CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Tax Liability cannot be imposed merely because the financial statement did not provide State-wise turnover

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 10:14:35 +0000

The imposition of tax liability solely based on the absence of state-wise turnover information in financial statements has been contested in the legal realm. This matter was addressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in a recent case involving Tvl. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) [WP No. 3534 OF 2024, dated February 16, 2024].

Facts:

Tvl. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) operated as a private general insurance firm, specializing in insurance services. On August 16, 2021, the Petitioner was served with an audit notice by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) (FAC) (“the Respondent”). In response, the Petitioner diligently furnished the necessary documents and addressed the discrepancies highlighted in the audit reports. Subsequently, after issuing both an intimation and a show cause notice (“the SCN”), the Competent Authority issued the assessment order on December 30, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”).

Within the Impugned Order, the issue of defect No. 10 arose, relating to variations in turnover between the Profit & Loss account and balance sheet, as opposed to the figures in GSTR-9. The Petitioner explained that these disparities stemmed from the inclusion of Pan-India operations in the financial statements, whereas GSTR-9 solely focused on turnover within Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner even provided a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, specifically outlining the turnover within Tamil Nadu, amounting to Rs. 80,89,05,068/-. However, despite this clarification and despite the Petitioner having already paid taxes on the stated turnover, the Respondent imposed State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) at 18% each (36% combined) on the aforementioned turnover.

Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the Petitioner sought recourse by filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

Top of Form

Issue:

The central question revolves around whether tax liability can be established solely due to the absence of state-wise turnover information in financial statements.

Held:

In its ruling on Writ Petition No. 3534 OF 2024, the Hon’ble Madras High Court made the following determinations:

The Court acknowledged the variation in turnover for entities operating across multiple states, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing total turnover from state-wise turnover.
It criticized the Competent Authority's decision to impose GST at a higher rate of 36% instead of the appropriate 18%, despite the Petitioner having already paid tax on the turnover in question.
The Impugned Order was deemed invalid and the case was remanded to the Respondent for reconsideration.
Furthermore, the Court directed the Respondent to afford the Petitioner a fair opportunity, including a personal hearing, and instructed issuance of a fresh assessment order within a maximum period of two months, in compliance with legal provisions.

category

Assessment Order not sustainable when vague in nature

editor — Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:37:30 +0000

In the legal case of Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), as documented in Writ Petition No. 4510 of 2024 dated February 26, 2024, the Madras High Court responded by granting the writ petition. This decision was based on the assertion that the Assessment Order lacked clarity and proper justification.

Facts of the case:

Rainbow Stones (P.) Ltd. initiated a writ petition contesting an assessment order issued on December 31, 2023 (referred to as “the Impugned Order”), which centered around disparities between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B and that reflected under GSTR-2A. The petitioner argued that the Impugned Order, issued by the Revenue Department (referred to as “the Respondent”), lacked specificity. The sole observation noted in the Impugned Order was the rejection of the petitioner’s response.

Held:

The Madras High Court, in Writ Petition No. 4510 of 2024, overturned the Impugned Order. The court held that the order lacked specificity, which was the basis for confirming the demand for tax, interest, and penalty. The High Court directed that the matter be reconsidered and a fresh order issued after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

category

Central GST Authority cannot initiate proceedings when State GST Authority has already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter

editor — Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:00:24 +0000

The Gauhati High Court, in the matter of Rajesh Mittal vs Union of India [WP(C) No. 371 of 2024 dated January 25, 2024], based its decision on sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). It ordered a halt to the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Department. The court ruled that the Central GST Authority had improperly issued the Show Cause Notice (SCN) when the State GST Authorities had already issued an SCN on the same issue.

Facts of the case:

Rajesh Mittal, hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner," was served a Show Cause Notice (SCN) by both the State GST Authorities and the Central GST Authority.
The State GST Authorities issued the SCN on December 01, 2023, while the Central GST Authority issued theirs on December 27, 2023.
The notices accused the Petitioner of wrongfully availing input tax credit (ITC), violating Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act").
The Petitioner responded to the notices accordingly.

Held:

The Gauhati High Court, in the case of WP(C) No. 371 of 2024 dated January 25, 2024, based its decision on sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act.

category

Guidelines Regarding Cash Limits in Home under Tax Regulations

editor — Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:29:06 +0000

Under the provisions of the Income-Tax Act (ITA) of 1961, there exists no stipulation on the maximum amount of cash permissible to be kept within one’s residence. However, during an income tax inspection, individuals must provide verifiable sources for the cash in their possession.

This particularly applies to funds that must be accounted for in terms of income. If the documentation provided by an individual does not align with the amount of cash found at their residence, income tax authorities possess the authority to penalize them. In such instances, unaccounted cash can be seized, with penalties reaching as high as 137% of the total amount.

It is imperative to consider the subsequent regulations regarding cash, as mandated by the income-tax department:

Prohibition on accepting cash amounts of Rs 20,000 or more for loans or deposits: The income-tax department strictly prohibits individuals from accepting cash sums of Rs 20,000 or higher in relation to loans or deposits.
Compulsory presentation of Permanent Account Number (PAN) for transactions exceeding Rs 50,000: According to the directives of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), individuals are required to furnish a PAN card for transactions involving deposits or withdrawals exceeding Rs 50,000 at a time.
Scrutiny by investigative agencies for cash-based asset transactions surpassing Rs 30 lakh: Indian citizens involved in cash transactions exceeding Rs 30 lakh concerning the purchase or sale of assets may come under scrutiny by investigative agencies.
Investigation into credit or debit card transactions surpassing Rs 1 lakh: Any single transaction exceeding Rs 1 lakh made through credit or debit cards is likely to attract the attention of investigative agencies.
Imposition of a 2% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on withdrawals surpassing Rs 1 crore: Individuals withdrawing over Rs 1 crore in cash from banks within a financial year are subject to a 2% TDS deduction.
Penalty for cash transactions surpassing Rs 20 lakh: Cash transactions exceeding Rs 20 lakh in a year may lead to penalties, while the purchase or sale of cash-based property worth more than Rs 30 lakh could prompt investigations by regulatory bodies.
Restrictions on cash payments: Limits include refraining from making cash purchases exceeding Rs 2 lakh without PAN and Aadhaar details, as well as restrictions on credit or debit card transactions exceeding Rs 1 lakh.
Regulations on familial transactions and loans: Accepting cash sums exceeding Rs 2 lakh from a relative in a single day or obtaining loans exceeding Rs 20,000 in cash from any individual are prohibited.

Adhering to these regulations is essential to avoid legal consequences and ensure full compliance with income tax laws and regulations.

category

Guidelines on Cash Limits and Tax Implications for Individuals

editor — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:26:48 +0000

As per the Income-Tax Act (ITA), 1961, there is no restriction on the amount of money stored in the house; in case of an income tax raid, an individual is required to present the source of the money.

This is especially true for the money should not be unaccounted for in income. In case an individual’s documents do not match the amount of money stored in the house, then income tax officials can penalise the individual. In such cases, income tax personnel are authorised to seize the unaccounted money, and the fine can be as high as up to 137% of the total money.

It is important to take into account the following rules related to cash mandated by the income-tax department:

No Cash Transactions Above Rs 20,000 for Loans or Deposits:

The income-tax department strictly prohibits any individual from accepting an amount of Rs 20,000 or more in cash related to loans or deposits.

PAN Mandatory for Transactions Over Rs 50,000:

As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), individuals must provide a PAN card for deposits or withdrawals of over Rs 50,000 at a time.

Scrutiny for Cash-Based Asset Transactions Over Rs 30 Lakh:

Indian citizens engaging in the purchase or sale of assets through cash of more than Rs 30 lakh may come under the lens of investigating agencies.

Investigation into Credit-Debit Card Transactions Over Rs 1 Lakh:

Any payment transaction exceeding Rs 1 lakh paid through credit or debit cards at a time is likely to draw the attention of investigating agencies.

2% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) for Withdrawals Exceeding Rs 1 Crore:

Individuals withdrawing more than Rs 1 crore in cash from the bank in a financial year are subject to shell out a 2% TDS.

Penalty for Cash Transactions Over Rs 20 Lakh:

Cash transactions exceeding Rs 20 lakh in a year are likely to attract penalties, while the purchase and sale of cash property of more than Rs 30 lakh can draw the attention of investigative agencies.

Caps on Cash Payments:

Limits include not paying over Rs 2 lakh in cash for purchases without PAN and Aadhaar information and restrictions on transactions more than Rs 1 lakh with credit-debit cards.

Family Transactions and Loans:

Receiving over Rs 2 lakh in cash from a relative in a day or taking a loan of more than Rs 20,000 in cash from any individual else is prohibited.

An individual is required to be abreast of these rules to avoid any legal repercussions and ensure total compliance with the income tax rules and regulations.

category

Filing of Form 10-IEA for Income-Tax Return

editor — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:47:20 +0000

The Income-Tax Department has introduced Form 10-IEA for individuals who wish to switch back to the old tax regime from the new one. Here’s a breakdown of what you need to know about this form and its implications:

Introduction of New Tax Regime: The new tax regime was initially introduced under the Union Budget 2020. However, it was made the default tax regime by the Budget 2023.
Default Selection: By default, individuals are placed under the new tax regime unless they choose to opt-out.
Need for Form 10-IEA: Individuals who want to revert to the old tax regime need to fill out Form 10-IEA. This form requires various details, including PAN, tax status (individual, HUF, etc.), and any tax benefits claimed for the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC). It also asks for the taxpayer's history of switching between tax regimes.
Deadline: Form 10-IEA must be submitted before the tax filing deadline of July 31, 2024. Failure to do so could result in the taxpayer being unable to switch to the old regime later in the year.
Implications: Switching back to the old tax regime may be beneficial for individuals who want to claim deductions and exemptions not allowed under the new regime, such as those under Section 80C, Section 80D, and deductions for home loan interest, education, house rent, and LTA.
Tax Rates: Under the new tax regime, lower-income groups benefit from lower tax rates. However, those earning between Rs 5 lakh and Rs 7.5 lakh may face higher taxes compared to the old regime due to fewer deductions and exemptions.
Clarity Awaited: There is still ambiguity regarding whether Form 10-IEA is mandatory for all individuals or only for certain categories like businessmen and self-employed individuals. Further clarity on the procedure for opting out of the tax regime is awaited from the Income-Tax Department.
Professional Income: Taxpayers filing under ITR-4 (for individuals with business or professional income) must submit Form 10-IEA to opt out of the new tax regime.
Importance of Details: Although providing past details may seem cumbersome, it's crucial for ensuring accurate claims of deductions and exemptions. Self-employed individuals are allowed to switch back to the old tax regime only once in their lifetime.
Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failing to submit Form 10-IEA before the deadline could result in being unable to file belated tax returns under the old tax regime. This means forfeiting tax exemptions and being considered under the new tax regime automatically.

In summary, Form 10-IEA is a crucial document for individuals wishing to switch back to the old tax regime from the new one. It’s essential to understand its requirements and implications to make informed decisions about tax filing.

category