THE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF VIVAD SE VISHWAS WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL FEE HAS BEEN EXTENDED TILL SEPTEMBER 30
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the deadline for paying contributions under the Vivad se Vishwas plan without additional amounts by a month, till September 30. Originally, the deadline was set to expire on August 31, 2021. The deadline was extended in June till August 31, 2021, although taxpayers can make payments until October 31, 2021, with an extra interest charge. Due to the problems in producing and modifying Form No 3, which is required for the declarant to make payment under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the last deadline for payment of the amount (without any additional amount) has been extended to September 30, 2021. The ministry further stated that “necessary notification to this effect will be provided shortly.”
The Finance Ministry stated that there is no plan to extend the deadline for making additional payments under the tax dispute resolution system. The deadline has been extended until October 31, 2021.
The Vivad se Vishwas plan enables the settlement of disputed tax, interest, penalty, or fees in respect to a reassessment order. Taxpayers can declare a disagreement and settle it by paying 100% of the contested tax amount plus 25% of the disputed penalty, interest, or fee. In relation to the matters contained in the declaration, the taxpayer is granted immunity from interest, penalty, and the institution of any procedure for prosecution for any offence under the Income Tax Act.
NORMAL DEPRECIATION COULD BE REGARDED AS A LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION IN CALCULATING THE ASSESSEE’S REAL INCOME
On basic principles, the Madras High Court found that normal depreciation might be regarded as a lawful deduction in calculating the assessee’s real income. The assessee, Music Academy Madras, has asked for a judgment on whether the Tribunal was correct in law in determining that depreciation is not allowed while computing income under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has questioned whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in determining that the depreciation deduction under Section 32 falls under the Income-tax Act, 1961’s chapter ‘Profit and earnings from business and profession.’ He further wants to know if the Tribunal’s decision not to hold that, in light of the Act’s scheme, ‘income’ referred to in section 11(1)(d) is to be estimated using accounting rules rather than the Act’s provisions is correct.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, a division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup ruled that the amount spent on acquiring those assets were treated as an “application of income” of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent on acquiring those assets. Depreciation in respect of those assets could still be taken into account when computing income from those assets in succeeding years.