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 |

Bombay High Court’s Landmark Judgment on Provisional Attachment under GST

editor — Sat, 11 May 2024 06:43:39 +0000

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of provisional attachment orders under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). This article examines the court’s decision in the case of Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of State Tax and its implications for taxpayers and tax authorities.

Facts of the Case

The case centered around the issuance of attachment orders under Section 83 of the MGST Act and CGST Act, in conjunction with Rule 159 of the CGST Rules. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax-II, Pune Division, Pune, provisionally determined the petitioner’s liability following an investigation. It was suggested that the petitioner might default in paying the ultimate tax, interest, and penalty, prompting the exercise of powers under Section 83 to safeguard government revenue.

Issue

The primary issue before the court was the legality and justification of the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts under Section 83 of the GST laws.

Held

The Bombay High Court found that the order lacked sufficient material to demonstrate the necessity of attaching the petitioner’s bank accounts to protect government revenue. The court emphasized that before exercising powers under Section 83, the Commissioner must be satisfied that such action is necessary to safeguard government revenue. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., highlighting that the power to order provisional attachment, including bank accounts, is draconian and must be preceded by the formation of an opinion by the Commissioner.

The court’s decision reinforces the principle that the power of provisional attachment under GST laws should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. It serves as a reminder to tax authorities to ensure that the interests of government revenue are balanced with the rights of taxpayers.

Conclusion

The judgment in Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of State Tax marks a significant development in GST jurisprudence. It underscores the importance of a balanced approach in exercising powers under the GST laws and emphasizes the need to protect taxpayers’ rights while safeguarding government revenue.

category

Calcutta High Court Clarifies GST Pre-Deposit Requirements: Implications & Analysis

editor — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 05:14:48 +0000

Introduction

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court provided clarity on the pre-deposit requirements under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. This clarification addresses a contentious issue regarding the interpretation of pre-deposit obligations for taxpayers involved in disputes with the GST Department.

Facts of the Case

The case involves a writ petition filed against an interim order dated January 25, 2024. The interim order demanded that the petitioners deposit 20% of the disputed unpaid interest. The dispute stemmed from a demand for interest on belatedly filed returns for a specific financial year. Due to the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking redress.

Issue

The central issue in this case revolves around whether the petitioner is obligated to pre-deposit 20% of the disputed interest along with the tax in dispute before filing an appeal, as interpreted by the interim order.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner argued that while the GST Act mandates a pre-deposit of 20% of the remaining tax in dispute, it does not explicitly require pre-deposit of the disputed interest. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the interim order’s demand for pre-deposit of the disputed interest was unwarranted.

Respondent’s Argument

The respondent, representing the GST Department, maintained that the interim order was discretionary and aimed at securing the revenue’s interest. They argued that there was no error in interpreting the pre-deposit requirements to include the disputed interest.

Court Judgment

The Calcutta High Court, in its decision, set aside the portion of the interim order requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the remaining interest. The court directed that no recovery proceedings should be initiated until the writ petition is heard and disposed of, providing relief to the petitioner.

Impact Analysis

This judgment has significant implications for clarifying the limits of pre-deposit requirements under the GST Act, particularly concerning disputed interest amounts. Taxpayers and revenue authorities now have clearer guidance on their obligations and rights in such disputes.

Clarification of Pre-deposit Limits

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific pre-deposit requirements outlined in the GST Act. It confirms that while pre-deposit is mandatory, it applies only to the disputed tax amount, not to disputed interest.

Ensuring Fairness in Tax Disputes

Clear guidelines on pre-deposit requirements are essential for ensuring fairness in tax dispute resolutions. By delineating the scope of pre-deposit obligations, the court’s ruling promotes transparency and equity in the tax administration system.

Implications for Taxpayers

Taxpayers can now navigate tax disputes with a clearer understanding of their financial obligations. The ruling alleviates the burden of pre-depositing disputed interest amounts, providing relief to taxpayers facing financial strain.

Implications for Revenue Authorities

Revenue authorities must adhere to the clarified pre-deposit requirements when initiating recovery proceedings. This ensures that revenue collection efforts are conducted within the bounds of the law and do not impose undue financial hardship on taxpayers.

Legal Precedents and Interpretation

The judgment builds upon established legal precedents and interpretations of tax laws. It reaffirms the principle of statutory interpretation to uphold taxpayers’ rights while balancing the interests of revenue authorities.

Potential Challenges and Considerations

Implementing the clarified pre-deposit requirements may pose challenges for both taxpayers and revenue authorities. Proper communication and education initiatives are necessary to ensure compliance and mitigate potential disputes.

Future Implications and Precedence

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling sets a precedent for future tax dispute resolutions involving pre-deposit requirements. It establishes a framework for interpreting and applying pre-deposit obligations in a manner that promotes fairness and efficiency in the tax administration process.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s clarification on GST pre-deposit requirements provides much-needed clarity and relief to taxpayers embroiled in disputes with the GST Department. By delineating the scope of pre-deposit obligations, the judgment promotes fairness, transparency, and equitable tax administration.

category

Opportunity of Being Heard: Understanding Taxpayer Rights

editor — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 07:08:03 +0000

Introduction

In taxation, the right to be heard is paramount. Section 75(4) of tax laws mandates that individuals facing potential penalties or adverse decisions must be afforded an opportunity for a hearing. This article delves into significant court rulings across India, emphasizing the importance of this fundamental right.

Vel Steel Tubes & Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction: The case of Vel Steel Tubes and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) before the Madras High Court revolves around an assessment order dated 09.10.2023, challenged due to the absence of a personal hearing post the petitioner’s response. Despite opportunities provided, the petitioner contests the legality of the order based on procedural grounds.

Facts of the Case: The petitioner, Vel Steel Tubes and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., received an assessment order dated 09.10.2023 from the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner had previously submitted responses to intimation and a show cause notice. However, despite these submissions, no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before the issuance of the assessment order.

Issue: The primary issue in this case is the lack of a personal hearing for the petitioner, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that this absence renders the assessment order invalid and contests its legality on procedural grounds.

Held: The Madras High Court, after careful consideration of the arguments presented, held that the absence of a personal hearing, despite the petitioner’s submissions, was a significant procedural lapse. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Consequently, the assessment order dated 09.10.2023 was quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The court directed the assessing officer to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing opportunity and instructed them to issue a fresh assessment order within specified timelines. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements, even in situations where procedural lapses occur.

A.H. Enterprises

Introduction: Legal proceedings often hinge on procedural fairness, ensuring that all parties involved have a fair chance to present their case. The case of A.H. Enterprises v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer sheds light on the importance of providing a personal hearing before the issuance of an order by the authority.

Facts of the Case: A.H. Enterprises, the Petitioner, was asked to pay INR 2,58,597/- for discrepancies between returns filed in FORM GSTR 1 and FORM GSTR 3B, including interest and penalty, via an Order dated October 11, 2023 (referred to as the “Impugned Order”). The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order was issued without granting them the opportunity for a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75 of the TNGST Act. The Respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, contended that the demand raised in the Impugned Order was legitimate.

Issue: The central issue in this case was whether it is obligatory to offer an opportunity for a personal hearing before the issuance of an Order by the Authority, as stipulated in Section 75 of the TNGST Act.

Held: The Madras High Court, in Writ Petition No. 35894 of 2023, held that it is indeed mandatory to provide the Petitioner with a Personal Hearing before the issuance of the Impugned Order, in accordance with Section 75 of the TNGST Act. The Court directed the Respondent to arrange a Personal Hearing for the Petitioner and subsequently issue a reasoned order within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the Impugned Order was nullified and remanded for reconsideration.

Nav Bharat Tea Processing Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction: Legal proceedings often entail intricate details and complex interpretations of the law. The case of three revisional applications under scrutiny provides a fascinating insight into the legal intricacies surrounding quashing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Facts of the Case: The present three revisional applications are interconnected, as they relate to identical facts and points of law. All three applications have been consolidated and heard together to streamline the legal process and ensure efficient adjudication.

In C.R.R. No. 1997 of 2008, the petitioner seeks relief by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The primary objective is to quash the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 400 of 2007, which is pending before the 1st Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue: The core issue at hand revolves around the allegations against the accused, including the dishonor of the post-dated cheque and the subsequent evasive responses by the accused company.

Held: The legal interpretation of the events detailed in the petition will determine the course of action. The court will assess whether the actions of the accused constitute an offense under the relevant sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the petitioner’s grievances warrant the quashing of proceedings.

Reet Traders

Introduction

In the legal landscape, the principle of natural justice holds significant importance, particularly concerning the right to be heard. A recent case before the Allahabad High Court sheds light on the criticality of affording parties a fair hearing before reaching any adverse decisions.

Facts of the Case

Reet Traders found themselves embroiled in a legal dispute where tax and penalty were imposed without the opportunity for a hearing. Despite the submission of written replies, the impugned order failed to address or consider these responses. Instead, it falsely stated that the petitioner had not replied to the show-cause notices. Furthermore, no chance for a hearing was provided despite the contemplation of an adverse order.

Issue

The central issue at hand pertains to whether the imposition of tax and penalty without affording the assessee an opportunity for a hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

Held

The Allahabad High Court delivered a resounding verdict, emphasizing the sanctity of fair hearings in legal proceedings. It held that the failure to provide the petitioner with a hearing and passing orders without considering their replies to show-cause notices violated fundamental principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, highlighting the imperative nature of affording parties a fair opportunity to present their case.

Tata Steel Ltd.

Introduction:

In a recent legal dispute, Tata Steel Ltd. contested a notice issued by the Revenue Department, citing its lack of essential details. The case was heard by the Chhattisgarh High Court, which addressed the significance of adhering to Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) regarding personal hearings.

Facts of the Case:

The Revenue Department, represented by the Respondent, issued a notice on August 11, 2021 (“the Impugned Notice”) under Section 73 of the CGST Act to Tata Steel Ltd (“the Petitioner”). This notice directed Tata Steel Ltd to appear before the Revenue Authorities for a personal hearing. However, crucial details such as the date, time, and venue of the hearing were omitted from the notice.

Aggrieved by this omission, Tata Steel Ltd filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court, seeking redressal.

Issue:

The primary issue under consideration was whether a notice of personal hearing issued by the Revenue Department, lacking essential details, could be deemed valid.

Held:

In its ruling on WPT No. 167 of 2023, the Chhattisgarh High Court made the determinations and acknowledged that while Tata Steel Ltd was granted the opportunity for a personal hearing, the Impugned Notice failed to specify the crucial details of the hearing, such as the date, time, and venue. The court held that the writ petition is disposed of and directed the Respondent Authorities to provide Tata Steel Ltd with an opportunity for a hearing in compliance with the provisions outlined in Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.

Mauli Sai Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction:

In a pivotal legal decision, the Bombay High Court addressed the necessity of granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), even in cases where the assessee hasn’t explicitly requested one. The judgment in the case of Mauli Sai Developers Private Limited Vs Union of India sets a precedent emphasizing the adherence to principles of natural justice in tax proceedings.

Facts of the Case:

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Mauli Sai Developers Private Limited challenging an order issued by the third respondent on 8th September 2022. This order was deemed to contravene Section 75(4) of the CGST/MGST Act and was accused of violating principles of natural justice. The dispute arose from a search operation conducted under Section 132 of the Act, leading to assessment proceedings spanning several years.

Despite submitting replies to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST/MGST Act, the petitioner argued that no personal hearing was granted before the adverse order was passed, resulting in substantial tax liabilities, including interest and penalties. The respondents countered that a personal hearing wasn’t necessary as the petitioner had not formally requested one.

Issue:

The central issue revolved around whether the tax authority was obligated to provide a personal hearing before passing an adverse order, irrespective of a formal request from the assessee, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST/MGST Act.

Held:

Upon thorough review, the Bombay High Court unequivocally held that the tax authority must grant a personal hearing before passing an adverse order, even in the absence of a formal request from the assessee. This interpretation was based on the principles of fair play and due process enshrined within the realm of natural justice. The court cited similar precedents to affirm the mandatory nature of personal hearings in such cases. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for a fresh decision, post granting a personal hearing to the petitioner.

category

Extended Period of Limitation: Understanding and Challenging Sec. 74

editor — Sat, 20 Apr 2024 07:48:40 +0000

In the realm of taxation, navigating through various sections and provisions can be daunting. One such area of concern for taxpayers is the extended period of limitation, particularly concerning the issuance of notices and the implications under Section 74. Understanding the nuances of this provision and the scope for challenging it is crucial for taxpayers and professionals alike.

1. Supreme Court Precedents

2. CESTAT Chandigarh Insights

3. Precedents from CESTAT Ahmedabad

Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd: The case of Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. highlighted the importance of proof of intentional revenue suppression or misdeclaration for the validity of orders under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Arya Logistics: In line with the above, Arya Logistics emphasized that in the absence of suppression of fact, a show cause notice issued after the prescribed limit of one year is not sustainable.

4. Insights from CESTAT Delhi

5. Precedents from CESTAT Allahabad

6. Perspectives from Delhi High Court

ITD-ITD CEM JV: Delhi High Court's stance, as seen in the case of ITD-ITD CEM JV, emphasized the necessity of recording reasons to believe in writing for assessment orders passed within the extended period.
H.M. Industries: H.M. Industries reiterated that the absence of assertions regarding concealment or failure to disclose full particulars negates the applicability of the extended period of limitation.

7. Insights from Mumbai CESTAT

Understanding these precedents is pivotal for taxpayers and professionals aiming to navigate through the intricacies of tax laws effectively.

category

Assessment Order Quashed when Assessee Incorrectly Reported Turnover in GSTR-1 but Correctly in GSTR-3B

editor — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:45:56 +0000

The Hon’ble Madras High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Southern Engineering Services v. Deputy State Tax Officer-1 [WP No. 6523 of 2024 dated March 14, 2024], shedding light on the consequences of discrepancies in GST filings. This article explores the nuances of the case, the court’s ruling, and its implications for taxpayers and the taxation system as a whole.

Introduction

In the realm of taxation, accurate reporting is paramount to ensure compliance and fairness. The case of Southern Engineering Services underscores the importance of correctly reporting turnover in GST filings, specifically in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Background Information

Before delving into the specifics of the case, it’s essential to understand the nature of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. GSTR-1 is a monthly or quarterly return that captures outward supplies or sales made by registered taxpayers. On the other hand, GSTR-3B is a summary return where taxpayers declare their tax liability and claim input tax credit. It’s crucial to differentiate between taxable value and zero-rated supply to grasp the crux of the matter.

Facts of the Case

Southern Engineering Services, the petitioner in this case, supplied services to Dell International Services Private Limited, a SEZ unit, without levying any GST, as the supply fell under the category of zero-rated supply. However, there was a discrepancy in the reporting of turnover, with the petitioner incorrectly reporting the turnover under taxable value in GSTR-1 but accurately reporting the zero-rated supply in GSTR-3B. Despite this, an Assessment Order was issued against the petitioner by the Revenue Department.

Issue Analysis

The central issue revolved around whether an Assessment Order should be quashed when an assessee incorrectly reports turnover in GSTR-1 but correctly in GSTR-3B. This raised questions regarding the consistency and reliability of GST filings and the potential ramifications for taxpayers.

Court’s Decision

In its judgment, the Madras High Court noted the error in the petitioner’s return but acknowledged that the supply made to the SEZ unit qualified as zero-rated supply. Consequently, the court quashed the Assessment Order and directed the petitioner to be granted an opportunity for a proper hearing and to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice.

Legal Interpretation

The court’s decision underscores the importance of interpreting tax laws judiciously and considering the factual context of each case. It reaffirms the principle of natural justice, ensuring that taxpayers are given a fair chance to present their case and rectify any inadvertent errors in their filings.

category

Taxpayers Get Choice in Valuing Startup Investments (Angel Tax)

editor — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 05:00:14 +0000

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of taxpayers, allowing them to select the method for valuing investments received from angel investors. This comes after a disagreement between a company (Agra Portfolio) and the Income Tax Department (IT Department) regarding the valuation of shares issued to an angel investor.

What is Angel Tax?

Angel tax refers to the tax levied on the difference between the fair market value (FMV) of shares allotted to an angel investor and the amount the investor paid for them.

The Case:

Agra Portfolio used the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method to determine the FMV of the shares. DCF estimates an investment’s value by considering its projected future cash flows. The IT Department, however, rejected this valuation and used the Net Asset Value (NAV) method instead. NAV calculates the value per share by dividing the company’s net assets (assets minus liabilities) by the total number of shares.

Court’s Decision:

The Court clarified that while the IT Department can question a taxpayer’s valuation report, it cannot impose a different valuation method. The Court emphasized that the Income Tax Act and Rules grant taxpayers the sole authority to choose the valuation method.

The IT Department can still scrutinize the report and conduct its own valuation (using the taxpayer’s chosen method) to challenge the taxpayer’s assessment.

Outcome:

The Court ordered the IT Department to re-evaluate Agra Portfolio’s case using the DCF method as chosen by the company.

This decision offers greater flexibility to startups and investors when determining the FMV of shares for angel investments.

Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/angel-tax-valuation-method-solely-assessees-choice-says-delhi-hc/article68043342.ece

category

Income Tax Department Cracks Down on Unfiled Returns: 1.52 Crore Individuals Targeted

editor — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:21:28 +0000

Large Discrepancy Between Taxpayers and Filed Returns

The Income Tax Department is launching a campaign to target individuals who haven’t filed their income tax returns (ITR) despite meeting filing requirements. According to a report in the Economic Times, the department has identified 1.52 crore such individuals.

Data Discrepancies Trigger Action

This initiative stems from a data analysis by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which revealed a significant gap between the total number of taxpayers (8.9 crore in financial year 2022-23) and the number of ITRs filed (7.4 crore, including revised returns). This suggests that potentially 1.97 crore individuals might not have filed their returns even though tax was deducted at source (TDS) from their income.

Focus on High-Value Transactions

The I-T Department is particularly interested in individuals with high bank transactions linked to their PAN cards. Officials will be contacting these individuals to explain the importance of filing ITRs. Additionally, the CBDT has identified nearly 9,000 potential taxpayers who might have made high-value purchases or cash deposits and will be sending them tax notices.

Consequences for Non-Compliance

Individuals who deliberately neglected to file returns will face penalties. However, those with genuine reasons for the sudden increase in income can submit an explanation or file a return to rectify the situation.

Data Analytics Boosts Tax Collection

The Income Tax Department’s access to a vast amount of data has proven instrumental in identifying non-filers and uncovering inconsistencies. This focus on data analysis is credited with contributing to a significant rise (19.88%) in net direct tax collection, exceeding ₹18.90 lakh crore as of March 17th.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/it-department-to-tap-1-52-crore-individuals-for-income-tax-return-filing-heres-why-101713003056572.html

category

Delhi High Court Orders Refund of ₹35 Lakh to GST Petitioner, Emphasizing Voluntary Compliance and Due Process

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:45:30 +0000

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court’s decision mandates a refund of ₹35 lakh to a GST petitioner, underscoring the significance of voluntary compliance and adherence to due process.

Facts of the Case:

Issue:

Held:

Petitioner's Argument: Citing precedent cases, the petitioner argued that the deposit was made involuntarily under coercion, warranting a refund with interest.
Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the deposit was voluntary and proceeded with recovery under Section 73 of the GST Act through a Show Cause Notice.
Court Judgment: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the refund of ₹35,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of deposit. The court deemed the deposit as non-voluntary and contrary to guidelines issued by the CBIC.

category

Tax Authorities cannot retain the tax deposited under the cancelled GST registration

editor — Wed, 10 Apr 2024 05:38:08 +0000

Introduction:

In the case of Yogesh Rajendra Mehra v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax [Writ Petition No. 1632 of 2024 dated February 20, 2024], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court addressed the issue of whether tax authorities can retain tax deposited under a cancelled GST registration. The court provided significant observations and rulings on this matter.

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Yogesh Rajendra Mehra, a scriptwriter, obtained GST registration on July 19, 2018. However, his registration was cancelled on January 01, 2019, due to non-filing of subsequent returns. Subsequently, Mr. Mehra applied for and obtained a fresh GST registration on March 26, 2022. During the first quarter of 2022, his chartered accountant mistakenly deposited Rs. 1,22,220/- as tax under the cancelled registration instead of the new one. Mr. Mehra then applied for a refund of the erroneously deposited tax.

Issue:

The central issue revolves around whether tax authorities can retain tax deposited under a cancelled GST registration.

Held:

The Bombay High Court held that tax authorities cannot retain tax deposited under a cancelled GST registration. The court emphasized that taxpayers cannot be expected to file returns and deposit tax under an invalid registration number. It was noted that the tax deposited under the cancelled registration was not valid as the registration itself was non-existent. The court also criticized the tax authorities’ rejection of the refund application on technical grounds, ruling that any deficiency in filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation period does not render the appeal barred by limitation. Therefore, the court ordered the refund of the erroneously deposited tax amount of Rs. 1,22,220/- along with permissible interest to Mr. Mehra within four weeks.

category

CBDT Urges Officers to Identify Top 30 Cases of TDS Shortfall by June 30, 2024

editor — Wed, 10 Apr 2024 05:13:23 +0000

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has instructed income tax officers to scrutinize the top 30 cases of insufficient tax deduction at source (TDS) and resolve at least 150 appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax before June 30, 2024.

These directives are outlined in the interim action plan released by the CBDT for the fiscal year 2024-25, delineating the primary focus areas for field formations.

According to a recent communication from the CBDT to its officials, specific Key Result Areas have been identified for timely accomplishment, alongside attending to statutory limitation matters.

The CBDT routinely issues interim action plans to its officials at the onset of each financial year, refining them later in the year to form the final plan.

Additionally, the CBDT has called for seminars and awareness campaigns to be conducted on TDS. Over the years, TDS has emerged as a significant revenue source for the government, surging from Rs 2.13 lakh crore in FY13 to Rs 8.17 lakh crore in FY23.

As part of its interim plan for the current fiscal, the CBDT has also mandated the immediate approval of all pending refunds withheld under Section 241(A) once scrutiny assessments are completed and requisite orders are passed, either immediately or by April 30, 2024.

Furthermore, the CBDT has directed that all information requested by enforcement agencies such as the CBI, SEBI, and Enforcement Directorate before March 31, 2024, must be shared by the end of April. For requests received after April 1, information should be provided within 15 days.

Field officers are also tasked with identifying cases where seized assets are due for release as per Section 132B and facilitating their release by June 30, 2024.

Source: Business Today

category