News Update

Elected Women of PRIs to Participate in CPD57 in New YorkIndia, New Zealand to have deeper collaboration in Pharma, Agriculture and Food ProcessingIndia’s manufacturing PMI marginally slides to 58.8 in April monthDefence Secretary & Secretary General of MoD, Indonesia to co-chair 7th Joint Committee meetingAbove 7000 Yoga enthusiasts practised Common Yoga Protocol in SuratManeka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDO
 
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
 

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.