Government leaves no stone unturned – New ITR disclosures

CBDT has notified new Income Tax Return (ITR) forms for the Assessment Year 2020-21. New additional columns and schedules have been introduced by CBDT in the recently notified ITR Forms. These new data requirements are designed to capture new essential tax information. Some of these changes are a direct result of the Income tax act amendments made through the Finance Act. A bird eye view of the new disclosures asked in the recently notified ITR forms to include

1. ITR 1 or ITR 4 cannot be filed in case of house ownership
2. Passport number held to be disclosed in ITR 1-Sahaj and ITR 4-Sugam
3. Cash deposit in a bank to be disclosed in ITR-4 Sugam, if cash deposit exceeds INR 1 crore during the Financial Year.
4. Actual amount spent on foreign travel exceeding INR 2 lakhs now requires to be disclosed.
5. Electricity bills aggregating INR 1 lakh or more during the FY now require disclosure.
6. Disclosure required for details of investment qualifying for deduction under chapter VIA with bifurcation of details of investment made during the period from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020.

Important Statutory developments

1. TDS [for non-salaried specified payments]/TCS rates (specified) slashed by 25% wef 14.5.20 up to 31.3.21.
2. ITR forms for AY 2020-21 notified; new ‘Schedule DI’ to avail benefit of investment made till 30-6-20.
3. CBDT has issued Income-tax refunds worth Rs. 26,242 crore to 16,84,298 assessees since 1st April, 20 to 21st May, 20.
4. CBDT has clarified that Sec. 269SU shall not be applicable in case of person having only B2B transactions and at least 95% of business receipts in any mode other than cash. Also, ‘Debit card powered by RuPay’ and ‘UPI’ notified as prescribed mode of payments for section 269SU.
5. New procedure for registration/approval u/s 10(23C), 12AA, 35 & 80G deferred to 31-10-2020 by CBDT
6. In order to determine residential status of an Individual under section 6 of the Act, the period of detention (22.03.20-31.3.20) in India on account of COVID-19 and quarantine days (in March 20) not to be accounted. 
7. Rules and Forms for invoking Mutual Agreement Procedure revised
8. Facility for instant allotment of PAN through Aadhaar has been launched
9. New Form 26AS to now include information received under tax/information exchange treaties

Important Judicial Precedents

1. The Delhi ITAT in the case of Glebe Trading Pvt. Ltd vs ITO held that transfer of shares under family arrangement can neither be termed as gift/benefit/perquisite nor as a sham. In case of a company that received shares under family arrangement, beneficiary cannot be taxed u/s 2(24)(iv).
2. The Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Saroja Vs ITO that the only upon application of factors i.e.” prima facie case”,” ”financial stringency” and “the balance of convenience”, AO can reject stay of demand application. ‘Financial stringency’ would include within its ambit the question of ‘irreparable injury’.
3. The Bombay High court in the case of Crystal Construction Company held that Collector of Stamps is not justified to ignore the sale value sanctioned by Charity commissioner of the trust property.
4. Delhi ITAT in the case of Satyam Builders v ITO held that the same turnover cannot be taxed in the hands of the sole proprietorship as well as partnership of the assessee as it would amount to double taxation.
5. ITAT Chd held that section 269SS/ST and penalty u/s 271D/E cannot be levied on cash received/repaid against sale of crops as it was not a loan or a deposit.
6. Delhi ITAT in the case of ADIT v Persys Punj Lloyd JV held that in case control and management rests with individual consortium members with respect to their part of work (i.e. gross receipts, expenses and work responsibility) under the consortium, then, the income would be taxable in the hands of the individuals and not as AOP.
7. Delhi ITAT in the case of DCIT v Jagatjit Industries Ltd held that maintenance service charges to be taxed as other income and cannot be taxed as house property income because it is received along with rental income.
8. Mum ITAT in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd v DCIT held that no penalty u/s 271AAB can be levied on an income admitted during search as pre-requisite for levy of penalty is falsity of expense and not admission of income.
9. Mum ITAT in the case of Minal Industries Ltd v DCIT held that section 14A would be applicable on share of profits in the hands of the partners, and dismissed the taxpayer’s contention that profits are subject to tax in the hands of the partnership firm.