Reference: Central Board of Direct Taxes
Update:
Deposit of amount in capital gain a/c scheme isn’t a mandatory condition to claim Sec. 54 relief
Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT – [2019] 111 taxmann.com 180 (Madras)
The assessee was holding a property along with its karta in the proportion of 25:75. They had entered into a JDA agreement. As per the agreement they would release ¾ the share of the property in the favour of the developer and will receive 3850 sq. ft. of the constructed area.
Assessee received Rs. 400 lakhs as cash consideration and constructed area worth Rs. 31.25 lakhs towards his share in the property. He deposited Rs. 37.50 lakhs in the CGAS within the time prescribed. It further incurred Rs. 1,02,13,527 as additional cost towards construction within a period of 3 years..
Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54 in respect of such additional cost on the ground that the assessee failed to deposit the same in CGAS within the prescribed time.
If the assessee satisfies that the amount for which deduction is sought is utilised within the time prescribed under section 54(1), the deduction is bound to be granted without reference to subsection (2). Mere non-compliance of the procedural requirements prescribed under section 54(2) can’t restrict the assessee from claiming deduction under section 54, if the conditions prescribed under section 54(1) are fully complied with. Thus, the matter was remanded back to CIT for considering the issue and to pass the fresh order accordingly.
Update:
CBDT grants exemption under section 56(2)(x) to resident of unauthorised colony:
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified Income tax Amendment (13th Amendment), Rules, 2019 to add a new Rule 11UAC to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in which it has been provided that provisions of Sec. 56(2)(x)shall not apply to any immovable property, being land or building or both, received by a resident of an unauthorised colony in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, where the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazettee, regularised the transactions of such immovable property based on the latest Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, Will, possession letter and other documents including documents evidencing payment of consideration for conferring or recognising right of ownership or transfer or mortgage in regard to such immovable property in favour of such resident.
Implication:
The Newly inserted rule will be applicable from April 1st, 2020.
Reference: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Update:
Extension of due date for filing Form GSTR 9 and Form GSTR 9C:
Ministry of Finance has extend the due dates of filing of Form GSTR-9 (Annual Return) and Form GSTR-9C (Reconciliation Statement) for Financial Year 2017-18 to 31 st December 2019 and for Financial Year 2018-19 to 31 st March 2020.
The Government has also decided to simplify these forms by making various fields of these forms as optional.
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) has notified the amendments regarding the simplification of GSTR-9 (Annual Return) and GSTR-9C (Reconciliation Statement) which interalia allow the taxpayers to not to provide split of input tax credit availed on inputs, input services and capital goods and to not to provide HSN level information of outputs or inputs, etc. for the financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Implication:
With these changes and the extension of deadlines, all the GST taxpayers would be able to file their Annual Returns along with Reconciliation Statement for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 in time.
Update:
Authority for Advance Rulings lacks jurisdiction on determination of ‘place of supply’
Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai v. NES Global Specialist Engineering Services (P.) Ltd. – [2019] 111 taxmann.com 140 (AAAR-MAHARASHTRA)
The applicant-company is providing man-power services to highly technical industries such as Oil and Gas, Power, etc. The applicant and NES Abu Dhabi have proposed to enter into service agreement through which applicant will provide support services in respect of foreign business carried on by NES Abu Dhabi. The applicant has sought advance ruling on whether the transaction in question is to be treated as export of service under GST?
The Authority for Advance Rulings, Maharashtra held that the transaction in question was ‘zero rated supply’ and, hence, to be considered as an export of service under GST. The revenue authorities filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings, Maharashtra.
The Appellate Authority observed that as per the provisions of the GST Act, advance ruling can be given only on the specified questions. However, the question on determination of place of supply is not covered under list of specified questions prescribed under the GST Act. Therefore, the Advance Ruling Authority does not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling on questions involving determination of place of supply of the goods or services or both.
The Appellate Authority set aside the advance ruling passed by Advance Ruling Authority as the said authority does not have jurisdiction to pass ruling on matters relating to determination of place of supply.
