Retrospective Amendment of 2012 - CBDT Constitutes High Level Committee
29.08.2014
Friday
IN his Budget speech, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had said,
This Government will not ordinarily bring about any change retrospectively which creates a fresh liability. Hon'ble Members are aware that consequent upon certain retrospective amendments to the Income Tax Act 1961 undertaken through the Finance Act 2012, a few cases have come up in various courts and other legal fora. These cases are at different stages of pendency and will naturally reach their logical conclusion. At this juncture I would like to convey to this August House and also the investors community at large that we are committed to provide a stable and predictable taxation regime that would be investor friendly and spur growth. Keeping this in mind, we have decided that henceforth, all fresh cases arising out of the retrospective amendments of 2012 in respect of indirect transfers and coming to the notice of the Assessing Officers will be scrutinized by a High Level Committee to be constituted by the CBDT before any action is initiated in such cases.
Accordingly, the CBDT has yesterday constituted a High Level Committee with (i) Joint Secretary (FT&TR-I) (ii) Joint Secretary (TPL-I) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax (ITA).
Where any Assessing officer considers that any income is deemed to accrue or arise in India before 1st April, 2012 through transfer of a capital asset situate in India in consequence of the amendments introduced with retrospective effect, and as on the date of this order,-
(i) no proceeding of assessment or reassessment in relation to the said income is pending; or
(ii) no notice for proposed assessment or re-assessment in relation to the said income has been issued; or (iii) no proceeding under section 201 of the Act is pending, or no notice for initiation of such proceeding has been issued in relation to the said income,
then, before proceeding with any action in relation to the said income, the Assessing Officer shall seek prior approval of the Committee for the proposed action by making a reference to the Committee through the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner concerned. The Assessing Officer shall forward a copy of the reference to the assessee.
The Committee, on receipt of the reference from the Assessing Officer, shall examine the proposed action of the Assessing Officer and, after providing an opportunity to the assessee, take a decision on the proposed action. The committee shall convey its decision in writing to the Assessing Officer with copy to the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner concerned and the assessee. The Committee shall endeavour to decide the reference within 60 days of its receipt by the Secretary of the Committee. However, the Committee shall have due regard to any limitation period involved in the proposed action.
The Assessing Officer shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the directions of the Committee.
CBDT Order under Section 119 in F.No. 149/141/2014-TPL, Dated: August 28, 2014
Constitution of Review Committee of Chief Commissioners/Commissioners - CBEC Orders
BY Office Order No. 220/2012 dated 23.11.2012, the Board had issued a pre-approved chain of nomination of first link officer and second link officer at the level of Chief Commissioners.
This was to ensure that in the event of an officer at the level of Chief Commissioner / Directors General and Commissioners in the CBEC proceeding on leave/absence, CBEC has approved a chain of nomination (Link Officer):
For example, if the Delhi Central Excise Chief Commissioner goes on leave, the post will be held by the Delhi Customs Chief Commissioner as the first link officer and if he is not available, the Chief Commissioner, Jaipur as the second link officer. Similarly if the DGRI goes on leave, the post will be held by DGCEI or DG(vig). (Please see DDT 1991 27.11.2012)
Now the Board wants to use this link officer mechanism for the Committee of Chief Commissioners reviewing the order of Commissioners in Customs, Excise and Service Tax.
The Board Order states, "with the approval of the Competent Authority, it is hereby ordered that the first nominated link officer would function as the member of the committee for the purpose of review of Orders-in-Original passed by Commissioners in the case wherein a Chief Commissioner, who is a member of the Review Committee proceeds on leave, transfer or is absent for any other reason. Where the first nominated link officer happens to be a member of the Review Committee constituted by the Board, the second nominated link officer would function as the member of the Review Committee."
The Order further stipulates, "Henceforth, only such cases need to be referred to the Board for nomination of a Chief Commissioner as member of the Committee where, for any reason, the Review Committee cannot be constituted by the first nominated link officer and the second nominated link officer. Similarly, for the purpose of constitution of Review Committee of Commissioners, only such cases need to be referred to the Board where the Chief Commissioner is not able to assign the charge to another Commissioner within his Zone or the Commissioner being assigned the administrative charge of the Commissionerate falling vacant also happens to be member of the Committee."
Who is this mysterious Competent Authority who springs up in such Government Orders like the Coal Scam? Why can't they specify as to who the Competent Authority is?
CBEC OFFICE ORDER - 1/2014 in F.No.390/Review/ 49 /2014-JC, Dated: August 28, 2014
Safeguard Duty imposed on Saturated Fatty Alcohols
THE Government has imposed a provisional safeguard duty of twenty per cent on "Saturated Fatty Alcohols with carbon chain length of C8,C10,C12,C14,C16, and C18 including single, blends and unblended (not including branched isomers) which includes blends of a combination of carbon chain lengths, C12-C14, C12-C16, C12-C18,C16-18 and C14-C16 (commonly categorized as C12-C14)"falling under sub-heading 2905 17 or 3823 70 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act.
DDT had reported in DDT 2299 21.02.2014 - India initiates Safeguards Investigations on Saturated Fatty Alcohols
Notification No. 03/2014-Customs(SG), Dated: August 28, 2014
There is no specific target to be achieved - undue haste is not at all called for
IN a scathing indictment of the manner in which orders were being passed by the CESTAT, WZB, the High Court has come down heavily in a recent decision which we are reporting today.
Terming the order as cryptic and which had left the High Court with no alternative but to pass a ‘wholesale order of remand', the order was quashed and set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the Tribunal for a decision afresh.
Incidentally, such discourse was also made in the case of Zenith Computers Ltd. 2014-TIOL-623-HC-MUM-ST.Please also see DDT 2345.
See Breaking News.
Abhishek Verma Nominated for Arjuna Award-2014 for Archery
IT is informed that Abhishek Verma, has been nominated for Arjuna Award-2014 for his outstanding achievement in Archery. Abhishek Verma has been an excellent sportsman and has got 1st National Ranking, 2nd Asian Ranking and 19th World Ranking during 2013-14 as Compound Archer. Abhishek Verma is representing India at Asian Games 2014.
Abhishek is a Tax Assistant with the Income Tax Department,at present posted with CIT, Delhi-XIV. An Arjuna Awardee working as a tax assistant? Well, that is the highest post the Revenue Department gives its most outstanding sportsmen, whileself-professed sportsmen who joined the department long ago are now Assistant Commissioners!
A Commissioner told me an incident. A National level sportsman had approached the Commissioner for his help for a job as Tax Assistant. The Commissioner's daughter who was dreaming to become a sportsperson told her father, "if after all the efforts, the highest job I can get in your department is that of a tax assistant, I would rather leave the sports field and get into the IRS"
The Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi has circulated the happy news to all Income Tax Officers in Delhi Region. The Circular is signed by a DC.
Also see India's top cricket umpire is a Central Excise officer
F. No. P-324/4/General Circulars/2014-15/6315 of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Cadre Controlling Authority) New Delhi,Dated: August 28, 2014
DDT Cartoon
Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases
Service Tax
s.85 of FA, 1994 - General Clauses Act defines month as British Calendar month and it is not defined in terms of number of days - condonation period of one month allowed to Commissioner(A) should not be interpreted as number of days: CESTAT
A Service Tax demand of Rs.4,85,174/- was confirmed against the appellant and their appeal was dismissed as time-barred by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the appeal was filed on 17/02/2014 in respect of an adjudication order received on 18/11/2013 and, therefore, the appeal has been filed after the expiry of 91 days from the date of communication of the order.
Income Tax
Whether when company's name and products are being advertised or financial results being published, there is any rationale for segregating such expenditure Unit-wise - NO: ITAT
THE assessee concern has raised a ground with regard to the allocation of certain expenses to the assessee's Dehradun Unit, exigible to deduction u/.80-IC, viz. advertisement expenses, legal and professional expenses, audit expenses. It was in the business of manufacture of rectifiers, transformers, devices, thyristors, etc. for telecommunication, railways and defence departments, operating through different units, of which only the Dehradun unit was an eligible undertaking u/s.80-IC. It had claimed a meagre allocation to the Dehradun unit, so that the bulk of the expenditure under the said heads of account stood allocated to non-80-IC units, purportedly on the basis of actual, AO did not found the same acceptable in the absence of proper substantiation of its claims by the assessee and, accordingly, allocated the same on the basis of the turnover of the different units.
The issue before the Bench is - Whether when company's name and products are being advertised or financial results being published, there is any rationale for segregating such expenditure Unit-wise. And the answer is NO.
CENTRAL EXCISE
CX - Purchasing 98% concentrated sulphuric acid and diluting the same with de-mineralised water as per customer requirement to get diluted sulphuric acid, which is marketable and used by battery manufacturing units is a process amounting to manufacture u/s 2(f) of CEA, 1944: CESTAT
THE appellant is engaged in the activity of dilution of sulphuric acid and the finished product is supplied to the battery companies for use in the batteries. The contention of the appellant is that the said activity is not a manufacturing activity as they only mixed two chemicals.
See our Columns Monday for the judgements
Until Monday with more DDT
