TAX BULLETIN

August - 2020

DIRECT TAX UPDATES

Judicial Updates

Summary:

Assessee was a charitable institution registered under section 12A In AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, assessee claimed

amount remitted to educational universities outside India as application of income under section 11(1). Assessing

Officer opined that since no approval for aforesaid purpose was granted by CBDT as required under proviso to

section 11(1)I, assessee’s claim for exemption of income could not be allowed. The assessee appealed against the

order. During pendency of appellate proceedings, CBDT granted approval sought by assessee by passing an order

which was specifically ‘stated to have effect for period covered by assessment years 2009-10 to 2016-17’. Based on

said approval by CBDT, Assessing Officer rectified assessment order under section 154 whereby impugned addition

made in assessment order passed under section 143(3) was deleted. However, the Commissioner (Appeals), took a

view that rectification order under section 154 did not merit consideration as appeal had been filed against order of

Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3). He further held that CBDT’s approval dated 10-11-2015, was not

retrospective in nature and, thus, said approval could not apply to assessment years in question. Commissioner

(Appeals) thus restored addition made by Assessing Officer in original assessment order.

The assessee appealed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal having examined the matter held that it was not open to

Commissioner (Appeals) to still examine merits of deletion of disallowance of exemption and declare his legal opinion

on same once disallowance of exemption was deleted by Assessing Officer, by way of a rectification order which

stood merged with assessment order.

Further, as far as applicability of approval of CBDT is concerned, the tribunal held that so far as second objection

taken by Commissioner (Appeals) was concerned, in view of fact that even though approval granted by CBDT was not

specifically stated to be retrospective in nature, yet it was clarified that it would have effect for period covered from

assessment years 2009-10 to 2016-17 and said approval covered assessment years in question.

Read Full Judgement: Tata Education and Development Trust v. ACIT

1. Exemption of income applied outside India for educational purpose approved by CBDT under sec-tion 11(1), was to be allowed:

Case of: Tata Education and Development Trust v. ACIT [ITAT, Mumbai] In favour of: Assessee

Direct Tax

SNR & Company 1

2. Provisions of section 43CB prescribing percentage completion method for determining profits and gains of a construction company are to be applied mandatorily with effect from 01-04-2017:

Case of: Hi-tech Estates & Promoters (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [ITAT, Cuttack] In favour of: Assessee

Summary:

Assessee company was engaged in construction of flats and residential units on land owned by it. Assessee company

was consistently following revenue recognition method by adopting completed project method, wherein revenue

was recognized at time of sale of flats /residential units by way of registered sale deed in favour of customers. For AY

2013-14, assessment was completed by accepting method of accounting adopted by assessee. Subsequently,

Commissioner passed a revisional order rejecting assessee’s method of accounting based on AS-7. Commissioner also

directed Assessing Officer for de novo assessment by applying percentage completion method as mandated by

section 43CB.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee appealed before the Tribunal. The tribunal examined the matter and held that

as per section 43CB, profits and gains of a construction company arising from construction contract or a contract for

providing services shall be determined on basis of percentage completion method and same is mandatory for

revenue recognition with effect from 01-04-2017 i.e. assessment year 2017-18 and, thus , said method was not

mandatory and compulsory to be followed in assessment year in question. Therefore, Commissioner could not revisit

assessment order passed in case of assessee by applying provisions of section 43CB.

Read Full Judgement: Hi-tech Estates & Promoters (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT

3. Where assessee was beneficial owner of deposits in foreign bank accounts and declined to sign consent waiver so as to enable Income-tax Department to obtain all necessary details from said account, additions in respect of assessee’s foreign bank account was justified:

Case of: Renu T Tharani v. DCIT [ITAT, Mumbai] In favour of: Revenue

Summary:

In this case, the assessee filed her income tax return, stating her Bangalore residential address and disclosing a

returned income of Rs 1.71 lakhs. Subsequently, the investigation wing of Income-tax department received a base

note of assessee's HSBC account wherein it was revealed that assessee was sole discretionary beneficiary of a Family

Trust which had an underlying company based in Cayman Islands and which operated HSBC Geneva bank account.

Pursuant to this, Assessing Officer reopened assessment in case of assessee and made addition of ₹ 196 crores peak

amount as appearing in base note of assessee's HSBC account.

The matter was placed before the tribunal. The tribunal having examined the matter observed that the assessee

claimed that she was a non-resident and could not be subjected to impugned addition. However, claim of assessee

regarding her having a non-resident status in relevant previous year came much after reasons recorded, and,

contrary to this claim, assessee herself had claimed residential status as resident in income tax return. Further,

assessee had not disclosed Swiss account details in her return of income. It was also observed that assessee had

declined to sign consent waiver to enable Income-tax Department to obtain all necessary details from HSBC (Suisse)

SA, Geneva. Furthermore, within a short time of receiving information about above account coming to possession of

Government of India, this account was closed and whatever assets were being held in this bank account were

transferred back to company based in Cayman Islands, which is a tax haven where it was almost impossible to find

out about beneficial owners of a corporate entity and base note showed that assessee was beneficial owner or

beneficiary of Cayman Islands company. Thus, the tribunal held that the addition in respect of assessee's account

with HSBC Geneva was justified.

Read Full Judgement: Renu T Tharani v. DCIT

SNR & Company 2

Direct Tax

Judicial Updates

SNR & Company 3

Direct Tax

Judicial Updates

Summary:

In this case, an information was received by Assessing Officer pertaining to AY 2012-13 that assessee had deposited

certain amount in his bank account source of which was not explained. Assessing Officer thus issued a notice to

asseessee under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment. Upon learning that the assessee has already expired,

proceedings were transferred in the name of one of the legal heir of the deceased assessee-Ms. Savita Kapila

[Petitioner] on 27th December, 2019 and on the same date the impugned assessment order was passed in her name

and PAN, whereby an addition of Rs.21,31,000/- was made and demand of Rs.14,19,060/- was raised.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to quash the notice

u/s 148 issued to the deceased-assessee (father of the petitioner) under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and

all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including orders dated 21st November, 2019 and 27th

December, 2019 passed by the respondent AO.

The Hon’ble High Court examined the matter and held that in absence of a statutory provision, a duty cannot be cast

upon legal representatives to intimate factum of death of assessee to department. Therefore, in view of aforesaid

legal position and, having regard to fact that impugned notice could not have been served upon assessee, the same

deserved to be quashed.

Read Full Judgement: Savita Kapila v. ACIT

4. Assessing Officer issued a notice to assessee under section 148 after his death and, in such a case, it could not have been validly served upon assessee, said notice being invalid, was to be quashed:

Case of: Savita Kapila v. ACIT [High Court, Delhi] In favour of: Assessee

Summary:

During the assessment year 2010-11, the Assessee, a public limited company, raised certain amount by issue of share

capital through a Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP) in which it placed its share capital with Qualified Institutional

Buyers (QIB). In connection with QIP, assessee incurred expenses on account of payments to Lead Managers of issue

and payments to Legal Consultants for finalization of placement documents for QIP. The Assessee filed its return

claiming deduction of expenses incurred in connection with QIP. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the

Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim holding that issue of shares to QIP did not amount to public subscription.

The matter was placed before the Tribunal where upon examination, the tribunal observed that it is undisputed that

as per Rule2 (d) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, term 'public' means any person other than promoter

5. In case of public limited company, issue of shares to Qualified Institution Buyers (QIB) would be regarded as issue of shares to 'public' and, thus, expenses incurred on said issue would be eligi-ble for deduction under section 35D:

Case of: Yes Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [ITAT, Mumbai] In favour of: Assessee

, promoter group, subsidiaries and associates of company. Thus, any person other than these four qualify to be

considered as public. Since, in the instant case, it was apparent from list of QIB to whom shares were issued that they

did not fall in any of aforesaid category, it could be concluded that QIB would qualify as 'public' and, therefore,

assessee's claim for deduction was to be allowed.

Read Full Judgement: Yes Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

SNR & Company 4

Direct Tax

Judicial Updates

Summary:

For Assessment year 2008-09, assessment in case of assessee was completed under section 143(3) wherein

assessee's claim for depreciation was allowed. Subsequently, Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings on

ground that assessee had claimed depreciation at rate of 15 percent on water supply and drainage instead of treating

same under block 'Building' on which depreciation was allowable at rate of 10 percent. Thus, according to Assessing

Officer, assessee had raised excess claim of depreciation and assessment order u/s 147 was passed accordingly.

The matter was considered by the tribunal while holding that reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was

noted that while completing assessment under section 143(3), Assessing Officer had raised an identical query and

thereupon he had accepted assessee's explanation and, claim of excess rate of depreciation was restricted to non-

productive assets only. It was also found that for very same reason, Commissioner had issued notice under section

263 but, after considering assessee's reply, said proceedings were dropped.

The matter was examined by the Hon’ble High Court that held that since the reasons for reopening of assessment

were subject matter of proceedings under section 143(3) and under section 263, power under section 147 could not

be invoked for the very same reasons. Therefore, impugned reassessment proceedings were deserved to be set

aside.

Read Full Judgement: CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.

6. Power under section 147 could not be invoked on such ground that was subject matter of pro-ceedings under section 143(3) as well as under section 263:

Case of: CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. [High Court, Madras] In favour of: Assessee

Circulars/ Notifications

The Finance Act 2020 introduced various new TDS provisions in the Income Tax Act 1961 for e.g. TDS on payment of

certain sums by e-commerce operator to e-commerce participant, TDS on income in respect of units etc. Further,

certain provisions were amended like TDS on cash withdrawals, TDS on Royalty and Fee for Technical Services, TDS

on interest etc.

Now CBDT, vide Notification No. 43/2020 dated 3rd July 2020 has made certain amendments to Rule 31A, Form 26Q

and Form 27Q. Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules is related to furnishing of Statement of TDS u/s 200(3) of the

Income Tax Act. Rule 31A(4) prescribes certain rules for the deductor at the time of preparation of Statement of TDS.

CBDT has come up with following amendments regarding the same:

CBDT has also inserted new clauses to Rule 31A(4)

Clause (x) – Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted or deducted

at lower rate in view of the notification issued under section 194A(5)

Clause (xi) – Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted under

section 194LBA(2A).

Clause (xii) – Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of

section 197A(1D)(a) and section 197A(1D)(b)

Clause (xiii) – Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of

the exemption provided to persons referred to in Board Circular No. 3 of 2002 dated 28th June 2002 or Board

Circular No. 11 of 2002 dated 22nd November 2002 or Board Circular No. 18 of 2017 dated 29th May 2017.

Read Notification: 43/2020

1. CBDT amends TDS rules in line with amendments introduced by Finance Act 2020:

SNR & Company 5

Direct Tax

Clause Before Amendment After Amendment

viii Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount

paid or credited on which tax was not deducted

in view of the notification issued under sub-

Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid

or credited on which tax was not deducted or de-

ducted at a lower rate in view of the notification

ix Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount

paid or credited on which tax was not deducted

in view of the exemption provided in clause (iii)

or clause (iv) of the proviso to section 194N or

in view of the notification issued under clause

(v) of the proviso to section 194N

Deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid

or credited on which tax was not deduct-

ed or deducted at lower rate in view of the notifi-

cation issued under second proviso to section

194N or in view of the exemption provided in third

proviso to section 194N or in view of the notifica-

tion issued under fourth proviso to section 194N

CBDT vide Notification No. 45/2020 dated 7th July 2020 has notified National Pension Scheme Tier II- Tax Saver

Scheme, 2020 under clause (xxv) of section 80C(2) introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Finance (No. 2) Act,

2019 has introduced a new item of deduction under section 80C for Central Government employees for investment in

NPS Tier-II account.

In order to enable the Central Government employees to have more options of tax-saving investments under National

Pension System, section 80C is amended so as to provide that any amount paid or deposited by a Central Government

employee as a contribution to his Tier-II account of the pension scheme shall be eligible for deduction under the said

section.

It should be noted that under the provisions of section 80CCD of the Income-tax Act, a Central Government employee

is eligible to claim deduction in the computation of his total income in respect of any contribution by the Central

Government to the NPS (Tier-I) account of the employee. The deduction for a contribution to NPS Tier-II account is

available subject to the following conditions as specified in section 80C(2)(xxv)-

a) The deduction is available only to a Central Government employee.

b) The deduction is available for his contribution to a specified account of the pension scheme referred to in section

80CCD.

c) The contribution is made for a fixed period of not less than three years.

d) The contribution is made in accordance with the scheme as may be notified by the Central Government in the

Official Gazette.

Read Notification: 45/2020

2. CBDT notifies National Pension Scheme Tier II- Tax Saver Scheme, 2020 under section 80C:

SNR & Company 6

3. One-time relaxation for verification of Income Tax Returns:

It has been brought to the notice of the CBDT that a large number of electronically filed ITRs still remains

pending with the Income Tax Department for want of receipt of a valid ITR-V Form at CPC, Bengaluru from the

taxpayers concerned. In this context, as a one-time measure for resolving the grievances of the taxpayers

associated with non-filing of ITR-V for earlier Assessment Years and to regularize such returns which have either

become Non-est or have remained pending due to non-filing/non-receipt of respective ITR-V Form, the CBDT, in

the exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act, in case of returns for Assessment Years 201S-16, 2016-17,

2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 which were uploaded electronically by the taxpayer within the time allowed

under section 139 of the Act and which have remained incomplete due to non -submission of ITR-V Form for

verification, hereby permits verification of such returns either by sending a duly signed physical copy of ITR-V to

CPC, Bengaluru through speed post or through EVC/OTP modes as listed in para 1 above. Such a verification

process must be completed by 30.09.2020.

Read Circular: 13/2020

Direct Tax

Circulars/ Notifications

SNR & Company 7

Direct Tax

Circulars/ Notifications

To incorporate the changes introduced in the TCS provisions by the Finance Act, 2020, CBDT vide Notification No.

54/2020 dated 24.07.2020 has amended Rule 31AA, Rule 37BC, Rule 37CA, Rule 37-I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962

and Form No. 27EQ.

Rule 31AA is related to furnishing of ‘Statement of TCS’ under section 206C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Rule 31AA

(1)/(2) prescribes filing of quarterly TCS statements u/s 206C(3) in Form No. 27EQ.

Read Notification: 54/2020

4. CBDT notifies amendments in TCS statements Rule 31AA, Form 37EQ, Rule 37CA and Rule 37-I:

In consideration of the difficulties faced in compliance due to COVID-19, CBDT has come up with its Notification No

56/2020 giving relief to its assessees. Firstly, the Time barring due date to file ITR for FY 2018-19 has been further

extended to 30th September, 2020. Thus, the original (belated) return u/s 139(4) and revised return u/s 139(5) for FY

18-19 can now be filed by 30th September, 2020.

For resident assessees of the age of 60 years or more i.e. for Senior and Super senior citizen assessees, having income

other than business or profession. Any self-assessment tax paid by them upto the original due date as per the Act i.e.

31st July 2020 will be treated as advance tax for FY 2019-20. Thus, after this payment, if tax remaining to be paid is

less than Rs 1 lakh, then no interest will be levied under 234A if the ITR is filed by the extended date of 30th November

2020.

Read Notification: 56/2020

5. Due Date for filing ITR FY 2018-19 extended and also additional relief to senior citizens:

GST UPDATES

Judicial Updates

Summary:

• Supply of Maintenance and repair services under a specific Maintenance and repair contract (MARC) to customer

in India is not import of service by the Indian customer but is a supply of service by the branch of foreign

company.

• The recipient is not, therefore, liable to pay GST on reverse charge basis in terms of Notification No. 10/2017 –

Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017. The applicant, being the domestic MARC Holder, is liable to pay tax as

applicable under forward charge mechanism (FCM).

Read Full Ruling: M/s. IZ-Kartex named after P G Korobkov Ltd.

1. Site where employees are deputed for machine maintenance qualifies as fixed establishment and hence GST is payable under FCM:

Case of: M/s. IZ-Kartex named after P G Korobkov Ltd. Decision by: AAR, West Bengal

Goods & Services Tax

SNR & Company 8

Summary:

• The applicant is chit company engaged in the activity of distribution of prize money to its members and the

additional amount is being collected in the form of interest for delayed payment from the members as

consideration as a fixed percentage of transaction value.

• Circular No.102/21/2019-GST dated 28th June, 2019 that “any service fee/charge or any other charges that are

levied by M/s. ABC Ltd in respect of the transaction relating to extending deposits, loans or advances does not

qualify to be interest as defined in notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017, and accordingly

will not be exempt”

• Hence the additional amount charged on delayed payment shall be taxed as original supply i.e. supply of financial

and related services.

Read Full Ruling: M/s Ushabala Private Limited

2. GST applicable on interest/penalty collected for delay in payment of monthly subscription by chit auction company:

Case of: M/s Ushabala Private Limited Decision by: AAR, Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Updates

3. Allowability of ITC on various costs associated with Amusement Park:

Case of: M/s Atriwal Amusement Park Decision by: AAR, Madhya Pradesh

Summary:

• ITC related to the construction of the Swimming Pools and Wave Pools subject to its capitalization shall not be

available.

• Machine Room, which is a civil structure, erected for protecting machine is neither foundation nor civil structure

for machine therefore not eligible for ITC.

• Water Slides shall fall within the meaning of the term apparatus, equipment and machinery and therefore, shall

be eligible for claim of ITC.

• Water Slides are fastened and affixed to the Earth through Steel and Civil Structures. Therefore, these Steel and

Civil Structures shall form part of the Plant and Machinery and ITC shall be available.

Read Full Ruling: M/s Atriwal Amusement Park

SNR & Company 9

Goods & Services Tax

4. ITC on lifts procured & installed in hotel buildings are not eligible as per section 17(5):

Case of: M/s Jabalpur Hotels Private Limited Decision by: AAR, Madhya Pradesh

Summary:

• The lift is part of the building and is not a separate thing. A lift does not have an identity when removed from the

building. Therefore, the lift can not be said to be separate from a building.

• The applicant has procured the customized lift and got it installed piece by piece in the building resulting in the

mechanized transportation system called lift. Hence, it is an integral part of building and can not be classified

under plant & machinery.

Read Full Ruling: M/s Jabalpur Hotels Private Limited

Judicial Updates

Summary:

• Paver Blocks laid on the land is an immovable property and therefore Applicant cannot avail ITC in the subject

case as per Section 17(5) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017

• Paver blocks is to keep the tyres of the vehicles in good condition with no wear and tear, to have longevity,

durability and flexibility to re-use.

• Section 17(5)(d) bars a taxable person from taking ITC for construction of immovable property even when such

goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business.

Read Full Ruling: M/s Sundharams Private Ltd.

5. No ITC available on purchase of Paver blocks laid on land:

Case of: M/s Sundharams Private Ltd. Decision by: AAR, Maharashtra

6. Goods supplied by recipient to supplier of services free of cost to be included in the value of sup-ply:

Case of: M/s Pulluri Mining & Logistics Private Limited Decision by: AAR, Andhra Pradesh

Summary:

• HSD Oil issued free of cost by the service recipient to the applicant

• As per Section 15 (2) (b) of CGST Act, the value of supply includes any amount that the supplier is liable to pay in

relation to such supply but which has been incurred by the recipient of the supply and not included in the price

actually paid or payable for the goods or services or both.

• The HSD oil issued free of cost by the service recipient to the applicant would form part of value of supply of

service by the applicant.

Read Full Ruling: M/s Pulluri Mining & Logistics Private Limited

SNR & Company 10

Goods & Services Tax

7. Supply of medicines to the In-patients through pharmacy are not liable to tax:

Case of: CMC Vellore Association Decision by: AAR, Andhra Pradesh

Summary:

• Applicant renders health care services to in-patients in the form of supply of medicines, drugs, stents, implants

etc being administered during the medical treatment or procedure.

Judicial Updates

Summary:

• The applicant in the present case provides marketing and consultancy services, facilitates the supply of goods i.e.,

fluid cracking catalysts and its additives from Grace Davison (Singapore) to it's clients in the taxable territory i.e,

India.

• The mere fact that the payment has been received in convertible foreign exchange by the applicant will not

qualify the transaction of the applicant as export of services.

• The condition that transaction not being done on his own account makes the applicant rightly fit into the

definition of intermediary. Hence, the services shall be treated as intermediary services provided to the recipient

located outside India and hence IGST is payable under such transaction.

Read Full Ruling: M/s DKV Enterprises Private Limited

8. Marketing and consultancy services supplied outside India are not export of services:

Case of: M/s DKV Enterprises Private Limited Decision by: AAR, Andhra Pradesh

SNR & Company 11

Goods & Services Tax

• The supply of medicines supplied to In-patients through pharmacy are not liable to tax, being a part of the

composite supply of health care services under SI.No. 74 Heading 9993 vide Notification No 12/2017 - Central Tax

(Rate) Date: 28.06.2017. Medicines, drugs, stents, implants etc administered to in-patients during the medical

treatment or procedure are not liable to tax.

Read Full Ruling: CMC Vellore Association

Summary:

• On Conjoint reading of Section 2(6) and 2(13), which defines export of service and intermediary service

respectively, then the person who is intermediary cannot be considered as exporter of services because he is only

a broker who arranges and facilitate the supply of goods or services or both.

• The Hon’ble HC held that the invoices raised in the name of persons outside India with regard to the commission

and foreign exchange is received in India, it would not qualify to be export of services

• It cannot be said that the provision of Section 13(8)(b) r.w. Section 2(13) of the IGST Act,2017 are ultra vires or

unconstitutional in any manner.

Read Full Judgment: M/s Material Recycling Association Of India Vs UOI

9. High Court held that Intermediary services provided outside India is not export of services:

Case of: M/s Material Recycling Association Of India Vs UOI Decision by: High Court, Gujarat

Judicial Updates

Summary:

• The word “Input tax credit” is defined in Section 2(63) means the credit of input tax. The word “input” is defined

in Section 2(59) as any goods other than capital goods and “input service” as per Section 2(60) means any service

used or intended to be used by the recipient. Whereas “input tax” as defined in section 2(62) means the tax

charged on any supply of goods or services or both made to any registered person. Thus “input” and “input

service” are both part of the “input tax” and “input tax credit”.

• HC held that in fact the Net ITC should mean “input tax credit” availed on “inputs” and “input services” as defined

under the Act.

• Therefore, Hon’ble HC directed to allow the claim of the refund made by the petitioners considering the

unutilised input tax credit of “input services” as part of the “net input tax credit” (Net ITC) for the purpose of

calculation of the refund of the claim as per Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules,2017 for claiming refund under Sub-

section 3 of Section 54 CGST Act,2017.

Read Full Judgment: M/s VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI

10. Hon’ble HC of Gujarat allowed refund of Input services in case of Inverted Duty Structure:

Case of: M/s VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI Decision by: High Court, Gujarat

SNR & Company 11

Goods & Services Tax

A registered person who is required to furnish a Nil return under section 39 in FORM GSTR-3B or a Nil details of

outward supplies under section 37 in FORM GSTR-1 for a tax period can file its return through a short messaging

service (SMS) using the registered mobile number and the said return or the details of outward supplies shall be

verified by a registered mobile number based One Time Password facility.

Read Notification: 58/2020

1. Filing of Nil GST returns through Short messaging services:

2. Extension of time limit to furnish FORM GSTR-4:

Government has extended the time limit for composition dealers to furnish FORM GSTR-4 for the financial year

ending 31 March 2020, till 31 August 2020, which was due by 15 July 2020.

Read Notification: 59/2020

3. Revised format/Schema for E-invoice Form GST INV-01:

CBIC has now specified the new format e-invoices which is effective from 1st October 2020.

Read Notification: 60/2020

4. Threshold limited extended for e-invoicing:

The E-Invoicing is mandatory for the business entities whose aggregate turnover exceeds ₹ 500 Crores. E-invoicing

shall not be applicable to the following categories of registered persons:

• SEZ units

• Banking Company or a financial institution, including a NBFC.

• A Goods transport Agency

• A registered person supplying passenger transport services

A registered person supplying services by way of admission to the exhibition of cinematograph films in multiplex

screens.

Read Notification: 61/2020

SNR & Company 12

Goods & Services Tax

Circulars/ Notifications

COMPLIANCE CALENDAR

Compliance Calendar

SNR & Company 13

Date Particulars

07-08-2020 Depositing of TDS/ TCS for July, 2020

Depositing of equalisation levy for July, 2020

15-08-2020

Form 16 for TDS on salary of financial year 2019-20

Form 16A for TDS on income other than salary for Q4 of F/Y 2019-20

TCS certificate for Q4 of F/Y 2019-20

Direct Taxes

Compliance Calendar

SNR & Company 14

Indirect Taxes

Period Form/ Return Due Date Remarks

April to June 2020 (Q1) GSTR-1 03-08-2020 Quarterly taxpayers April to June’ 2020

July 2020 GSTR-1 11-08-2020 Taxpayers having aggregate turnover more than

Rs. 1.5 crores in preceding financial year

July 2020 GSTR-3B 20-08-2020 Taxpayers having aggregate turnover more than

Rs. 5 crores in preceding financial year.

July 2020 GSTR-3B 22-08-2020

Taxpayers having aggregate turnover upto Rs. 5

crores in preceding financial year. (Group-A)*.

Further, no interest shall be payable till 27-09-

2020.

July 2020 GSTR-3B 24-08-2020

Taxpayers having aggregate turnover upto Rs. 5

crores in preceding financial year. (Group-B)*.

Further, no interest shall be payable till 29-09-

2020.

2019-20 GSTR-4 31-08-2020 The yearly return for FY 2019-20 by composition

dealers.

July 2020 GSTR-5 31-08-2020 Non-resident taxpayers.

July 2020 GSTR-6 31-08-2020 Input Service Distributors

July 2020 GSTR-7 31-08-2020 Tax deductors at source (TDS)

July 2020 GSTR-8 31-08-2020 Tax collectors at source (TCS)

*Group A- Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Goa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra

Pradesh, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep.

*Group B– Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttrakhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh,

Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Assam, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha, Jammu and Kashmir,

Ladakh, Chandigarh and Delhi.

Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in the preparation of this Bulletin to ensure its accuracy at the time

of publication, SNR & Company assumes no responsibility for any errors which despite all precautions,

may be found therein. Neither this bulletin nor the information contained herein constitutes a contract

or will form the basis of a contract. The material contained in this document does not constitute/ substi-

tute professional advice that may be required before acting on any matter. All logos and trademarks

appearing in the newsletter are property of their respective owners.

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may

contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use

of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the in-

tended recipient is prohibited.

www.snr.company

CA. Dinesh Singhal [Partner]: [dinesh.singhal@snr.company] [+91-99534 75125]

CA. Parul Bansal [Manager]: [parul.bansal@snr.company] [+91-97109 02902]

CA. Saurabh Panwar [Manager]: [saurabh.panwar@snr.company] [+91-99179 29643]