Availing of ITC restricted to 10% in case of GST details mismatch

by | posted in: Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
Businesses take advantage of facilities provided under existing system to generate fake invoices that cause loss to the Government

Tax authority given the right to restrict the use of balance in electronic credit ledger

In an effort to curb the menace of fake invoices and tax evasion, the Finance Ministry has notified a new norm of limiting the input tax credit to 10 per cent in case of GST details mismatch.

Experts feel that this will force businesses to restrict themselves to matched details and ignore the mismatched ones and thus incur losses, which could go into crores for big companies, due to complexities involved.

The change in the norm, the second in three months, has been initiated following a decision by the GST Council. Earlier, in October, the government limited ITC in case of details not uploaded by suppliers to 20 per cent which has now been halved. According to a new notification to be effective from January 1, ITC 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, shall not exceed 10 per cent of the eligible credit available in respect of invoices or debit notes the details of which have been uploaded by the suppliers.

Two return forms

Businesses take advantage of facilities provided under existing system to generate fake invoices that cause loss to the Government. The existing system prescribes assessees to file two return forms — GSTR 1 (outward sales with tax liability) and GSTR 3B (summary returns with final tax payment). Since both are not auto linked, this could result in showing higher liability, claiming higher input tax credit and paying less tax in cash.

In other words, irrespective of the credit being visible in GSTR 2A (auto generated return for purchases), the service recipient used to claim credit without any restriction subject to having the invoice copy and satisfying other conditions laid down under the law. There is feeling that one of the reasons for availing higher input tax credit on the basis of fake invoices was the mismatch between the two — GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B.

This was affecting the government’s revenue. This has forced it to limit the ITC in case of details not matched and encourages the companies to monitor whether the suppliers are uploading their returns on a regular basis. However, experts feel that such a mechanism will lead to compliance cost for companies. Also, the companies might not prefer to go behind suppliers to see whether they have filed returns or not. Hence, they would focus only on matched details and incur loss on account of others.

Electronic Credit Ledger

The government has introduced additional conditions for use of amount available in Electronic Credit Ledger. It has given the right to the tax authority to restrict the use of balance in electronic credit ledger by recording the reasons to believe in writing. The key reasons for restricting credit are: invoice issued by registered person not in existence and recipient is not in procession of goods/services /invoice on which credit is claimed. Post restriction, the tax authority, upon being satisfied that conditions for disallowing debit of electronic credit ledger as above, no longer exist, can allow such credit in the electronic credit ledger.

Controlling tax evasion

According to Harpreet Singh, Partner at KPMG, one hopes that automatic blocking of credit is resorted to only where fraudulent intention is proved beyond doubt and the same is not used on a regular basis, as casual resort to the said provision may lead to harsh consequences for many innocent defaulters.

Rajat Mohan, Senior Partner with AMRG, said GST frauds are on the rise and so is the fiscal deficit which is forcing the government to introduce new methods to control tax evasion and take punitive action against the accused.

Source: Business Line

Government mulls ceiling for audit firms amid crack down on lapses

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Company Incorporations, e-filing of MCA Returns, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs | 0
Governance lapses, negligence has loaded the banks with one of the world’s worst piles of bad debt.
A government-appointed panel on regulating auditors and the networks had suggested that the fee from non-audit services should not be more than 50% of the audit fee.

India is considering tougher rules for audit firms, including a cap on the number of listed companies they can examine, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, as the government seeks to tighten oversight after a recent spate of governance lapses.

In India, 70% of the about 1,800 companies that trade on the National Stock Exchange are audited by firms affiliated to EY, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG and PWC, according to Delhi-based Prime Database. Current rules stipulate that individual auditors can examine accounts of up to 20 companies, though there is no limit on number of audits for the company.

The Big Four in India operate through a network of local chartered accountants firms. One way for them is to partner as a member of a local firm. They can also allow their brand name to be used by sub-licensee of a member local firm. The ministry hasn’t decided if the cap on audits will be at the group level or on each member firm, the person said.

The government is planning to expand the list of services which can’t be offered by statutory auditors under the Companies Act. Currently, statutory auditors can’t offer nine services, directly or indirectly, including internal audit, investment banking, and actuarial services. There is no restriction on providing services such as taxation or restructuring and valuation.

One option is to tweak the present cap on fees that can be generated through offering non-audit services, the person said. This cap, fixed in 2002, says fees from non-audit work can’t be more than the aggregate statutory audit fees. A spokeswoman for the corporate affairs ministry declined to comment.

A government-appointed panel on regulating auditors and the networks had suggested that the fee from non-audit services should not be more than 50% of the audit fee.

Deloitte Ban
Governance lapses and negligence has loaded the nation’s banks with one of the world’s worst piles of bad debt. In some cases, allegations of fund diversion have surfaced, while the founders of some shadow banks have faced accusations of accepting kickbacks in exchange for loans.

The corporate affairs ministry earlier this month sought a ban on Deloitte Haskins & Sells and BSR & Co. for their role as auditors to IL&FS Financial Services, a part of the IL&FS Group that was seized by the government last year after a string of debt defaults.

Deloitte in an emailed statement said it’s fully compliant with Indian audit standards, while BSR said it would defend its position in accordance with the law.

Meanwhile, the banking regulator forbid EY affiliate S. R. Batliboi & Co. from taking on bank audits for a year and, in 2018, the markets watchdog banned the local unit of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for two years in relations to work from a decade earlier.

Source: Economic Times

GST interim returns: Over 30 lakh paid tax in August, matching July trend

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
While the number of businesses registered for the goods and services tax (GST) has crossed 90 lakh, much higher than tax base in the previous regime, filing of even the interim (summarised) returns and tax payments are not keeping pace.

While the number of businesses registered for the goods and services tax (GST) has crossed 90 lakh, much higher than tax base in the previous regime, filing of even the interim (summarised) returns and tax payments are not keeping pace. Just over 30 lakh taxpayers have filed the interim return (GSTR-3B) for August, before the stipulated September 20 deadline, GST Network (GSTN) chairman Ajay Bhushan Pandey told FE. The glitches plaguing GSTN, the inability of a sizeable section of SMEs to comply and a general lackadaisical tendency among taxpayers are said to be reasons for the slack in the return-filing process. But the filing pace for August was not much slower than it for July GST — by August 20, the initial deadline for GST payment for July, only 32 lakh taxpayers filed the interim return and made tax payments; the figure rose to 39 lakh by August 29, the extended deadline without penal interest, and then to 49 lakh till date.

While about Rs 92,300 crore was collected as GST for July till August 20, a similar amount has been paid by the taxpayers till Wednesday for August GST, sources said. To make things easier for the business, the GST Council had extended the last dates for filing detailed returns — GSTR1, GSTR2 and GSTR3 — but businesses need to pay the tax with GSTR-3B filing. However, the slow pace at which even the interim returns are being filed is vexing the government — a TV channel reported that finance minister Arun Jaitley has asked the Central Board of Excise and Customs to submit daily reports of GST filings. With the GSTR1 for outward supplies for the month of July can now be filed until October 10 and GSTR2 for inward supplies by October 31, the government is now putting in place an interim arrangement for refund of taxes to exporters, as waiting for these funds for longer periods could hit the liquidity of thousands of exporters. Pandey said that some assessees were still filing return for July along with August. For July, there were nearly 60 lakh eligible taxpayers and this number must have moved up for August and new registrants are being added.

Pandey said the GSTN portal could handle the sudden rush in filings in the last two to three days, which displayed its robustness. He said GSTN accepted up to 85,000 returns per hour on Wednesday, as nearly 14 lakh assessees filed the interim summarised return on that day. While the government is keeping its fingers crossed on the GST revenue, analysts expect it to cut rates — at least for the goods that fall under 28% slab — given the robustness of collections. The government is closely examining the huge transitional credit claims of Rs 65,000 crore by the industry — these can be availed of by the industry against its supplies in the next six months. Sanjay Garg, partner, indirect tax, KPMG in India, said: “Expansion in the tax base at the outset due to the applicability of GST on transactions not taxed before would likely shrink after the industry avails the credit generated by payment of tax on such newly-taxable transactions. The GST collections might decline. It is apparent that fingers would remain crossed at least for next two quarters of (FY18).” Earlier this month, the GST Council had constituted a group of ministers (GoM) under Bihar deputy chief minister Sushil Modi, to resolve issues faced by businesses while filing returns and paying taxes on GSTN portal. The GoM met earlier this week, and assured taxpayers that most technical glitches in GSTN would be resolved by October-end.

Source: Financial Express

Historic GST launched at midnight, from today India is finally one nation, one tax

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
India embraced the goods and services tax (GST) on the intervening night of Friday-Saturday, in a move that marked the culmination of the country’s long and chequered journey toward a uniform, all-encompassing, pan-India indirect tax system.

India embraced the goods and services tax (GST) on the intervening night of Friday-Saturday, in a move that marked the culmination of the country’s long and chequered journey toward a uniform, all-encompassing, pan-India indirect tax system. The GST would militate against and cut out the cascade of multiple taxes which jack up product prices. The official launch of the tax preceded a grand ceremony in the central hall of Parliament attended by the president and prime minister, along with members of both Houses and the GST Council. Some Opposition parties including the Congress, Trinamool Congress and Left did not attend the ceremony, citing protests against GST by small and medium-scale entrepreneurs, traders, weavers and informal-sector workers.

Although the design of the new destination-based tax on consumption with its multiple rates, sub-optimal coverage and complicated rules is unmistakably inferior to an “ideal GST”, even independent tax experts welcomed the launch, calling it a transformational move. However, trenchant critics would say the imperfect GST has merely enabled cross-utilisation of credit between the central and state VAT chains and is, therefore, akin to the 2004 Cenvat rules that allowed such cross-credit facility between central excise and service tax.

But these critics might have taken too dim a view; GST is a momentous event for thee reasons: One, it puts in place a federal, rules-bound indirect tax system that would curtail the scope of rate differentials for the same products among states (one-product-one-tax) ; two, it could potentially slash India’s high logistics costs by speeding up movement of goods across state borders and even within states and thereby make the country’s goods and services more competitive; and three, thanks to the availability of seamless input tax credits, GST would discourage tax evasion and expand the revenue base for the government without hurting the businesses or the consumers. The GST will subsume excise duty and state VAT (along with the corresponding taxes on imports), service tax, octroi, entry tax, purchase tax, central sales tax, and entertainment tax, but not the basic Customs duty which is the tariff on imports.

Earlier, the GST Council, which met for an hour, decided to reduce the tax rate on fertilisers from 12% proposed earlier to 5%, a move that would nullify the chances of prices of these key farm inputs rising under GST. The gap between the current tax incidence on fertilisers and the 12% rate had created a practical difficulty in recovering the differential from fertiliser stocks lying with manufacturers and dealers as MRPs are printed on them. Also, the ministry of finance tweeted, the rate for “exclusive parts of tractors” have been reduced to 18% from 28%.

NITI Aayog member Bibek Debroy on Friday rebutted the claim that GST would produce 1.5% increase in GDP. “For an imperfect GST, I have no idea what is the figure. This particular figure (1.5%) was for ideal GST,” he said. Chief economic adviser Arvind Subramanian had told FE earlier that even though “we have not got as much base expansion and as much reduction in complexities as we would have liked”, there was still a huge reduction in complexities. “I expect a 10% expansion in the (tax) base due to just invoice-matching,” he had said.

While the government has iterated that the GST would not stoke inflation — GST will be zero on 50% of consumer price index basket and 5% on another 10% — former finance minister P Chidambaram said that the new tax could be inflationary in the short run. However, Subramanian said that with with actual tax incidence to be substantially lower under GST due to input tax credit, a downward bias on prices was to be expected. Firms disposing of stocks could also have a dampening effect on prices in the short run, he added.

Even as the industry is keeping its fingers crossed, the government has assured them that the anti-profiteering provision built into the relevant GST laws to prevent companies from not passing on the tax benefit under GST to consumers would be sparingly used. “I sincerely hope that we don’t have to really use the anti-profiteering mechanism,” Jaitley had said on Thursday. Chidambaram, however, sharply criticised the mechanism, saying it was wrong to assume that “the element of taxes decide at what price I sell my goods”. Since tax is only one of the things that make up costs, he said, if tax falls, it does not mean there should be a corresponding reduction in prices.

Even though 68 lakh businesses have already been issued provisional IDs by GSTN, the IT backbone for the new system, and the deadline for first filing of returns have been postponed to August 20 — invoice-wise returns can be filed as late as the first week of September — concern over the transition pains remained. Arun Kumar, chairman and CEO at KPMG in India, said: “The focus should now be on making the transition seamless and effective. Making compliance cost-effective, particularly for smaller businesses, is extremely important. The potential benefits of this landmark-reform will become real when the benefits of rationalised taxation accrue to consumers and business benefits from cost-efficiencies in logistics and streamlined processes.”

According to Shyamal Mukherjee, chairman, PwC India, “We are confident (that GST) will boost investors’ confidence in India, incentivise manufacturing and fuel the growth of the economy.” When asked about the quantum of extra growth due to GST by a TV channel earlier in the day, the chief economic adviser, however, merely said GST’s effect on the economy would be “positive”. “The medium-term impact of GST on macroeconomic indicators is expected to be extremely positive. Inflation will be reduced as cascading of taxes will be eliminated,” CII director general Chandrajit Banerjee said, adding that exports would emerge as more competitive in global markets, while FDI was likely to be encouraged.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/historic-gst-launched-at-midnight-from-today-india-is-finally-one-nation-one-tax/744112/

CBDT tightens screws on shell companies

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies, India & International - Corporate updates | 0

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on Tuesday issued the much-awaited “guiding principles” for determination of a Place of Effective Management (PoEM) of a company, scotching speculation that the Budget may see its removal from the statute book.

Put simply, PoEM means a place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the business of an entity as a whole are, in substance, made.

The CBDT guidelines come barely two months before the end of fiscal year 2016-17, in which PoEM had become legislatively effective, giving little time for Indian multinationals to prepare for the new regime.

The main objective of introducing PoEM was to ensure that companies incorporated outside India but controlled from India do not escape taxation here. It also brings in the concept of residency of corporates with internationally accepted principles, say tax experts.

Girish Vanvari, National Head of Tax, KPMG in India, said that the guidelines stress on substance over form. “They attempt to differentiate between shareholder control, management control and routine decisions. Whilst the guidelines are comprehensive, they are subjective on substance and can be challenged for interpretation in many places,” he said.

Narrower application

Rohinton Sidhwa, Partner, Deloitte, Haskins & Sells LLP, said that what has been released has a narrower application than what was originally proposed. They are also supplemented with examples on isolated facts that will not lead to a PoEM as also illustrative interpretations. The legislative amendment was effective from April 1, 2016, whereas the guidelines are being released only today, Sidhwa pointed out.

Hitesh Sawhney, Partner — Direct Tax, PwC, said thatCBDT has clarified that the intent of PoEM provisions is to target shell companies/companies that are created to retain income outside India and not Indian MNCs engaged in business overseas.

Stress on substance

Aseem Chawla, Managing Partner, ASC Legal, a law firm, said that the finalised guidance relies on substance over form and that routine operational decisions shall not be relevant for PoEM determination.

“Also a panel of three commissioners is to affirm the proposed decision of the assessing officer on the PoEM of a foreign company. Hopefully, this will not impinge upon the right to appeal by the foreign company before a judicial forum,” he added.

Now that the final guidelines are out, will the government go ahead with a Controlled Finance Corporation (CFC) structure or not? Says Daksha Baxi, Executive Director, Khaitan & Co: “My personal view is that CFC is a better anti-avoidance provision, less prone to subjectivity and therefore less litigative.” It seems that at least for the current year, where PoEM is applicable, the government wants to ensure that the provision can be properly implemented, she said.

Rahul K Mitra, Head of Transfer Pricing & BEPS, KPMG in India, said: “With guidelines for PoEM out, it looks like they may not be introducing CFC.”

Jiger Saiya, Partner – Direct Tax, BDO India, echoed his thoughts, saying the “government seems inclined towards implementing the PoEM framework rather than introducing an alternative measure.”

Source: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/cbdt-tightens-screws-on-shell-companies/article9499358.ece

New Year GIFT for MNC law and audit firms

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, India & International - Corporate updates | 0

Foreign law and accountancy firms now have a chance to operate in India on their own. On January 3, the ministry of commerce and industry amended a rule allowing such foreign firms to set up offices and advise clients from SEZs. The move will initially benefit Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT).

Current regulations so far do not permit multinational law firms to operate in the country. Indian law and accountancy firms were also not allowed to operate from any of the SEZs. That rule has now been amended which would benefit financial centres.

The notification, dated January 6 but issued on January 3, by the department of commerce allows foreign law and accountancy firms to be established in SEZs. The earlier version of the rule, prior to the amendment, had excluded legal services and accounting.

“This will be the big enabler for the legal and accounting firms to expand their services in multi-services SEZ with IFSC (International Finance Service Centre) and thereby export their services to various global players,” said Nitin Potdar, partner, J Sagar, a law firm. As of now, only GIFT is a multi-services SEZ with an IFSC in India.

“Until now, no foreign law firm could operate in India and not even Indian firms were allowed to provide their services in any of the SEZs. The new amendment allows not only Indian law or accountancy firms to set up a base in GIFT, but even multinationals can directly advise upon international disputes or arbitration by setting up a base there,” Dipesh Shah, head, IFSC at GIFT, told ET.

While many foreign professional services firms such as Deloitte, PwC, KPMG and EY are present in India, they cannot directly operate as auditors and require an Indian affiliate. This amendment does away with that requirement at least in the case of GIFT.

Many Indian law firms have been opposing the entry of multinational law firms in India for some time. Going ahead, many multinationals could set up base in India but they will only be able to advise on cross-border transactions or disputes. Some are also looking to quickly take advantage of this and set up base in GIFT.

“Allowing law firms in GIFT for arbitration or other work would work as a catalyst for economic activities in the country. We ourselves are in discussions to set up an office in GIFT,” said Nishith Desai, founder of law firm Nishith Desai Associates.

But the amendment does not permit foreign law firms to advise Indian clients on local businesses and regulations. Their advice and help would be strictly restricted to arbitrations fought in GIFT, international mergers and acquisitions, international taxation or any other advice for operations outside India.

Industry experts say some foreign law firms may consider partnerships with Indian firms under the arrangement. There could also be stiff competition as both Indian and foreign firms would compete for the same clients in GIFT.

“Many law firms may set up their base in GIFT but that would take some time. And I am a firm believer that it would only lead to betterment of all law firms,” said Desai.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/56529046.cms

Rotation of auditors and its side effects

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, India & International - Corporate updates | 0

The Companies Act, 2013, has introduced important audit reforms. One of the important reforms is rotation of the auditor.

Important provisions under this reform

  • All listed companies; unlisted public limited companies having paid-up share capital of Rs 10 crore or more; all private limited companies having paid-up share capital of Rs 20 crore or more, and all companies having public borrowings from financial institutions, banks or public deposit of Rs 50 crore or more are required to rotate their auditor.
  • An individual cannot continue as an auditor for more than one term of five years and an audit firm cannot continue as an auditor for more than two terms of five years
  • The cooling off period is five years.
  • The provision must be complied by April 1, 2017.

Benefits of this reform

  • This is expected to improve audit quality, resulting in improved financial reporting.
  • Would give local auditors more leverage, if implemented properly along with some other measures.

Local auditors v/s the Big Four

  • Local firms dominate the Indian audit market. However, the presence of the Big Four audit firms (Deloitte, PWC, E&Y and KPMG) cannot be ignored.
  • The Big Four are the largest professional service network in the world. They provide audit, assurance, tax, consulting, advisory, actuarial, corporate finance and advisory services. In India, they cannot provide audit services directly.
    • It is alleged that they flout rules while providing audit and assurance services. Many foreign investors put a condition that the auditor of their choice should be appointed. This helps the Big Four audit firms to grow in India.
    • There is an apprehension that many companies that get their accounts audited by local firms will appoint one of the Big Four or another large international professional service network as auditors.
    • Hence, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had notified the constitution of a three-member expert group to look into the complaint that the Big Four are circumventing rules and to find ways to help local firms.

Should the government intervene?

  • Local auditors are mostly present in tier 2 and tier 3 cities and audit 62 % of the companies listed on BSE 500.
  • They provide a variety of services to small companies. They lack aspiration to become big.
  • Therefore, it is debatable whether there is a case for government’s intervention to protect local audit firms

Way ahead and Conclusion

Chartered accountants are prohibited from soliciting professional work through advertisement or otherwise. But they can respond to tenders.

  • The practice of issuing a tender for the appointment of internal auditors is quite common among public enterprises. Such a practice is not common among private-sector companies.
  • Tendering is the right method to search for the right audit firm. This increases choice and reduces auditing cost through competition.
  • Companies should not limit their choice to the Big Four and other international firms or a few large local audit firms.
  • There are local firms that have capabilities to audit large and complex transactions. Search through tendering process would help to identify such firms.

It will be interesting to see how the new rules regarding rotation of auditors will actually impact the auditing profession.

 

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/rotation-of-auditors-and-its-side-effects-116100900736_1.html