IGST Export Refund - Resolution of errors As Per Circular No. 01/2019-Customs - Dated 02-01-2019
The processing of IGST refund claims on exports is fully automated. Majority of refunds claims are getting processed and sanctioned within five days of filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns. However, in a few cases, particularly for the LCL cargo consignments originating from ICDs, Export General Manifest (EGM) related errors continue to hinder smooth and automatic sanction of IGST refund claims. The nature of these errors has been examined in detail. It has been observed that the main reasons for such EGM errors still hampering the IGST refund processing are as under:
(i) Online filing of both local and Gateway EGM not being done on time by the concerned stakeholders.
(ii) Mismatch in local and gateway EGM details wherever both are filed online.
(iii) Non-filing of stuffing report by the Preventive officers at Gateway Ports for the LCL cargo being consolidated at the Gateway Ports/CFSs in the system.
.
========>
.
SUPREME COURT : In Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator
A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands.
Read full case law at : https://dasgovernance.com/2019/01/09/supreme-court-in-suzuki-parasrampuria-suitings-pvt-ltd-vs-official-liquidator/
.
========>
.
👉CGST Formations initiates action in 3626 cases of GST evasion/violations up to Dec, 2018. On the basis of investigation, tax evasion involved in these cases is estimated to be Rs.15278.18 crore.
👉Govt of India allows premature withdrawal from New Pension Scheme.
👉Central Govt is planning to collect the KYC details of the companies, Chartered Accountants, Cost Accountants and Company Secretaries.
👉Income tax tribunal has barred auditors from issuing valuation certificates to the companies they are auditing. This is set to impact several tax disputes around valuations in companies including angel tax disputes involving start-ups.
👉Undisclosed assets totalling Rs 6,000 crore have been detected under the foreign black money law enacted by the Govt in 2015, further 34 prosecution complaints have been filed under the foreign black money law.
👉Central Govt releases Rs 48,202 crore as GST compensation to states during April-November 2018, higher than the Rs 48,178 crore paid in the previous financial year.
👉In the Board meeting on Jan 9, Rajesh Sud, former MD and CEO of Max Life Insurance, & current Yes Bank executive director Rajat Monga are in the race to head Yes Bank, as the incumbent CEO Rana Kapoor steps down on January 31 following RBI’s advisory.
👉Finance Ministry approves state-owned iron ore producer NMDC's share buyback plan worth Rs 1,000 crore.
.
========>
.
Mumbai: An income tax tribunal has barred auditors from issuing valuation certificates to the companies they are auditing. This is set to impact several tax disputes around valuations in companies including angel tax disputes involving start-ups.
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) said that auditors of a company cannot double up as accountants especially in situations while dealing with “share valuation for the purpose of excess share-premium taxability.”
In several cases the income tax department has disputed valuations of companies around the time of investments.
The ITAT ruling came in a case where the tax department had challenged valuation of a company by its auditor.
In most cases, valuations of startups were challenged by the tax department, leading to “angel tax.” The angel tax controversy surrounds the valuations during various rounds of startup funding. In several cases, the revenues at startups kept reducing or remained stagnant, but their valuations increased. The taxman is questioning the premiums paid by the investors and wants to categorise them as income that would be taxable at 30%. In most cases, the investments made by angel investors, venture capital funds or any other investor have been challenged by the taxman.
Many accountants and valuers are already facing heat from the tax department. ET had, on December 25, reported that the tax department has started issuing show-cause notices to valuation experts, questioning the premiums several startups fetched during their investments rounds.
Valuation experts, however, say that they merely projected and calculated future growth, using the facts and figures provided by the startups. Many tax experts point out that the tax department’s approach to the fair value as a benchmark for calculating premiums may not be accurate in the context of startups.
Income tax officers claim that the scrutiny on startups is mainly due to concerns that black money may have changed hands.
.
========>
.
👉🏻RBI issues guidelines on use of Tokenisation to make contactless card payments safer
(RBI issued guidelines on the use of tokenisation - a way to mask sensitive card data with unique symbols or elements)
👇🏻 👇🏻 👇🏻
https://goo.gl/cPCLz9
👉🏻GST Council to partner with NHAI to curb e-way bill fraud
(Council will join hands with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to curb e-way bill fraud)
👇🏻 👇🏻 👇🏻
https://goo.gl/uL138k
.
========>
.
Auditor can’t Issue Valuation Certificates to Auditee Company: ITAT [Read Order]
Read more at: http://www.taxscan.in/auditor-valuation-certificates-itat/32456/
.
========>
.
👉The Delhi bench of the ITAT holds that no income tax deduction can be given to the law firm for the expenses incurred by it for the pleasure tour by the counsels and their family members.
👉ITAT holds that No Tax Deductible on Dealership for Sale of SIM Cards and Mobile Recharge Coupons.
👉High Court holds that, the location of the Duty Free Shop (DFS), whether within customs frontier or beyond, shall be within India as long as it is not beyond EEZ (200 nautical miles). Therefore, DFS cannot be said to be located outside India.
MP High Court in Case of Vasu Clothing Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India
👉Direct Tax collections up to Dec, 2018 show that Gross Collections are at Rs. 8.74 lakh crore which is 14.1% higher than the Gross Collections for the corresponding period of last year.
👉RBI likely to transfer Rs 30,000 crore interim dividend to Govt & transfer could take place before the RBI’s Economic Capital Framework panel submits its recommendation.
👉Most of India’s mobile wallets may become non-operational by March, as they fear companies will be unable to meet the central bank’s deadline to complete verification of all customers by the end of February 2019.
👉Bandhan Bank will acquire Gruh Finance in a share swap deal, it was announced today. Shareholders of Gruh Finance will get 568 shares of Bandhan Bank for every 1,000 shares held.
.
========>
.
SUPREME COURT : In Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd.
Section 7(4) provides that an arbitration agreement would be found in the circumstances mentioned in the three sub-clauses that make up Section 7(4). This does not mean that in all cases an arbitration agreement needs to be signed. The only prerequisite is that it be in writing, as has been pointed out in Section 7(3).
Read full case law at : https://dasgovernance.com/2019/01/08/supreme-court-in-caravel-shipping-services-pvt-ltd-vs-premier-sea-foods-exim-pvt-ltd/
.
========>
.
INCOME TAX CASES:
RECENT JUDGEMENT ON PENNY STOCK IN THE FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE
1. Amar Nath Goenka and ors v. ACIT (ITA No. 5882/D/18) (ITAT, Delhi) (12/12/2018)
SECTION 10(38) AND SECTION 68 - LONG TERM CAPITAL - PENNY STOCK ASSESSEE DISCHARGING THE ONUS BY PLACING ON RECORD VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES - AO DID NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY - STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO CROSS EXAMINATION IS INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE - ADDITION DELETED
2. Mukta Gupta v. ITO (ITA No. 2766/D/18, 2767/D/18) (ITAT, Delhi) (Dated 26/11/2018)
SECTION 10(38) & 68 - PENNY STOCK - ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES, ALLEGED AS PENNY STOCK CANNOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 - SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES WERE ON RECORD TO PROVE VERACITY OF THE TRANSACTION - SEBI REPORT BY ITSELF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DENY THE TRANSACTION ENTERED BY THE ASSESSE.
3. Veena Gupta v. ACIT (ITA No. 5662/D/2018) (ITAT, Delhi) (27/11/2018)
SECTION 10(38) AND SECTION 68 - LONG TERM CAPITAL - PENNY STOCK ADDITION BASED ON STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES- NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION - ADDITION LIABLE TO DELETED
4. Ajay Goel and ors v. ITO (ITA No. 4481 - 84/D/18) (ITAT, Delhi) (03/12/2018)
SECTION 10(38) & 68 - LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PENNY STOCKS - ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUN ITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION - ADDITION NOT SUSTAINABLE
.
========>
.
Scope of rectification u/s 154 – Fee important verdicts clarifying It-
(I) The term “record” means record of all proceedings leading to framing of assessment order. The following case laws explain this proposition:-
(a) Maharana Mills (P) Ltd vs. ITO (1959)(36 ITR 350)(SC)
(b) Gammon India vs. CIT (1995)(214 ITR 50)(Bom)
(c) Upasana Hospital and Nursing Home vs. CIT (253 ITR 507)(Kerala)
(II) If the AO does not look at entire record or an important material or fact, which was brought to his notice, then the same can be rectified and order can be altered:-
(a) ITO vs. ITAT (1964)(58 ITR 634)(All)
(b) CIT vs. Mithalal Ashok Kumar (1984)(158 iTR 755)
(c) Laxmi Electronic Corporation vs. CIT (1990)(188 ITR 398)(All)
(III) Non-consideration of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is an error apparent from record and must be rectified.
ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd (2008)(305 ITR 227)(SC).
(IV) If an order has been passed on mistaken assumption and without considering the materials available on record, then it deserves to be rectified.
(a) Neeta Shah and Ors vs. CIT (191 ITR 77)(Kar)
(b) Kesoram Industries Ltd vs. CIT (271 ITR 501)(Cal)
(V) A rectification is maintainable in order to correctly decide an issue as per law. If it is apparent from record that the assessee is entitled to a particular relief, then the same is allowable by way of rectification u/s 154 of the Act.
(a) CIT vs. Ballabh Prasad Agarwalla (233 ITR 354)(Cal)
(b) CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13)(MP
.
========>
.
