1% of expected invoices uploaded to GSTN

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
There are all indications of a last-minute scramble near Sept 5 deadline and a clamour for extension

About 1% of the expected goods and services tax invoices had been uploaded on the GST Network more than a month after the facility opened, suggesting a last-minute scramble near the September 5 deadline and a clamour for an extension.

 

Only 4.4 million invoices have been uploaded as part of the GSTR 1 return filing, a facility that became operational on July 25.

 

“At least 440 million invoices should have been uploaded. The facility is open for 38 days, but only 4.4 million invoices have been uploaded. In last-minute filing, they will commit errors and the system will not accept the return,” said a GSTN official. Taxpayers would then seek an extension, he added.

 

“We will consider extending the deadline if people face genuine difficulties in filing GSTR 1,” said another official.

 

The last date to file provisional return GSTR 3B was extended from August 20 to August 25 after taxpayers faced difficulties in filing.

 

So far, 39.7 million returns have been filed by the 5.95 million entities registered for the GST in July, excluding those under the composition scheme. Based on this, 20-25% of those registered have not filed tax returns.

 

Experts pointed out taxpayers were grappling with GSTR 3B, the self-declaration form, for the first two months. This did not give them enough time to upload invoices, they added.

 

“People were busy filing GSTR 3B. They will start uploading invoices now,” said MS Mani of Deloitte.

 

Besides, the GSTN does not allow rectification or modification in returns submitted but not filed, making it a better option to wait. “In some cases, punching errors have increased the tax liability of assessees by crores of rupees, resulting in significantly high cash flows because the returns cannot be submitted without paying tax,” said Pratik Jain of PwC India.

 

He added the deadline for GSTR 2 of July was September 10, 2017, however, the offline utility was not yet available on the portal. In addition, there is an issue with the GSTN recognising existing SEZ units that migrated to the GST.

 

Companies were also grappling with filing input tax credit for pre-GST stocks with the offline utility tool unavailable. The government is expected to allow rectification of returns filed to claim credit.

 

With the offline utility for GST TRAN 1 form not available, companies faced difficulty in keying in the details. The lack of a provision for rectification of transitional credit claims may mean companies losing credit.

 

“In many cases, taxpayers had paid tax in cash. Till date, the credits of such cash payments are not reflected in the electronic cash ledger and the payments are shown as pending for banks’ confirmation,” Jain said.

GST relief

 

The government on the recommendation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council on Friday waived the late fees for the GSTR 3B returns for July, filed after the due date. The announcement comes amid concerns raised over difficulties faced by the industry in filing returns.

 

The Council waived the late fees of Rs 200 (Rs100  each for State GST and central GST) for returns filed after August 25, the deadline.

 

“The Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby waives the late fee payable under section 47 of the said Act, for all registered persons who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2017 by the due date,” said the notification.

 

Source: Business Standard

Companies can avail input tax credit for most business expenses

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
This will bring down the incidence of taxation on business, which can be shared with consumers through lower prices.

Buying cleaning liquids for ‘Swachh Bharat’ as part of corporate social responsibility or taking a business associate out for lunch, companies will be able to set off all taxes paid on their consumption of goods and services when they clear their own GST liability.

The upcoming indirect tax reform seeks to revamp the entire credit process, allowing credit for any tax paid towards the furtherance of business barring a few items.

“Uninterrupted and seamless chain of input tax credit is one of the key features of GST, which will prevent cascading of taxes” .

This will bring down the incidence of taxation on business, which can be shared with consumers through lower prices.

Goods and services tax (GST), India’s most ambitious indirect tax reform, is set to roll out from July 1.

Tax charged by central and state governments would also be part of the same tax regime with credit available for tax paid at every stage for set off against GST liability.

“Any registered person can avail credit of tax paid on the inward supply of goods or services or both which is used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business,” the provision reads.

Under the current tax regime, if a retailer purchases a refrigerator to store perishable goods, he is not able to claim credit for tax paid on it. But under GST, he will be able to claim credit for tax paid on new refrigerator when he files his own taxes.

Similarly, credit could be claimed on tax paid on taking business associates out for lunch, or on goods or service used for corporate social responsibility. There are some exceptions, such as contribution towards employee provident fund and car lease, which are not covered under input tax credit.

“Under GST, input credit is available on all business expense except few that are specifically denied,  such as employee benefits and construction,” said Pratik Jain, leader, indirect tax, at PwC.

“This is much more liberal than the current laws and would significantly increase the credit pool for the businesses,” he said.

“One would hope that authorities will interpret the law also liberally as this would need in change in mindset both for the industry as well as the government,” Jain said.

There is a pass through available for tax paid on a good or service consumed to ensure that tax is not levied on tax.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/59327384.cms

Central Board of Direct Taxes cuts profit margin for safe harbour rules

by | posted in: 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
Safe harbour rules are defined as circumstances under which the income-tax authorities accept the transfer pricing declared by the assessee.

Given the lukewarm response to the safe harbour mechanism for transfer pricing, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on Thursday cut the operating profit margin for information technology-enabled services, knowledge process outsourcing services (KPOs) and research and development (R&D) related to software and generic pharmaceutical drugs companies.

The new rules will apply to transactions of up to Rs 200 crore. Safe harbour rules, a dispute-avoidance mechanism, are defined as circumstances under which the income-tax authorities accept the transfer pricing declared by the assessee. The rule provides the minimum operating profit margin in relation to operating expenses that a taxpayer is expected to earn for certain categories of international transactions. The same is acceptable to the income tax authorities as arm’s length price (ALP). The rules are applicable for transactions between group companies based in different countries so that a fair price or ALP is arrived at by the tax authorities. The rules have come into effect from April 1 this year and will continue to remain in force for two successive years up to assessment year 2019-2020, the board said in a statement

For software development services, safe harbour margins have been reduced to a peak rate of 18% from 22% in the previous regime. Similarly, for KPOs, a graded structure of three different rates of 24%, 21% and 18% has been provided, based on employee cost to operating cost ratio, replacing the single rate of 25% earlier. For the third category of R&D services, the margins have been reduced to 24% from 30% and 29%, respectively, earlier. “The lukewarm response to the earlier safe habour scheme was on account of the high rates. Thus, taxpayers opted for unilateral APA process instead. The revised scheme has been designed to attract small to medium business, especially in the IT/ITeS segment, so as to give them a viable alternative to APA regime, which is both time consuming and expensive. The rates for IT/ITeS segment are more or less in line with the APAs being settled and hence the safe harbour scheme, this time, should get a positive response,” Arun Chhabra, director, Grant Thornton Advisory, said.

Assessees eligible under the present safe harbour regime up to AY 2017-18 shall also have the right to choose the safe harbour option most beneficial to them, the board said. It added that a new category of transactions being “Receipt of Low Value-Adding Intra-Group Services” has been introduced. “The revised safe harbour rules are a welcome step towards making safe harbour a viable alternate dispute resolution mechanism. Key highlights are: Reduction of margins for service units, introduction of safe harbour rate for low-valued services (in line with BEPS recommendation) and well-thought scheme for knowledge process outsourcing companies. Overall, it’s a welcome step towards strengthening the safe harbour option for small and mid size companies,” Kunj Vaidya, leader transfer pricing, Price Waterhouse & Co, said.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/central-board-of-direct-taxes-cuts-profit-margin-for-safe-harbour-rules/708984/

As Narendra Modi government gets set to crack GST whip on tax evaders, India Inc voices concern

by | posted in: Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
According to Section 132 of the Central GST Bill cleared by the Lok Sabha recently, the taxman can also proceed against anyone for wrongly availing input tax credits.

Many functionaries from corporate India and tax experts have voiced concerns over the government’s plan to give unprecedented teeth to the country’s indirect tax administrators by making tax evasion above `5 crore a “cognizable and non-bailable offence” in the upcoming Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. According to Section 132 of the Central GST Bill cleared by the Lok Sabha recently, the taxman can also proceed against anyone for wrongly availing input tax credits or refunds above the same threshold, treating it as a cognizable and non-bailable offence, where the police have the authority to arrest the person concerned without warrant.

While non-remittance of tax deducted at source could lead to non-bailable warrant under the Income-Tax Act, this has been sparingly used – one recent instance was that of the Bengaluru High Court denying a request of the I-T department to issue a non-bailable warrant against the beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya.  The punitive provisions under indirect tax laws have, however, been less biting.

The service tax department had invited the Delhi high court’s ire last September for arresting a senior executive of travel portal MakeMyTrip for failing to deposit tax after collecting it from those who booked hotel room nights via the portal. Disturbed over the fact that the arrest took place without even issuing a show cause notice to the firm and giving it an opportunity to defend itself, the court awarded costs to the travel portal and asked the taxman to refund the service tax collected after the arrest. The tax department went in appeal against the court’s decision and the matter is now before the Supreme Court.

“It may be reasonable to make “collection of tax but non-payment to government’ a non-bailable offence, as there is very little room here for interpretation in such case. But availing tax credits through wrong invoices or obtaining higher-than-admissible refunds are subject to technical interpretations in the early days of GST and it would be extremely stringent to make these non-bailable offences,” Bipin Sapra, Indirect Tax partner at EY said. Echoing the view, Anita Rastogi, partner-indirect tax, PwC India said the country’s indirect laws have never had such tough provisions against tax evasion.

Section 132 of the CGST Bill also spells out the punishment for tax evasions above Rs.1 crore: if the amount evaded exceeds Rs. 5 crore, imprisonment up to five years is possible along with fine, Rs. 2-5 crore evasion could lead to imprisonment extending to three years and fine, Rs.1-2 crore evasion could invite up to 1-year jail term and fine.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/as-narendra-modi-government-gets-set-to-crack-gst-whip-on-tax-evaders-india-inc-voices-concern/613908/

GST Council: Tax exemption threshold fixed at Rs 20 lakh

by | posted in: Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0

The first session of the GST Council that concluded here on Friday made good progress in ironing out some of the contentious issues between the Centre and states: The exemption threshold for the goods and services tax (GST) has been fixed at Rs 20 lakh for all states except the northeastern ones and the three hill states of Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, in whose case this limit would be Rs 10 lakh; states will have the assessment powers for units with annual turnover up to Rs 1.5 crore while in the case of bigger businesses too, the one-taxpayer-one-authority principle will be retained and either the Centre or the state concerned will be accorded the assessing power based on risk profiling.

Importantly, the Centre agreed to the states’ demand for including the proceeds from sundry cesses levied by them in the definition of “revenue”, a step that could increase its compensation payouts. This would also mean that the states would cease to levy the cesses, the proceeds from which stood at close to Rs 40,000 crore in FY16.

The council decided to take 2015-16 as the base year to compute compensation to states for any future revenue loss, but left open the question of projecting the business-as-usual rate of increase in revenue, crucial for quantifying compensation. Finance minister Arun Jaitley said three options were under consideration for projecting the revenue growth rate: A mutually agreed-upon fixed rate; the average of the three best (high-growth) years in the past five years; and the average of median three of the last five years. States had earlier turned down the Centre’s proposal for taking the average of the last three years for projecting future revenue growth, saying these years haven’t been particularly good due to the economic slowdown.

Jaitley said the Centre will continue to assess the 11 lakh service tax assessees (even those below Rs 1.5 crore) but added that states will be given training to assess them and once they acquire competence, the future addition to this taxpayer base will be shared with them for the purpose of assessment.

Regardless of whether the Centre or the state has control on an assessee, the tax proceeds will be shared between the two — the central GST component will go to the Centre and the states will appropriate the state GST, which could be slightly higher than central GST. As far as integrated GST — to be levied on interstate transactions and imports — is concerned, the place of supply rules will decide who the appropriating authority will be; of course, the basic principle is that tax needs to be paid where the consumption takes place.

The council, Jaitley said, would meet again on September 30 to finalise the draft rules on the council’s functioning and the exemption thresholds and decide how the grandfathering of tax sops (like the area-based excise exemptions) will be carried out. The crucial question of the GST slab structure, the revenue-neutral rate (RNR) and actual GST rates would be discussed by the council between October 17 and 19. The Arvind Subramanian panel that had estimated a RNR of 15-15.5% had said if the standard rate is 17%, it could comprise central GST of 8% and state GST of 9%.

Tax experts welcomed the outcome of the first meeting of the council. Harishanker Subramaniam, national leader, indirect tax, EY India, said: “It is interesting is that for GST on services, the Centre will have administrative control irrespective of threshold at least in the initial years till states are trained to handle services. This may be a good news for industry as many were worried as to how states will handle complexity of services.”

According to Pratik P Jain, leader, indirect tax, PwC India, enhancing the annual turnover for exemption to Rs 20 lakh from Rs 10 lakh contemplated earlier would be administratively easier for the government as several small businesses would be out of the GST ambit. “Industry would also welcome the move to have a single assessing authority, instead of having a dual system of assessment and scrutiny, which was a major concern for businesses,” he said.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/threshold-for-gst-fixed-at-rs-20-lakh/389350/

Mallya default singes top auditing companies

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs | 0

Some of world’s top auditing firms, including Price Waterhouse, Grant Thornton, Deloitte LLP and Walker Chandiok & Co, are under scrutiny with a slew of regulators seeking answers on their valuation, auditing and due diligence of UB Group companies over the last few years.

Deloitte LLP conducted the financial and tax due diligence for Diageo of United Spirits Ltd (USL) which led to the $2.1 billion acquisition of the company, but could not detect the problems in annual accounts. These accounts, in turn, were prepared by PW, which was the auditor for USL between 2010 and 2011, and later by Walker & Chandiok & Co.

The accounts were disputed by Diageo in April 2015 after it found a Rs 2,100 crore hole and sought Vijay Mallya’s ouster from the USL board. Questions have also been raised by lenders on what basis Grant Thornton valued the Kingfisher brand at Rs 4,100 crore. This is now being probed by the Serious Fraud Investigation office (SFIO).

When contacted, a Grant Thornton spokesperson said the firm fully stood by its brand valuation report on Kingfisher. “We believe it was appropriate in the context of when it was done and the purpose for which it was done,” the spokesperson said.

PW declined comment but an external spokesperson said the firm had not received any communication from either the Securities and Exchange Board of India or the Enforcement Directorate. “Deloitte does not comment on client confidential matters,” its spokesperson said.

Diageo had invested in USL after the British company was given express representations that all of the receivables from Mallya entities were recoverable in full. The fund diversion worth Rs 2,100 crore from USL was later raised when KPMG, the new auditor appointed by Diageo, discovered discrepancies when it was finalising USL’s 2014 accounts. All the three years’ accounts will now have to be re-stated, according to listing norms.

In the same year, the new USL management called in PW UK for a forensic audit of the previous three years (which included auditing by its own India unit) and passed on the reports to the regulators including the Sebi, the ministry of corporate affairs and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

The ICAI, sources said, had asked both PW and Walker Chandiok to explain the discrepancy. An ED official said it was surprising that none of the auditors or valuers for Diageo raised flags over the accounts manipulation or the Rs 4,000 crore diversion by USL to the British Virgin Islands in 2007.

While the auditors of USL are in the dock for cooking accounts, another marquee auditing firm — Grant Thornton is under investigation by the SFIO for its Rs 4,100 crore brand valuation of Kingfisher Airlines. It was based on this brand valuation in 2011 that Mallya raised Rs 9,100 crore from government-owned banks by offering the brand as collateral. The lenders are now holding a dud Kingfisher brand, which is finding no takers.

Sources in the ICAI said it was a redux of the Satyam scam, when some of the world’s top auditors overvalued assets before the Maytas and Satyam merger, which led to the unravelling of the scam. In the Satyam case, the ICAI had debarred two auditors from Price Waterhouse who were found guilty of professional misconduct. S Gopalakrishnan and T Srinivas were struck off the ICAI’s rolls and fined Rs 5 lakh each. A Central Bureau of Investigation court later convicted them of fraud.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/mallya-default-singes-top-auditing-companies-116031900495_1.html