Taxmann Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top stories reported at?taxmann.com .
CBDT notifies ‘units of investment trust & EFTs of IFSC’ for Sec. 47(viiab) exemption
Section 47(viiab) of the Income-tax Act provides that any transfer of capital assets by a non-resident on a recognised stock exchange located in any IFSC is not treated as a transfer provided the consideration is paid or payable in foreign currency. The section lists the following capital asset for the purpose of exemption:
Section 47(viiab) also empowers the Central Government to notify securities eligible for the benefit. Exercising power, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide notification SO 986(E) dated 05-03-2020, notifying the following securities for section 47(viiab):
i. Foreign currency-denominated bond;
ii. Unit of a Mutual Fund;
iii. Unit of a business trust;
iv. Foreign currency denominated equity share of a company; and
v. Unit of Alternative Investment Fund.
vi. Bullion Depository Receipt with underlying bullion
Now, the board has amended its earlier notification to include the following securities within the scope of exemption:
a) Unit of investment trust;
b) Unit of a scheme;
c) Unit of Exchange Traded Fund launched under International Financial Services Centres Authority (Fund Management) Regulations, 2022.
Provision made in respect of payment to be made to employees based on Co’s financial performance is to be allowed: HC
CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer - [2023] 153 taxmann.com 527 (Karnataka)
During the year under consideration, the assessee made a provision in respect of payment to be made to the employees. Such payment was made based on the employee’s performance. The assessee paid 80% of the performance pay as an incentive, and the remaining 20% is paid based on the company's financial performance.
Considering such payment as a contingent liability, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the provision made by the assessee in respect of payment to be made to employees. Assessee argued that it was a liability which the company would know at the time of closure of books of account, i.e., on 31st March of the relevant financial year. Thus, the disallowance of the provision was incorrect.
The matter then reached the Karnataka High Court.
The High Court held that the objection raised by the AO that there are possibilities of employees leaving the company and not getting paid was untenable. The percentage of the employees leaving their employment will be minimal, and in such an event, the assessee was duty bound to reverse the entry in the following year.
Since the provisions made were ascertained figures, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the two authorities was perverse and unsustainable.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from Taxmann.com .
Conduct 'Audits' the Taxmann Way
?? CARO with Corporate Practices your Para-wise Commentary
?? Tax Audit your Clause-wise Commentary
Like It? Buy Now with Free Expedited Shipping & Get a Limited Period Discount! https://taxmann.social/Cyhol