I mportant Clause in TAR Vs ITR

S No.	Clause in TAR	Particulars	Schedule in ITR
1	Form 3CA	In Statutory Audit was carried out by other Audit Firm, mention statutory audit was conducted by "M/s" otherwise "US"	NA
2	3CD-9(b)	Change in Partners / Members	PartA-General 2
3	3CD-10	Nature of Business, Change in Business	PartA-General 2
4	3CD-12	Presumptive Profits	PartA-P&L, Schedule BP
5	3CD-13e	Adjustmemts to ICDS	Schedule ICDS
6	3CD-14	Valuation of Stock U/s 145A	Schedule Part A - OI
7	3CD-16	Amount not credited to P&L A/c a.  Items falling U/s 28 b.  Proforma Credits, drwbacks, refund c.  Escalation claims, Capital Receipts etc	Schedule Part A - OI
8	3CD-18	Depreciation U/s I T Act	Schedule BP, DPM, DOA (Compare last year closing WDV with TAR and ITR)
9	3CD-19	Amounts admissible U/s 32AC - 35E	Schedule BP, ESR, RA
10	3CD-20	Amounts admissible U/s 36(1)(va) (Employee contribution to PF, ESI)	Schedule Part A - OI
11	3CD-21(a)	In TAR, it is only a disclosure. Don’t try to link all disallowance U/s 37 in ITR	Schedule Part A - OI
12	3CD-21(b)	Details of payments on TDS not deducted, TDS unpaid Vs Clause 34(a) of TAR	Schedule Part A - OI
13	3CD-21(c)	Salary, commission, interest paid to partner U/s 40(b)	Schedule Part A - OI
14	3CD-21(d)	Disallowance U/s 40A(3)/(3A)	Schedule Part A - OI
15	3CD-21(e)	Disallowance U/s 40A(7)	Schedule Part A - OI
16	3CD-21(f)	Disallowance U/s 40A(9)	Schedule Part A - OI
17	3CD-21(h)	Disallowance U/s 14A	Schedule Part A - OI
18	3CD-21(i)	Disallowance U/s 36(1)(iii)	Schedule Part A - OI
19	3CD-23	Disclosure of PAYMENTS made to persons covered U/s 40A(2)(b) (Have to disclose all payments made to above parties and it is not limited to expenses)	PartA-BS, Schedule AL (Verify with Related Party Disclosures in Financials)
20	3CD-24	Deemed Profits U/s 32AC, 32AD, 33AB, 33AC, 33ABA	Schedule Part A - OI Schedule BP
21	3CD-25	Deemed Profits U/s 41	Schedule Part A - OI
22	3CD-26(i)(A)(a)	Disallowed U/s 43B in earlier years and paid in current year	Schedule Part A - OI
23	3CD-26(i)(A)(b)	Disclose amounts disallowed U/s 43B in earlier years and not paid in current year	Schedule Part A - OI
24	3CD-26(i)(B)(a)	Disclose payments related to current PY and paid in current PY - U/s 43B	Schedule Part A - OI
25	3CD-26(i)(B)(b)	Disclose payments related to current PY and UNPAID upto filing of ROI - U/s 43B	Schedule Part A - OI
26	3CD-26(i)(A)(a)	Disallowed in earlier years and paid in current year	Schedule Part A - OI
27	3CD-27(a)	Provide details of ITC as per books of accounts	NA
28	3CD-27(b)	Details of Prior Period Income / Expenses	Schedule Part A - OI
29	3CD-29B(a)	Income U/s 56(2)(x)	Schedule OS
30	3CD-30	Amounts borrowed / repaid U/s 69D	Schedule OS
31	3CD-32(a)	Details of Brought Forward Losses	Schedule CFL, UD
32	3CD-32(b)	Change in shareholding U/s 79	PartA-General 2
33	3CD-32(c)	Losses in Speculative Business U/s 73	Schedule BP, BFLA, CFL
34	3CD-32(d)	Losses in Specified Business U/s 73A	Schedule BP, BFLA, CFL
35	3CD-32(e)	Deemed Speculative Business U/s 73	Schedule CFL, UD
36	3CD-33	Deduction U/s Chapter VIA, Section 10A, 10AA	Schedule 10AA, 80G, 80GGA, 80, VIA
37	3CD-34a,b	Details of payments on TDS not deducted, TDS unpaid Vs Clause 34(a) of TAR (verify with Financials, TDS returns)	NA
38	3CD-34c	Interest paid U/s 201(1A), 206C(7)	Schedule Part A - OI
39	3CD-35	Quantitative details of Inventory	Schedule Part A - OD
40	3CD-36	Details of Distributed Profits U/s 115O	Schedule DDT
41	3CD-36A(a)	Details of deemed dividends U/s 2(22)e	Schedule AL
42	3CD- 40	Details of various ratios	PartA-Trading A/c, P&L

Three Imp Verdicts On Void Assessment Orders, Tax Recovery And S. 147 Reopening

Tata Communications Ltd vs. Addl CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 2(7A)/ 120(4): Though, by virtue of the retrospective amendment to s. 2(7A), the Addl CIT is an "Assessing Officer", he can act as such only if there is a notification issued by the CBDT u/s 120(4)(b) or if there is an order u/s 127 transferring jurisdiction from the DCIT to the Addl CIT. In the absence of either, the assessment order is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed as null and void. The fact that the assessee co-operated is irrelevant because there is no estoppel. The argument of the Dept that as the order is passed by a higher officer, there is no prejudice to the assessee is not acceptable. The matter also cannot be remanded back (All imp judgements referred)

In view of the legal discussion made above and facts of the case, it is clear that impugned assessment order has been passed without authority of law in as much as Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the Additional Commissioner of Income tax who had passed the assessment order had valid authority to perform and exercise the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer of the assessee and to pass the impugned assessment order. Under these circumstances, we have no other option but to hold the same as nullity and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed having been passed with out authority of law

Restriction of Input Credit - A Blunder

IN the Goods and Services Tax regime, the major cause of disconnect in implementation and administration is that the law  as provided in the legislation is  not appropriately aligned with the respective procedures. The gravity  or  the  concerns further get enhanced by unthoughtful notifications  tweaking  the  procedures without appropriate alignment with the law.

Challenges due to limitation of GST input Credit.

Background

Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax has been issued by CBIC last week carrying our various amendments in the CGST Rules. One of the important amendments in the Rules which was pronounced in the GST Council press release is to permit the credit to the recipient only if the corresponding supplies have been reported in the GSTR-1 by his suppliers. This amendment is in line with the new return format which is going to be effective w.e.f. 1.4.2020. The purpose is to reduce large number of instances of fake invoices where fraudulent credits have been availed to deceive exchequer. The amendment has been given effect to by inserting sub rule 4 in the Rule 36 of CGST Rule. The relevant extract of amendment is as under:

“(4) Input tax credit to be availed by a registered person in respect of invoices or debit notes, the details of which have not been uploaded by the suppliers under sub-section

(1)  of section 37, shall not exceed 20 per cent. of the eligible credit available in respect of invoices or debit notes the details of which have been uploaded by the suppliers under sub-section (1) of section 37.”.

We discuss the various aspects of the amendment in the below discussion.

E-Assessment Scheme (2019) 417 ITR(St.) 12

The E-Assessment scheme or the ‘Faceless Assessment’ involves creation of e-assessment centres at national and regional levels; auto-allocation of cases among these centres. The scheme marks a significant modification in the manner in which tax assessments will be undertaken.  

Imp Judgements

PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd (Bombay High Court)

Taxability of loan waivers u/s 28(iv), 41(1): Argument of Revenue that loan taken from agents/ dealers is on revenue account or that on waiver of the loan, its character undergoes a change and it becomes on revenue account is not correct. S. 28(iv) & 41(1) cannot apply if the loan is on capital account and the assessee has never claimed any deduction therefor in the past (Solid Containers 308 ITR 417 (Bom) distinguished, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd 404 ITR 1 (SC) followed)

Sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in any Assessment Year as a loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the Assessee. Subsequently, if any remission or waiver is granted in respect of which such an allowance/deduction has been claimed, then the Assessee is liable to pay t ax on the amount waived/ remitted under Section 41(1) of the Act. This, as the Court held is only to ensure that Assessee does not keep double benefit – one by way of deduction and another by waiver of the amount, which has already been deducted in computing the tax

PCIT vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM): Even if the Revenue's theory of the assessee having enabled the clients to claim contrived losses is correct, the Revenue had to bring on record some evidence of the income earned by the assessee in the process, be it in the nature of commission or otherwise. Adding the entire amount of doubtful transactions by way of assessee's additional income is wholly impermissible. The fate of the individual investors in whose cases the Revenue could have questioned the artificial losses is not known  

CBIC issues Notifications relating to filing of returns under GST

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has issued Notifications¹ dated 9 October 2019 relating to filing of returns under Goods and Services Tax (GST).   

Blocking large portion of unreconciled/mis-matched input credit

This is further to our previous post, we have tried to analyze the implication of new sub-rule 36(4) to block a large portion of unreconciled/mis-matched input credit .