The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh TAX BAR Association

01/02/2016

One Day National Conference on Contemporary Tax Issues

Date: February 6, 2016
Time: 9.30 am to 5. 30 pm (Registration at 9.00 am)
Venue: KLN Prasad Auditorium, Federation House

We are glad to inform that The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Tax Bar Association in association with FTAPCCI and Abids – Himayathnagar CPE Study Circle are organizing a National Conference on Contemporary Tax Issues on 6th February 2016 at 9-30am at FTAPCCI.

A delegate fee of Rs. 600 /- per participant is being charged (includes Lunch, Seminar Kit etc). The delegate fee can be paid Cash / DD/ Cheque drawn in favour of The AP Tax Bar Association.

05/08/2015

MANUAL SCRUTINY OF SERVICE TAX RETURNS


The CBEC vide its circular no 185/4/2015 dated 30th June 2015 prescribed the procedure for manual scrutiny of the service tax returns of selected assessees. This is a step towards ensuring whether the self­ assessment carried out by the assessees is in line with the provisions of the prevailing service tax law This shall be applicable with effect from 1st August 2015. A brief about the new procedure is as below.

DETAILED MANUAL SCRUTINY (“DMS”)


1. Applicable from F.Y. 2014 ­15 and onwards and will be carried out on a yearly basis.
2. Assessee Selection Criteria
3. Tax Paid (Cash + Cenvat) should be less than Rs. 50 Lacs.
4. Equal number of assessees shall be selected in each of the three bands based on the quantum of service tax payments viz. up to 10 Lacs, 10-­ 25 Lacs and 25 – 50 Lacs.
5.Assessees selected for audit in the past three years shall not be selected for DMS.
6. An assessee cannot be subjected to both Audit and DMS.


PURPOSE / COVERAGE OF DMS

A.Taxability of Services, whether all taxable services covered, including taxability as per reverse charge mechanism.
B. Valuation of services as per valuation rules.
C. Appropriateness of Abatements, Exemptions and Tax Rates.
D. Appropriateness of Cenvat Credit.
E. Detailed reconciliation with the Income Tax Return (ITR) and Records.

PROCESS AND LEVEL OF VERIFICATION.


A. The scrutiny will be carried out at the Range office. No visits to the assessee premises.
B. 15 days intimation to be given to the assessee before initiating the DMS process.
C. The data as per the service tax returns and the income tax returns shall be compiled and analysed for the past three years viz. FY 2012 – 13 to FY 2014 ­15.
D. Sample invoices, debit / credit notes, agreements and any other relevant documents shall be verified for determining the taxability and valuation of service.
E. Whether Service tax liability on reverse charge has been discharged appropriately.
F. The abatements and exemptions claimed, if any, are after fulfilling the prescribed conditions.
G. The eligibility and availment of cenvat credit, with specific reference to Rule 6 ( provider of both taxable services as well as exempted service)of the cenvat credit rules shall be verified.
H. Appropriate applicability of the various rules, for eg. The place of provision rules to check the export of services.
I. Every possible aspect of the service tax return shall be reconciled with the information furnished in the income tax return.

TIME LIMITS
A. The intimation letters for FY 2014 – 15 shall be issued by the 15th July 2015 and the DMS process shall be initiated by 1st August 2015.
B. A time limit of one month to three months has been prescribed for completion of the DMS.

26/07/2015

Fake lawyers in India

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-30-lawyers-in-the-country-are-fake-says-bar-council-of-india-2108240

18/07/2015

234E TDS: Imp Verdict Of ITAT On Power Of AO To Recover Fee Prior To 01.06.2015 Amendment :

G. Indhirani vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

S. 234E: Prior to the amendment to s. 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fee for default in filing TDS statements cannot be recovered from the assessee-deductor while processing the s. 200A statement. However, the AO is entitled to pass a separate order u/s 234E to levy the fee within the limitation period

The Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement and make adjustment under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under Section 234E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy has not expired

13/07/2015

Notification No. 2/2015 regarding Electronic Verification Code (EVC) for electronically filed Income Tax Return as an alternative mode of verification released. [Refer Notification No. 2/2015 dated 13/07/2015]https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/eFiling/Portal/StaticPDF/EVC_notification.pdf
EVC would verify the identity of the person furnishing the return of income .To know more about the modes and process for generation and validation of EVChttps://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/eFiling/Portal/StaticPDF/e-Verification_User_Manual.pdf

25/06/2015

I WILL BE COMPLETING MY TERM AS PRESIDENT OF THE TAX BAR ON SATURDAY THE 27TH OF THIS MONTH

MY THANK EACH AND EVERY MEMBER FOR GIVING ME THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SERVE.

18/04/2015

There has been criticism of the new ITR forms with experts and consultants saying government was seeking too much data. Government today announced that new Income Tax Return (ITR) Forms ...

15/02/2015

Glimpses of the meeting held on 14th Feb 2015

12/02/2015

27/01/2015

From Bhupender Shah Rukh Khan

HC finds no merit in assessee’s challenge of constitutional validity of Sec 133(6) as amended by Finance Act, 1995 whereby words “enquiry or” were added to expand power to call information to even those cases where no proceedings were pending; Concludes assessee failed to establish any constitutional infirmity, to hold the statute/amendment as ultra vires to the Constitution; Rejects assessee’s contention that there was violation of “right to privacy” and hence violation of Art 19(1)(g) which stipulates right to practice any profession /trade/ business; Relies on SC in Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another to hold that “even assuming that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, such fundamental right must be subject to restriction, on the basis of compelling 'public interest' and there is no prohibition on the State in gathering information for preventing tax evasion and curb black money“; Relies on SC Constitution bench ruling in Vivian Joseph Ferreira and another, SC ruling in R.K. Garg and Punjab Distilling industries Ltd while examining constitutional validity; Also rejects assessee’s contention that there was no jurisdiction for invoking powers u/s 133(6) and conferring absolute powers on Govt officers was arbitrary, relying on division bench ruling in P.K. Aboobacker & other vs. State ofKerala; Also reiterates principle that the 'taxation entry' confers powers upon the legislature to legislate for matters 'ancillary or incidental', including the provisions for evasion of tax relying on SC ruling in R.S. Jhavar ;Distinguishes SC rulings in State of Punjab vs. Khan Chand and Maneka Gandhi : Kerala HC

15/01/2015

One day Seminar on Taxation held on 10th January Chief Guest Sri I Suresh Babu IRS CCIT, Chairmen of the sessions Sri M V Purushottam Rao and Sri S Tirumalai and Spekaers Sri Bhupender Shah and Sri P Rajendra Kumar

05/01/2015

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs.JITENDRAKUMAR SHANTILAL SHETH

AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL

Income from undisclosed sources—Unexplained investments—Addition—Validity—On basis of information received from DCIT, search and survey operations carried out in case of M—M stated that he had purchased land jointly with four other persons including assessee at consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs—According to AO consideration paid was Rs. 75 lakhs—AO made addition u/s 69 towards share of assessee on account of on money paid for purchase of property—CIT(A) deleted addition on ground that M was not even clear on exact quantum of consideration—Held, statement of M was not supported by any evidence—AO did not make any attempt to confirm that such money was paid by assessee—Mere statement of a third party could not be basis for making addition—Nothing was found on record to suggest that assessee had made payment of on money in the investment in land in question—Impugned order of CIT(A) upheld—Revenue’s appeal dismissed