No disallowance under sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B if assessee-trust was enjoying exemption under section 11

Issue

Whether disallowance under sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B could be made in a case of trust enjoying exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act (‘Act’)?

The tribunal held as under-

1)    Sections 11, 12 and13 deal with income from property held for charitable or religious purposes and the mode of computation of income subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, income of any charitable trust or society is exempt from tax, if such conditions are fulfilled.

2)    Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B fall under Chapter IV-D of the Act. The said Chapter deals with computation of profits and gains from business or profession. The profits and gains from business or profession are computed under section 28. Section 29 provides the manner of computation of income under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", which states that the income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of sections28 to 43D.

ITAT makes Sec. 43B disallowance even when assessee opts for presumptive taxation scheme

IT: Non-payment of statutory liability before due date of filing of return would attract disallowance under Section 43B even if assessee had offered his income on presumptive basis.

Issue

Whether disallowance of Section 43B could be made even when assessee opted for presumptive taxation Scheme?

The Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:

a)Under the presumptive taxation scheme, income of an assessee is computed at a fixed percentage of turnover and it would be deemed that that all deductions allowable under the head business or profession have already been allowed to assessee. In other words deductions allowable under Sections 28 to 43C are deemed to have been granted to assessee.

b)Perusal of provisions of Section 43B shows that said provision is a restriction on allowance of particular expenditure, inter-alia, statutory liability, as it allows deduction of such liability on actual payment basis, i.e., expenditure shall not be allowed to be deducted unless same has been paid before the due date of filing the return.

c)Section 44AF starts with the words “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec. 28 to 43C”, whereas section 43B starts with the words “notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act”.

d)The non-obstante clause in Sec. 43B has a far wider amplitude because it uses the words “notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act”. Therefore, even assuming that the deduction is permissible or the deduction is deemed to have been allowed under any other provisions of this Act, still the control placed by the provisions of Sec. 43B in respect of the statutory liabilities still holds precedence over such allowance.

e)Hence, disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of Sec. 43B in respect of the statutory liabilities, even though the assessee offered his income to tax on presumptive basis.

Editor’s Note:

In the instant case, assessee has offered his income to tax on presumptive basis under Section 44AF. Provisions of Section 44AF are not applicable from assessment year beginning on or after the April 1, 2011. Thus, it can be inferred that the principal laid down by the ITAT would squarely apply when taxpayer has opted for presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD or Section 44AE.

Addition of 'speed post' as valid mode of service is clarificatory and retrospective in nature, rules Orissa High Court

Addition of term "speed post" in section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Finance Act, 2013 is: (a) clarificatory, (b) procedural for purpose of communication of decisions, etc.; (c) curative.

a)An adjudication order dated 12-7-2011 was served on assessee by speed post.

b)Assessee argued that service through 'speed post' was not a valid mode of service before amendment by the Finance Act, 2013 by saying that when statute had provided for service of orders by "registered post" on the petitioner, sending the order by "speed post" was not in strict compliance with the law and, hence, such notice served was in a manner not prescribed by law. Therefore, the same could not be held to be adequate service on the petitioner.

High Court held in favour of revenue as under:

1)In view of Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, read with Rule 66-B of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, any postal article registered at post office and a receipt issued in respect of such article is to be treated as "registered post". Both in the case of "registered post" as well as "speed post", the articles when delivered to the post offices, receipts thereof are required to be issued, and consequently, both "speed post" and "registered post" satisfy the requirement of said Section 28.The only difference between registered post and speed post if at all is the charges payable are normally higher for "speed post" as the name suggests the delivery of such articles at an early date.

2)In the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24, affirmed the judgment of Apex Court earlier in the case of R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 2 SCC 630 to the following effect:

"Declaratory enactment declares and clarifies the real intention of the legislature in connection with an earlier existing transaction or enactment, it does not create new rights or obligations. If a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. . . . A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the Constitution came into force the amending Act also will be part of the existing law. If a new Act is to explain an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act."

3)Following the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court further held that addition of term "speed post" in section 37C vide amendment by the Finance Act, 2013 is : (a) merely clarificatory, (b) procedural for purpose of communication of decisions, etc.; (c) curative, as various High Courts had already held that service through 'speed post' was a valid mode; hence, same was retrospective in its operation - Jay Balaji Jyoti Steels Ltd. v. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (2015) 54 taxmann.com 176 (Orissa).

Expenses incurred on abandoned projects are allowable under sec. 37(1)

Where assessee had incurred a liability under a contract, which was terminated and, therefore, no amount under contract or in pursuance of a claim was receivable, assessee was entitled to claim said amount as business expenditure.

Facts:

a)The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board ('MPEB') awarded a contract to assessee-company for revival of a Thermal Power Station and paid certain amount as an advance.

b)The assessee gave a bank guarantee for such amount. The MPEB arbitrarily terminated the contract and invoked the bank guarantee. The assessee debited the amount, being the cost of abandoned project, in the profit and loss account.

c)The assessing authority was of the view that the assessee had been following mercantile method of accounting, thus, the expenditure on a particular project could not be allowed as an expenditure, unless there was a corresponding credit in the form of contract receipt or work-in-progress.

d)The CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal confirmed said disallowance. The aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal.

The High Court held in favour of assessee as under:

1)If the assessee incurred a liability when the contract was terminated and when no amounts under the contract or in pursuance of a claim were receivable, assessee was entitled to claim the said amount as expenditure for implementing the contract as a set off under section 37(1), read with section 28.

2)Though the assessee had incurred expenditure during the year in which he had not received any amount, yet when he would receive the money in pursuance of the award, the said amount would be chargeable to tax whether the business would be in existence or not in that year. Therefore, the interest of the revenue was fully protected.

3)Thus, assessee was entitled to claim the cost of abandoned project as business expenditure under Section 37(1). - ASIA POWER PROJECTS (P.) LTD. V. DY. CIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 428 (Karnataka)