Binoy Visam vs. UOI (Aadhaar Card Linkage With PAN) (Supreme Court)

S. 139AA (inserted by the Finance Act 2017) which mandates quoting of Aadhaar number with the PAN is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The proviso to s. 139AA(2) (which deems the PAN void ab initio if the Aadhaar number is not quoted) is also valid. However, as the challenge under Article 21 is pending before the Constitution Bench, a partial stay is granted. Those who are already enrolled under the Aadhaar scheme should comply with s. 139AA (2). Those who are not enrolled need not do so for the time being and their PAN will not be treated as invalid. The said proviso to s. 139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively as it takes away vested rights. It will only have prospective effect

Having said so, it becomes clear from the aforesaid discussion that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld. At the same time, as far as existing PAN holders are concerned, since the impugned provisions are yet to be considered on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution, including on the debate around Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. as limbs of Article 21, we are of the opinion that till the aforesaid aspect of Article 21 is decided by the Constitution Bench a partial stay of the aforesaid proviso is necessary. Those who have already enrolled themselves under Aadhaar scheme would comply with the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act. Those who still want to enrol are free to do so. However, those assessees who are not Aadhaar card holders and do not comply with the provision of Section 139(2), their PAN cards be not treated as invalid for the time being. It is only to facilitate other transactions which are mentioned in Rule 114B of the Rules. We are adopting this course of action for more than one reason. We are saying so because of very severe consequences that entail in not adhering to the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act. A person who is holder of PAN and if his PAN is invalidated, he is bound to suffer immensely in his day to day dealings, which situation should be avoided till the Constitution Bench authoritatively determines the argument of Article 21 of the Constitution. Since we are adopting this course of action, in the interregnum, it would be permissible for the Parliament to consider as to whether there is a need to tone down the effect of the said proviso by limiting the consequences

Read the rest of this entry »

Honda Siel Cars India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Technical know-how: Entire law explained on whether expenditure incurred under a Technical Collaboration Agreement for setting up of new plant for the first time to manufacture cars constitutes capital or revenue expenditure

When we apply the aforesaid parameters to the facts of the present case, the conclusion drawn by the High Court that expenditure incurred was of capital nature, appears to be unblemished. Admittedly, there was no existing business and, thus, question of improvising the existing technical know-how by borrowing the technical know-how of the HMCL, Japan did not arise. The assessee was not in existence at all and it was the result of joint venture of HMCL, Japan and M/s. HSCIL, India. The very purpose of Agreement between the two companies was to set up a joint venture company with aim and objective to establish a unit for manufacture of automobiles and part thereof. As a result of this agreement, assessee company was incorporated which entered into TCA in question for technical collaboration. This technical collaboration included not only transfer of technical information, but, complete assistance, actual, factual and on the spot, for establishment of plant, machinery etc. so as to bring in existence manufacturing unit for the products. Thus, a new business was set up with the technical know-how provided by HMCL, Japan and lumpsum royalty, though in five installments, was paid therefor

Read the rest of this entry »

Crescent Construction Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 147/ 148: Entire law on reopening of assessments in the context of “change of opinion” vs. “failure to apply mind”, with reference to s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and all judgements on the point discussed

Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is permissive and not a mandatory provision. Nine situations by way of illustrations are stated, which are by way of example or guidelines. As a permissive provision it enables to judge to support his judgment but there is no scope of presumption when facts are known. Presumption of facts under section 114 is rebuttable. The presumption raised under illustration (e) to section 114 of the Act means that when an official act is proved to have been done, it will be presumed to have been regularly done but it does not raise any presumption that an act was done for which there is no evidence or proof

Read the rest of this entry »

AAA Paper Marketing Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Lucknow)

(i) S. 153A/ 153C: When the Addl CIT records that he is granting “mechanical approval” u/s 153D to the draft assessment order for want of time to have meaningful discussion, the assessment order is bad in law and has to be annulled (ii) The Respondent is entitled to raise an objection under Rule 27 even in respect of fresh issues. It is not necessary that the ground should have been decided against the Respondent by the CIT(A)

The approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner is devoid of any application of mind, is mechanical and without considering the materials on record. In our considered opinion, the power vested in the Joint Commissioner/Addl Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Addl Commissioner/Joint Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposals put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the AO. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. We are constrained to observe that in the present case, there has been no application of mind by the Addl. Commissioner before granting the approval. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment order made u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w. Sec. 153A of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be annulled

Read the rest of this entry »

Notification No.:50/2017-S.O.1866(E):Arm’s Length Price for International Transactions and specified domestic transactions under section 92C for A.Y.2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19

The Central Government in Notification No. 50/2017 dated 9th June, 2017 has issued the variations for which the price for the international  transactions will be considered as arm’s length price for the purposes of section 92C.

The notification reads as follows:

S.O. 1866(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), read with proviso to sub-rule (7) of rule 10CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Central Government hereby notifies that where the variation between the arm’s length price determined under section 92C of the Act and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one per cent. of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three per cent. of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be the arm’s length price for assessment year 2017-18 and assessment year 2018-19.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, “wholesale trading” means an international transaction or specified domestic transaction of trading in goods, which fulfils the following conditions, namely:—
(i) purchase cost of finished goods is eighty per cent. or more of the total cost pertaining to such trading
activities; and
(ii) average monthly closing inventory of such goods is ten per cent. or less of sales pertaining to such trading
activities.

Find the entire notification below:

Read the rest of this entry »

Settled view on Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e)

The CBDT vide Circular No.19/2017 dated 12/06/2017 provided a settled view on deemed dividends u/s section 2(22)(e).

The section reads as follows:

Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that “dividend” includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power, or to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in this clause referred to as the said concern) or any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profit.

Based on the various decisions in courts namely CIT vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs Amrik Singh,  CIT, Agra vs Atul Engineering Udyog  the board has settled that  trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section 2(22)( e) of the Act.

It also provided that henceforth appeals may not be filed on this ground.

Find the entire circular below:

Read the rest of this entry »

Section 194IB: TDS on Payment of rent by certain Individuals or Hindu Undivided Family.

The section provides for deduction of TDS@5% on rent paid by an Individual or HUF to a resident individual exceeding Rs.50,000/- a month.

The section reads as follows:

194-IB. (1) Any person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family (other than those referred to in the second proviso to section 194-I), responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of rent exceeding fifty thousand rupees for a month or part of a month during the previous year, shall deduct an amount equal to five per cent of such income as income-tax thereon.

(2) The income-tax referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deducted on such income at the time of credit of rent, for the last month of the previous year or the last month of tenancy, if the property is vacated during the year, as the case may be, to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier.

(3) The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(4) In a case where the tax is required to be deducted as per the provisions of section 206AA, such deduction shall not exceed the amount of rent payable for the last month of the previous year or the last month of the tenancy, as the case may be.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “rent” means any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or building or both.]

The CBDT vide. G.S.R. 561(E) has prescribed the rules and form to be filled for deduction under this section.

It is prescribed that TDS under Section 194-IB of the Act shall be paid within a period of 30 days from the end of the month in which deduction is made and shall be accompanied by challan-cum-statement in Form No. 26QC. The tax shall be paid electronically within prescribed time. The person deducting TDS under Section 194-IB shall furnish certificate in Form No. 16C to the payee within 15 days from the due date of furnishing challan-cum-statement in Form No. 26QC. Further, Form No. 16C i.e. certificate for tax deducted at source and Form No. 26QC i.e. challan-cum-statement of deduction of tax under Section 194-IB of the Act have been prescribed.

Further, the notification has also prescribed rules and format for Form 26QC and Form 16C.

Find the link below for the notification:

Read the rest of this entry »