant change w.e.f. 8.4.2011 - the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims on the ground of maintainability was plainly erroneous and set aside - the refund applications restored to the file of the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) for being dealt with on merits in accordance with law : HIGH COURT [para 10, 13, 14, 15]

Writ Petitions disposed of

2016-TIOL-977-HC-DEL-CUS

HIM LOGISTICS PVT LTD Vs PR CC: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: February 26, 2016)

Cus - Vide order dated 17.2.2016, the adjudicating authority declined the petitioner's request for cross-examination of two persons whose statements have been relied upon in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner - Order challenged in appeal before High Court.

HELD - The respondent department is placing considerable reliance on the statements of Mr.Shyam Lal and Ms.Preeti, the partners of the importer, in support of the case made out in the SCN - the impugned order does not indicate that any prejudice would be caused to the department by providing the petitioner the right of cross-examination - the denial of such right would prejudice the petitioner since the said statements are adverse to the petitioner - the denial of the petitioner's right of cross-examination is held contrary to the law explained in the case of Basudev Garg [2013-TIOL-464-HC-DEL-CUS] - impugned order dated 17.2.2016 set aside -the time limit of completing the adjudication proceedings and passing the adjudication order extended by a period of two months from the date of conclusion of the cross examination : HIGH COURT [para 17, 18, 19]

Writ Petition disposed of

MIXED BUZZ

Income Declaration Scheme 2016 - CBDT notifies detailed FAQs