NEW DELHI: Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee will present the budget for 2012-13 on March 16, the government announced Tuesday.
The budget session, which generally starts in the third week of February, had to be delayed due to the ongoing assembly elections in five states, including Uttar Pradesh.
The model code of conduct, which prevents the government from announcing policy decisions or sops that would influence voters, is in force till the election process is completed March 9.
SECTION 143 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - ASSESSMENT - GENERAL - PROCESSING OF RETURNS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 - STEPS TO CLEAR BACKLOGINSTRUCTION NO. 01/2012 [F.NO.225/34/2011-ITA.II], DATED 2-2-2012
The issue of processing of returns for the Asst. Year 2011-12 and giving credit for TDS has been considered by the Board. In order to clear backlog of returns, the following decisions have been taken:(i) In all returns (ITR-1 to ITR-6), where the difference between the TDS claim and matching TDS amount reported in AS-26 data does not exceed Rs. One lac, the TDS claim may be accepted without verification.(ii) Where there is zero TDS matching, TDS credit shall be allowed only after due verification. However, in case of returns of ITR-1 and ITR-2, credit may be allowed in full, even if there is zero matching, if the total TDS claimed is Rs. Five thousand or lower.(iii) Where there are TDS claims with invalid TAN, TDS credit for such claims are not to be allowed.(iv) In all other cases, TDS credit shall be allowed after due verification.
Refund of Statutory / ROC Fees Paid by mistake to MCA
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has decided to refund the statutory fees paid for certain services. Earlier there was no process in MCA21 for refund of fees wrongly paid by the stakeholder while availing various services at MCA 21. New refund e-Form needs to be filed by the stakeholder applying for refund and upon processing of the same the refund request shall be approved or rejected.The refund of MCA21 fees is available in the following cases: a) Multiple Payments of Form 1, Form 5; b) Incorrect Payments and c) Excess PaymentRefund process is not applicable for certain services/ e-Forms like Public Inspection of documents, Request for Certified Copies, Payment for transfer deeds, Stamp duty fee (D series SRN), IEPF Payment, STP Forms, DIN e-Form, etc.
Time within which refund application is made
Default value for deduction
0-90 days
2.5%
91-180 days
5%
181- 270 days
7.5%
271-365 days
10%
>365 day
25%
Filing of refund form shall not be allowed after expiry of 1095 days of filing of the original request. For all earlier cases, (i.e. cases filed before introduction of refund process), the time limit shall be considered from the date on which the refund process is introduced i.e. from 01/05/2011.
For AY 2007-08 & 08-09, the assessee paid VSAT & transaction charges without deduction of TDS. The AO held the payment to be “fees for technical services” & disallowed the payment u/s 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS u/s 194J though the CIT (A) allowed the claim by relying on Skycell Communications 251 ITR 53 (Mad). Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that though the merits was covered against it by CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd 340 ITR 333 (Bom), the deduction had to be allowed because (i) s. 40(a)(ia) was not a ‘tax-levying’ provision but was merely to ensure that tax was paid by either the payer or the payee. As the payee had already paid the taxes, the bar in s. 40(a)(i) did not apply in line with Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage 293 ITR 226 (SC) and (ii) in accordance with Kotak Securities, as the department had not objected to the non-deduction of TDS on transaction charges in the past, there was no justification for invocation of s.40(a)(ia). HELD by the Tribunal:
ITAT, DELHI REDUCES ADDITION MADE BY AO AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTSRajesh Agarwal Vs. ITO, District Udham Singh Nagar, ITA No 2214/Del/ 2010 (27/01/2012)Assessment year 2004-2005HELD:“It is found that there were discrepancies in the book result filed, traced on the scrutiny of the books made by the Assessing Officer which could not be properly replied/ explained. So, action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the book result and confirmation of the same by the CIT (A) in view of the facts and circumstances is found to be justified and proper which action is upheld. But, so far as quantum of trading addition on account of broken rice is concerned, plea of the assessee that State Regulatory Authorities are accepting it up to 25%, such acceptance of rate is true for millers and manufacturers, whereas assessee is trading in rice and paddy. Therefore, same yardstick will not hold good or apply here so far as assessee is concerned. However, in view of facts and the material placed on record, we find that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT (A), though called for yet appears to be higher side Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if such addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is restricted to 50% of the addition made. We hold and direct accordingly. So, assessee gets relief of Rs.1, 35,631.50”.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FACTS The assessee received income from trading of rice, excel sim prepaid and paddy. The books of accounts of the assessee showed a combined gross profit of 1.18%. CONTENTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A) (including the de novo proceedings)The assessing officer found that on drawing trading account of rice separately, it was found that there was a loss of Rs.1, 82,955.08 on trading of rice. It was noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not shown any loss in the trading account, but further discounts have been allowed to the customers on sale. Furthermore, the sale of broken rice was shown in excess of the actual stock in hand, as per the books, to the tune of 3998.89 quintals.In addition to this, the Assessing officer also noted that the quantitative figures of stock as reported in the audit report were not in conformity with the results as per the books of accounts which were audited. On perusal of the books of accounts and other documents in support of the same that were produced, the assessing officer found that the closing stock was not properly valued. The authorities found it difficult to compute the correct profits on the basis of the books of accounts maintained and the audit report. On these grounds, the books of accounts were rejected under section 145(3).CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEEThe AR argued that the assessing officer was guided by the notion that there should not be any loss in a trading business. The AR pointed out that the government itself has accepted the percentage of broken rice @ 25% which fact was not considered by the assessing officer at the time of deciding the case. DECISION OF THE HIGHER AUTHORITYThe Tribunal, having heard both the sides, stated that on the basis of facts available, even the decision of AO to reject the books of accounts of the assessee is in tune with the provisions of the Income Tax Act; the concept of justice should not be denied. At the time of assessment A.O. should take the reference from the normal trade practice and if something is available for comparisoncognizance of the same should be taken. Based on that, ITATrestricted the additions made to 50% and granted a relief to the assessee of Rs 1, 35,631.50.****
