CBDT reduces time limit to verify ITR from 120 days to 30 days for returns filed on or after 01-08-2022
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has reduced time limit for e-verification or submission of ITR-V from 120 days to 30 days for the Income-tax returns filed on or after 01-08-2022. This notification will come into effect from 01.08.2022.
It is further, clarified that the date of dispatch of Speed Post of duly verified ITR-V shall be considered for the purpose of determination of the 30 days period, from the date of transmitting the data of Income-tax return electronically.
NOTIFICATION NO. 4/2022 [F.NO. DGIT(S)/ADG(S)-1/FiLLiP FORM FOR LLP/2022-23/], DATED 26-7-2022
The CBDT has issued procedure of PAN application & allotment through simplified proforma for incorporating limited liability partnerships (LLPs) electronically (form: FiLLiP) of ministry of corporate affairs.
- New Guidelines for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act)
- The CBDT has issued new guidelines for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with required proforma of ITNS forms issued during the course of reassessment proceedings. [F.No.299/10/2022-Dir (lnv.III)/611 Dated: 01/08/2022 ]
E-filing of Updated Income Tax Return Form under section 139(8A) for ITR 5 & ITR 6 is now available on e-filing portal.
E-filing of Updated ITR u/s 139(8A) has also been enabled for ITR 5 & ITR 6 for AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22 using Excel utility. After preparation of Updated Income Tax Return, you can upload the XML/JSON by logging into Income-tax website.
Important Judicial Precedents
- AO is bound to intimate about rejection/acceptance of assessee’s request seeking more time to submit response: HC
Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Faceless Assessment (Principles of natural justice) – Assessment year 2018-19 – Assessing Officer served on assessee a notice dated 16-4-2021 as per section 144B(xvi) seeking objections as to why assessment should not be completed as per draft assessment order and granted seven days’ time to respond, i.e., by 23-4-2021 – Assessee sought for a further four days’ time to respond – Assessing Officer did not give response to assessee’s request and issued an order of assessment on 24-4-2021 observing that assessee had not responded to show cause notice – It was noted that when assessee sought for a further four days’ time to respond, Assessing Officer was bound to give a response intimating either rejection or acceptance of request for time and such a response was part of basic requirements of principles of natural justice – Whether there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice – Held, yes – Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to consider objections if any filed by assessee and pass appropriate orders – Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]
- Only land is eligible for sec. 54 benefit if house constructed was sold within same year of construction: ITAT
Sec 54 of the Act – Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence (Short-term capital gains) – Assessment year 2014-15 – Whether benefit under section 54 can only be allowed on long-term capital gains arising from sale of residential property and said deduction can by no stretch of imagination be allowed on short-term capital gains – Held, yes – Assessee bought a land in financial year 2006-07 – constructed FY 2013-14 and sold said land along with one part of a house constructed upon land in same FY for a consideration of certain amount – She further made investment in new residential house property and, accordingly, claimed exemption under section 54 – Whether building/house constructed was sold within 36 months of construction and, hence, capital gains arose on it being a STCG was not eligible for exemption under section 54 – Held, yes – Whether, however, since assessee had held land for more than 36 months before its sale, exemption under section 54 was to be allowed on LTCG realised on sale of land – Held, yes [Para 7] [Partly in favour of revenue]
Section 48 of the Act – CG – Computation of (Deductions) – AY 2014-15 – Assessee bought a land – She claimed to have spent certain amount for constructing boundary wall and filling of soil on said land and claimed same as deduction while computing LTCG on sale of said land – Same was denied by AO – Whether since no evidence on record or any other detail was filed by assessee to substantiate her claim that she had actually spent an amount towards such cost construction of boundary wall and filling of soil, same could not be allowed as deduction while computing LTCG on sale of land – Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of revenue]
[IT Appeal No. 211 (All.) Of 2017_ Ay 2014-15 _ Smt. Seema Shah Vs. ITO _ 2022 _523 ITAT Varanasi]
- ITAT vacates conditions imposed by CIT for registration as they were w.r.t. conduct of the trust & circumstances in which registration can be cancelled.
While granting registration u/s 12AB,CIT/Pr.CIT cannot impose conditions wrt conduct of the trust & circumstances in which registration can be cancelled.
On a perusal of conditions subject to which the registration is granted, we find these conditions are with respect to the conduct of the trust and the circumstances in which the registration granted to the appellant can be cancelled. These are the matters which are regulated by the specific provisions of law, and the observations of the learned Commissioner, no matter how well intended, cannot have the independent force of law. If the conditions set out in the registration order have the sanction of the law, irrespective of these conditions being attached to the registration of the trust or not, the law has to take its course, but when the scheme of the law does not visualize these conditions being part of the scheme of the registration being granted to the applicant trust, learned Commissioner cannot supplement the law by laying down these conditions either.
The Co-ordinate Benches in M/s. Perfect Constech P. Ltd. case have held that assessee was not required to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of EDC, by observing that: “….Undisputedly, the payment of EDC was issued in the name of Chief Administrator, HUDA. It is also not in dispute that HUDA has shown EDC as current liability in the balance sheet, but in the ‘Notes’ to the Accounts Forming part of the Balance Sheet, it has been shown that EDC has been received for execution of various external development works and as and when the development works are carried out, the EDC’s liabilities are reduced accordingly. It is also not in dispute that HUDA is engaged in acquiring land, developing it and finally handing it over for a price. It is also not in dispute that EDC is fixed by HUDA from time to time. However, the fact of the matter remains that payment has been made to HUDA through DTCP which is a Government Department and the same is not in pursuance to any contract between the assessee and HUDA. Thus, the payment of EDC is not for carrying out any specific work to be done by HUDA for and on behalf of the assessee but rather DTCP which is a Government Department which levies these charges for carrying out external development and engages the services of HUDA for execution of the work. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of EDC as the same was not out of any statutory or contractual liability towards HUDA and, therefore, the impugned penalty was not leviable….” As a wholesome effect of the same, the Bench is of considered opinion that levy of penalty u/s 271C cannot be sustained.
[ITA No. 6653/Del/2019 _Assessment Year: 2014-15_ TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL CIT,RANGE-76, NEW DELHI]
In the present case, admittedly, after the scheme of demerger, the appellant had not carried on any business of demerged undertaking and the fact that the assets transferred to the demerged unit were held for sale goes to demonstrate the intention of the appellant that they had no intention of carrying on business of demerged undertaking. The scheme of demerger was carried out only with sole object to avail the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation losses of demerged undertaking. Therefore, for this very reason, the Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses. CIT(A) had granted the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses in a perfunctory manner without looking into the objects behind the enactment of provisions of section 72A. and appears to have been carried out by the submissions of the assessee that once the scheme of demerger is approved by the Hon’ble High Court, the assessing authority cannot go behind the scheme of demerger ignoring the provisions of section 72A, which governed the set-off of brought forward business losses in the case of amalgamation/demerger etc, which prescribes the conditions to avail the benefit of the scheme. In the circumstances, we find that the order of ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unreasonable. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is reversed and the ground of appeal no. 2 and 3 filed by the Revenue stands allowed.
[ITA No. 2121/Pun/2017_Assessment Year: 2006-07_ DCIT Vs. M/s CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICES (I) LTD]