Finance Act 2018.

Download Finance Act 2018

The Finance Act 2018 received the assent of the President on the 29th March, 2018 and is available for download

There are several important amendments made by the Finance Act 2018 to the Income-tax Act, 1961, including the taxation of long-term capital gains (LTCG) at 10%.

As per the Finance Act 2018, the long term capital gains on investments in equities exceeding Rs 1 lakh will be taxed at 10% without allowing benefit of indexation. The gains made till January 31 will be grandfathered.

India Tax Due Date – April 2018.

Sr No Due Date Related to Compliance to be made
1 04.04.2018 SEZ Compliances Monthly Exemption details for the month of March 2018
2 10.04.2018 GST Filing of GSTR 1 for the month of February, 2018
3 20.04.2018 GST Payment of GST for the month of March, 2018

Filing of GSTR 3B for the month of March, 2018

4 30.04.2018 TDS/TCS

(Income Tax)

· Deposit TDS for payments of Salary, Interest, Commission or Brokerage, Rent, Professional fee, payment to Contractors, etc. during the month of March 2018.

· Deposit TDS from Salaries deducted during the month of March 2018

• Deposit TCS for collections made under section 206C including sale of scrap during the month of March 2018, if any

CESTAT : No tax on classes for Open University degrees & autonomous UPSC courses pre-2011

CESTAT sets aside service tax levied on trust running classes for graduation and other degree / diploma courses run by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (YCMOU), and which also imparts education towards competitive exams conducted by UPSC / MPSC; Notes that YCMOU is a recognized university who had appointed assessee as its study center and clearly, assessee was running parallel college for importing education in degree / diploma recognized by law; Referring to letter of Jt. Secretary, University Grants Commission, CESTAT observes that assessee’s courses are equivalent to regular courses of YCMOU and there could be no distinction between regular colleges and education imparted by assessee; Relying on CBEC Circular dated June 20, 2003, holds that assessee is not liable to service tax under the category “Commercial Training or Coaching Service” u/s 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act during the period before May 1, 2011; Also places reliance on coordinate bench ruling in Tandem Integrated Services wherein it was held inter alia “…the colleges apart from imparting education for obtaining recognized degrees / diploma / certificates, also impart training for competitive examinations, such institutes or establishments are outside the purview of “Commercial Training or Coaching Institute…” : Mumbai CESTAT

 

CBDT : Mandates electronic returns processing, clarifies on returns pushed by CPC to AOs

CBDT clarifies that all returns for AY 2017-18 and onwards have to be processed u/s 143(1) irrespective of the fact whether the cases are under scrutiny or AO contemplating withholding of refund u/s 241A on concern of recovery; Further, directs that returns pushed by CPC to AO shall be processed electronically using software provided by CBDT; However, in exceptional circumstances where returns cannot be processed electronically due to technical difficulties, allows AO to process them manually with prior approval of Pr. CIT; Also directs that before taking up manual processing, technical difficulties in such cases should be referred to Pr DGIT (Systems) who shall satisfy himself about the inability of processing returns manually due to technical difficulty within reasonable time and then permit manual processing; In such cases, the AO is required to mandatorily upload the same in the system, also directs that “to avoid arbitrariness, the returns for AY 2017-18 and onwards which are pushed by CPC, shall be processed in chronological manner”

HC : Condones delay in filing return due to delay in obtaining tax-audit report

Madras HC allows assessee-company’s writ, condones 37 days delay in filing income tax return for AY 2014-15 owing to the delay in carrying out tax audit; Notes that assessee’s tax auditors have expressed their unwillingness to complete the audit just a day before the due date of filing ROI (i.e. November 30th) on account of certain reservations they had as to the valuation of business transfer during subject AY,  accordingly assessee had appointed new tax auditor and return was consequently uploaded on January 1, 2015; Accepts assessee’s stand that it could not be blamed for the delay in carrying out the tax audit as the same was beyond its control; Noting that there was misunderstanding between the erstwhile auditor and the assessee, HC remarks that “when the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay of 37 days in filing the Return Of Income, the delay should be condoned.”; Noting that CBDT rejected assessee’s condonation application u/s. 119 claiming that the delay was not properly explained, HC remarks that “When once the authority has been conferred with discretion to condone the delay, the application seeking condonation of the delay of 37 days cannot be rejected for such reasons as are assigned by the 1st respondent.” :HC

ITAT : No PE for Samsung Electronics owing to employees secondment to Indian subsidiary

Delhi ITAT rejects PE-constitution in India for Samsung Electronics (a Korean company- assessee) through the seconded expatriate employees operating from the premises of Samsung India (assessee’s subsidiary) for AYs 2004-05 to 2009-10; Based on the statements of employees recorded during the survey conducted at Samsung India’s premises, ITAT notes that the expat employees’ activities relate to the business of Indian subsidiary and communication between assessee, its Indian subsidiary and expat employees relates to stock verification, specificity of the products, their designs according to the preferences of the Indian consumers, the market strategies to be adopted, etc; Holds that by way of such seamless communication, the expatriate employees were only discharging the duties of the subsidiary company towards the holding company, remarks that “Whatever the benefits that are derived by the Indian subsidiary by such communication are offered to tax in India.”, thus holds that activities of expat employees do not constitute a PE under Article 5(4) of Indo-South Korea DTAA ; Further, observes that there is no proof as to any management activity of assessee being conducted in India, also holds that even if the activities of seconded employees amount to rendering of services to subsidiary by assessee, no question of Service PE would still arise absent specific service PE clause in India-South Korea DTAA:ITAT

HC : Upholds validity of Form I issued by Sales Tax Commissioner towards SEZ supplies

HC upholds validity of Form I issued by Commissioner of Commercial Tax u/s 8 of CST Act in respect of goods supplied to SEZ unit of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. for period post June 7, 2005; Rejects Revenue’s plea that Form I was not in consonance with provisions of Rule 12(11) of Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (Rules) r/w Section 8(8) of CST Act as it was not countersigned and certified by authority specified by Central Govt. authorizing establishment of SEZ unit; On the other hand, HC finds force in assessee’s contention that while said condition was present in pre-amended Rule 12(11), same was done away with w.e.f. June 7, 2005, and that amendment in Rules providing only for declaration to be in Form I was made with a view to simplify the procedure; Refers to letter from Development Commissioner of SEZ which stated that procedure of issuing Form I by Commissioner of Sales Tax is retained to ensure proper monitoring of any misuse by units, since he has complete data bank of all units registered as sales tax assessees; Consequently, as the Rules no longer refer to any specific authority as the issuing authority nor can such requirement be read into it, HC sets aside the order of Revisional Authority : Gujarat HC

ITAT : Payment to ward off competition for short 5 years period, a revenue expense

Mumbai ITAT rules that non-compete fees paid by SOTC Travel Services Pvt  Ltd. (assessee)  during AY 2002-03 to Director/employee of another travel company for not doing similar business for 5 years, not capital expenditure, allows deduction u/s. 37; During relevant AY, assessee had entered into an agreement with a travel company, whereby assessee agreed to pay Rs. 1 cr. towards non-compete fees to  its director /employee for not doing similar business for 5 years and Rs. 1.05 cr. toward license fees for use of its brand name for 5.5 years; With respect to non-compete fees payment, ITAT holds that  “when the payment was made ..for non-compete for short period and the assessee have not derived any enduring benefit and no new asset was added the payment of non-compete fee was in the nature of restricting Anita Shirodkar (director) and Arjun Sharma (employee) in exercising their skill and experience in the similar field, cannot be treated as capital expenditure.”;  Relies on co-ordinate bench ruling in Hidelberg Cement India Ltd and Delhi HC rulings in Eicher Ltd. and Career Launcher India Ltd. ; With respect to license fees payment, ITAT holds that the expenditure incurred by assessee for use of the brand name to leverage and expand business activities in Middle East market is revenue expenditure in view of SC rulings in IAEC(Pumps) Ltd. and Devidas Vithaldas & Co.:ITAT