Search This Blog

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Deductibility of TDS on Provision for Expenses for which no invoice been received

Print Friendly and PDFPrintPrint Friendly and PDFPDF
One of the most disputed arguments between assessee and income tax department is that whether payments made towards specified expenditure attracts disqualification u/s 40(a) (ia) and applicability of this section to provisions made at the year end and its implications
01. The assessee must prepare his books of accounts following the mercantile system of accounting. The same is also followed under section 145 of the Income tax act, 1961.
02. As per mercantile system of accounting, assessee had to made provision for the expenses which were incurred during the year, but their invoices were yet to be received. All this expenditure were allowable expenditure, even though made on the estimated basis. Refer Calcutta Co. Ltd v CIT 37 ITR 1 SC, 1959.
03. Further, as per AS 29, provision is the estimation of liability probability of which outflow will be ‘more likely than not’. It means here we are confirmed that whether provision made by us outflow will be there, however the amount will be still unidentifiable. Hence, in this case we can’t made credit to the party against whom we made the provision.
04. Now a days, Income tax department are verifying that TDS had been deducted on this provisional entries made on the year end and disallowing the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax act, 1961.
05. The assessee generally follows the following method of accounting for year end.
(a) At the yearend it is the common practice of a company or other individual to provide provisions for various expenses like Telephone, Electricity, Travel Claims, Conveyance reimbursements, Commission on sales to employees. Commission on sales to C&F Agent, Lunch Expenses, Rent of Office premises and guesthouse, AMC charges payable etc……
(b) Entries for Provision for expenses are passed at the yearend based on previous month expenditure or on some other relevant basis.
(c) The above provisions are reversed 1st day of the subsequent year.
(d) The assessee generally books expenditure only at the time of payment of the expenditure.
06. The assessee generally does not know the exact amount of expenditure and sometime also don’t know the exact details of the vendor.
07. The Provision of section 40(a)(ia) requires that Tax has to be deducted at source when amount is paid or credited to the account of the Payee whichever is earlier. When the amount is credited to suspense account or any account by whatever name it is called, then it is treated as amount is credited to the account of the payee and tax has to be deducted at source. Hence Tax has to be deducted at source even on provisions made in the books of accounts to which TDS provisions are applicable.
08. Further, as per Notification No. 41/2010 dated 31 May 2010, the due date for the payment of TDS deducted in the month of March becomes April 30th and hence following are the advices from the author in respect of provision entries made on closure date of financials.
(a) Please note that failure to deduct TDS attract (i) disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) on which TDS not made while computing income under normal provisions; (ii) Levy of interest under section 201 (IA) at the rate of One and Half Percent or part of the month for the period of delay in deduction and/or deposit of TDS (iii) levy of Penalty under section 271C for failure to deduct TDS.
(b) Further, please note that the expenditure relating to work/services availed during the period from April 1st 2010 to Mach 31st 2011 should only be accounted in FY 2010-11 and in the event any of such expenditure are accounted in the accounts of the immediately succeeding year then the same will qualify as ‘prior period expenses’ requiring reporting in annual accounts as well as in the Tax Audit Report. The amount of prior period expenses will not be allowed as deduction under Income tax Act in the succeeding year(s).
(c) In view of the above, Finance and Accounts team of each sector/company is advised to instruct each and every department in their respective company to obtain bills for the work/services rendered during the period from April 1st 2010 to March 31st 2011 from the vendor before April 20th and also to provide a complete details of the expenditure under the respective expenses heads based on the service/work order and the work done by the party and for which invoice/bill is not yet raised so that necessary provision with party name and amount can be made in the accounts and TDS thereon can be discharged before the due date of April 30th. Please make sure that to the extent possible, no ad-hoc provision for expenses is to be made at the yearend since it will be difficult to make compliance of TDS provisions with respect to such ad-hoc provision as the amount is not ascertain/accurate, party may not be known, etc. etc.

Leviability of service tax on toll fee

Print Friendly and PDFPrintPrint Friendly and PDFPDF
Circular No. 152/3 /2012-ST, Dated- 22nd February, 2012
Subject: Toll in the nature of ‘user charge’ or ‘access fee’ paid by roads users — regarding.
A representation has been received by the Board, seeking clarification regarding leviability of service tax on toll fee (hereinafter referred as ‘toll’) paid by users, for using the roads. The representation has been examined.
2. Service tax is not leviable on toll paid by the users of roads, including those roads constructed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) created under an agreement between National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) or a State Authority and the concessionaire (Public Private Partnership Model, Build-Own/Operate-Transfer arrangement). ‘Tolls’ is a matter enumerated (serial number 59) in List-II (State List), in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and the same is not covered by any of the taxable services at present. Tolls collected under the PPP model by the SPV is collection on own account and not on behalf of the person who has made the land available for construction of the road.
3. However, if the SPV engages an independent entity to collect toll from users on its behalf and a part of toll collection is retained by that independent entity as commission or is compensated in any other manner, service tax liability arises on such commission or charges, under the Business Auxiliary Service [section 65(105) (zzb) read with section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994].
4. Further, an SPV formed as a result of agreement between NHAI or State Authority and the concessionaire under the BOT arrangement, cannot be considered as an agent of the NHAI. Renting, leasing or licensing of vacant land by the NHAI or State Authority to an SPV for construction of road and such construction do not attract service tax.

Corporates and banks mandated to issue Form 16A downloaded from NSDL Website

Print Friendly and PDFPrintPrint Friendly and PDFPDF
CBDT has issued a Circular No. 03/2011 dated May 13, 2011 as per which TDS Certificates in Form No. 16A will be generated from Tax Information Network (TIN). It is mandatory for Companies and Banks to issue Form 16A from TIN to their deductees for deductions made from April 1, 2011 (F.Y. 2011-12 onwards). Taxpayers are advised to insist on Form 16A (quarterly TDS certificate) that has been downloaded by the Deductors from TIN Central System only.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

SEBI standardize lot size for IPO propose to list on SME exchange/platform and for secondary market trading on such exchange/platform

Print Friendly and PDFPrintPrint Friendly and PDFPDF
CIRCULAR No. CIR/MRD/DSA/06/2012 February 21, 2012
To
Managing Director / Chief Executive Officer of
Stock Exchanges and their Clearing Houses/Corporations
Dear Sir/Madam,
Sub: Standardized lot size for SME Exchange / Platform
1. SEBI vide circular dated May 18, 2010 prescribed the framework for setting up of a stock exchange/trading platform by a recognized stock exchange having nationwide trading terminals for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).
2. In this regard it has been decided to standardize the lot size for Initial Public Offer proposing to list on SME exchange/platform and for the secondary market trading on such exchange/platform, as given under:
Price Band (in Rs)
Lot Size (No of shares)
Upto 14
10000
more than 14 upto 18
8000
more than 18 upto 25
6000
more than 25 upto 35
4000
more than 35 upto 50
3000
more than 50 upto 70
2000
more than 70 upto 90
1600
more than 90 upto 120
1200
more than 120 upto 150
1000
more than 150 upto 180
800
more than 180 upto 250
600
more than 250 upto 350
400
more than 350 upto 500
300
more than 500 upto 600
240
more than 600 upto 750
200
More than 750 upto 1000
160
above 1000
100
3. At the Initial Public Offer stage the Registrar to Issue in consultation with Merchant Banker/s, Issuer and the Stock Exchange shall ensure to finalize the basis of allotment in minimum lots and in multiples of minimum lot size, as per the above given table. The secondary market trading lot size shall be the same, as shall be the IPO Lot Size at the application/allotment stage, facilitating secondary market trading.
4. At the Initial Public Offering stage if the price band decided, falls within two different price bands than the minimum application lot size shall be decided based on the price band in which the higher price falls into. For example: if the proposed price band is at 24-28 than the Lot size shall be 4000 shares.
5. The lot size shall not be reduced by the exchange to below the initial lot size if the trading price is below the IPO issue price.
6. The Stock Exchanges can review the lot size once in every 6 months / wherever warranted, by giving an advance notice of at least one month to the market. However, as far as possible the stock exchange shall ensure that odd lots are not created.
7. Further, the stock exchanges shall ensure that the lot size shall be the same for a securities traded across the Exchanges.
8. In case of oversubscription, if the option to retain ten percent of the net offer to public for the purpose of making allotment in minimum lots is exercised, then it shall be ensured by the Issuer/Stock Exchanges/ Merchant Bankers that the post issue paid up capital of the issuer does not go beyond Rs.25 crore.
9. All the Stock Exchanges are advised to :
i. make necessary amendments, if any, to the relevant bye laws, rules and regulations for the implementation of the above decision;
ii. disseminate the same on their website for easy access to the issuers and other market participants;
iii. communicate to SEBI, the status of implementation of the provisions of this circular in the Monthly Development Report.
10. This Circular is issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, read with Section 10 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market and shall come into effect immediately.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Liability to pay service tax on commission paid to Foreign Service provider arises only with effect from 18.4.2006

Print Friendly and PDFPrintPrint Friendly and PDFPDF
On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute is as to whether service tax liability arises on recipient of commission who resides outside India and has no office in India, for the period prior to 18.4.2006. The Apex Court has held that such liability arises only with effect from 18.4.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1944. The ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Union of India Vs. Indian National Ship Owners’ Association – ( 2009-IST-07-SC-ST) covers the issue in this case and following the ratio thereof, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal of the Revenue.

When the company is under liquidation, appeal could only be filed by official liquidator

Print Friendly and PDFPrintPrint Friendly and PDFPDF
Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) - It is not in dispute that assessee company is under liquidation and official liquidator stands already appointed by the order of the Hon’ble Court. As per Companies Act, 1956, no doubt, powers of liquidator which includes the power to defend legal proceedings, civil or criminal are to be in the name and on behalf of the company. Section 178 of the I.T. Act, 1961 recognizes the official liquidator as the concerned person in the case company is under liquidation. Similarly section 2 (7) defines the word “assessee”. It includes such persons also as assessee who are deemed to be an assessee under any provision of this Act. Section 253(1) provides that an assessee aggrieved, may appeal to ITAT against such order and Rule 47(1) prescribes form No.36 for filing appeal which shall be signed by the person specified in Rule 45(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Rule 45(2) provides that form No.36 shall be filed by the person who is authorized to sign the return u/s 140 of the Act. Second proviso to section 140(c) provides that in case of the company which is being wound up, it shall be singed by the liquidator. From the above noted provisions, it becomes amply clear that when the company is under liquidation, appeal could only be filed by the official liquidator. So appeal verified and singed by the managing director cannot be held to be valid appeal. As such, considering entirety of facts, circumstances and material on record in the light of relevant provisions of law, on the issue of maintainability of the appeal, when not singed by the competent person, it is held that such appeal is not maintainable. Hence, dismissed.

Section 65(105)(zm) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Banking and Other Financial Services – Service tax on Commitment charges collected by Banks

Print Friendly and PDFPrintPrint Friendly and PDFPDF

Letter [F.No. 137/62/2011 - Service Tax], dated 21-10-2011

The C & A G of India has pointed out that Banks are recovering Commitment charges for keeping available the undisbursed balance of a loan commitment and they are in the nature of charges for services provided. In this regard attention is invited to the letter F. No. 345/6/2008-TRU, dated 11.6.2008 (Annexure) wherein it has been clarified that any amount collected by the service provider on account of lending is either interest or service charges. Pre-closure/fore-closure charges are not charges collected for delayed payment. These charges not being ‘interest’ are to be appropriately treated as consideration for the services provided and accordingly leviable to service tax under Section 65(105)(zm).
2. Applying the same principle it is clarified that commitment charges are not in the nature of interest. Rather, they are directly linked to the provision of service and therefore are to be included in the taxable value for payment of service tax.
3. It is requested that immediate action may please be taken to protect the Government Revenue on these lines