The Proposition that no man can make a profit out of himself as recognized by House of Lords (1889) is now well accepted. The principle of mutuality has been tasted at different judicial levels and as of now enough guidelines are available as to its application and tax treatment.

Although a mutual association (Ma) is not defined in income tax law, however it may be defined as a tool for a section /group of members where the members themselves are the contributors and participants and where it is stipulated that in case of dissolution, the funds available would be distributed amongst themselves. Where the clause as to distribution of surplus to members upon dissolution is absent, such association would entail dual character of Ma as well as a charitable form. The Ma may be in the form of a society, co-operative society, trade/merchant associations, chambers, resident’s welfare society, employees association etc and they can also function as a charitable company u/s 8 of The Cos Act, 2013.

It is a well settled law that where the contributors and participants (Beneficiaries) are the same, the principle of mutuality survives and hence income like membership fees, Subscription fees, entrance fees, charges for welfare funds etc qualify for exemption on principle of mutuality, provided that the same are spent/ applied for the benefit of such members only. Even the room rents, rent of premises in the property of association taken from members would not vitiate mutuality. Similarly mutuality condition is not vitiated if a club has different classes of membership- their rights, enjoyments, subscriptions- may be different but in no way it affects mutuality. Even the existing members may go out and new members come in. However where the receipts of fees/charges from members sounds of a taint of commerciality, tax liability may arise such as collection of transfer fees for transfer of flats was held to be taxable in the case of ITO v. Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Limited.*1

In the case CIT v. Bankipur Club Limited it was held that overcharging for refreshments and beverages from members cannot be considered as tainting of commerciality. The fact that there is some diversion to non-members where some of the rooms were let out to non-members not necessarily vitiate the principle of mutuality as long as there is substantial compliance with the principle.

A persisting contraversory in the mind of tax professionals is whether the income of mutual association from interest on bank deposits is covered by mutuality principle or not?

In view of the writer of this article, this controversy had been settled long back by the Apex Court while delivering the judgments in the cases of CIT v. BANKIPUR CLUB LIMITED*2, CHELMSFORD CLUB*3 AND CAWNPORE CLUB*4 JUDGEMENTS.

In case of BANKIPUR CLUB (1997, AND 2004) the SC quoting with approval the head note and summarizing the decision of the full bench of Patna High Court(in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd), held that the rent of rooms from non-members as well as interest from bank deposit qualify for mutual principle. Similarly while dealing with the case of Chelmsford Club (2000),the SC overruled the decision of CIT v. Wheelers Club Ltd*5 (taxing on misc. income). Here it would be pertinent to mention that the Wheelers case was earlier dissented by Madras High Court also in the case of Presidency Club(1981)*6.

The Dept. generally insists, amongst others on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat*7 for taxing income such as bank interest, charges from non-members etc. but the thin line of distinction needs to be well understood. In fact in this case, the Court discussed the language of the objectives mentioned in the memorandum & articles of the Club which had authorized and allowed large discretion to its management to invest surplus not only in bank deposits but also shares, real estate or any other form or shape ,which sounded a taint of commerciality in the sense that when the income derived from such investments over a period of time is added to the surplus and when such surplus is distributed to the members, a component of income so distributed would be a plough back not from their own fees but also from out of income generated through transactions entered into with taint of commerciality, hence not qualified for mutuality principle. However the High Court further observed that all such income if tainted with commerciality, then only may be disqualified from mutuality otherwise not. From the above, it can be inferred that misc. income of a club like interest from bank deposits, income from third parties being guests of members or even the incidental income from charges of Mela, commission on purchases, certification fees, or fees charged for conducting seminars/conferences with participation of non-members also against a fee, rent of rooms/premises from guests of members or the members should also be eligible for exemption on principle of mutuality. Only commercial activities transacted with any outsiders or for that matter even with members would attract tax liability.

Incidentally the decision of Madras Gymkhana club v. CIT*8 had gone against the ‘a’, however with due regards, it was passed without considering the apex court ruling passed in the case of Ranchi club Ltd. The High Court in this case was influenced by the fact that the club had abnormal funds which could not be treated as necessary for running the club and therefore such interest income was not considered to be covered by the mutuality principle. High Court in this case made an incidental reference to the judgment of Gujarat High court in Sports Club of Gujarat*7,where interest income was taxable only because the management had large discretion in the matter of investment like in shares, real estate etc. However the conception would be clear in the minds of the tax professionals when the rider put by the HC in the judgement is read with utmost care. The rider is—

“therefore what is relevant is to see as to how the funds generated by way of contribution, donation etc from the members as well as the outsiders are expended and utilized for the objects of providing various recreational and other facilities to the members and then alone it can be held that the principle of identity between the contributors and the participants is fulfilled which is the basic requirement in the concept of mutuality.”

From the above discussion, it may be inferred that where there is no taint of commerciality in transactions held with members as well as non-members or outsiders and the mutual association functions well within its authorized field, then income earned from surplus funds or all other misc. income earned are exempt applying the mutuality principle. In such cases, even section 28(iii) won’t apply.

Likewise emphasis may be laid down in favour of Ma, that a bank where the deposits are placed, is neither a contributor nor a participant but mere a custodian or constructive trustee for the association/members and in no way it is a transaction with any outsider/non-member, hence mutuality is not lost.

The recent judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Delhi Gymkhana Club*9 which can be considered to be the last word in favour of the Ma. The HC while passing this judgment referred to number of earlier judgments latest amongst them was – CIT v. Standing conference of public Enterprises(SCOPE)*10.

A feeling prevails that there is a set back after the decision in Bangalore Club*11 as regards the transactions with non-members and even income from bank deposits being taxable. However the facts are not so. The observation of the SC in this case was prompted by the theory that there could be trading transactions with both members and non-members as in this case the club had deposited its funds with some banks who were corporate members of the club and also with some other banks who were not corporate members of the club and while filing return of income, voluntarily offered interest income from bank deposits held with non-corporate members(banks) and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of mutuality was dealt in by SC verdicting that entire interest income would be taxed for taint of commerciality.

However The writer of this article is of the opinion that the case of Bangalore club should be seen as dealt within the given situation and cannot be straightly applied to other cases because such an inference would go against the law well settled in CIT v. Bankipur Club as well as CIT v. Cawnpore Club where it is clearly laid down that interest income from bank deposits and rent income from premises of the club do not vitiate the mutuality principle.

Similarly it should be clear to our minds that income which is not liable to be taxed on mutuality principle, can not be brought to tax by treating a mutual association as AOP (ITO v. Sarvodaya mutual benefits trust)*12

MUTUAL ASSOCIATION CAN ALSO BE A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION

It is well appreciated that any mutual organization generally, do have an element of altruism(spirit of charity), since the benefit availed by a member is not always commensurate with his contribution ,he may enjoy less or more as compared with others members. It was for this reason that even when there is no return on the contribution made by a member, as happens to be the case where association is formed with the purpose of general public utility as well; mutuality is not lost. Such association may also be entiltled to tax concessions as a charitable institution as was found in Addl.CIT v. Surat silk cloth manufacturer’s Association*13. In such cases ,income from entrance fees, subscription and donations etc. from members may be governed by the principle of mutuality and Any other income governed by the exemption for charitable institution. It is likely that both concessions , whether on mutuality principle or as a charitable institution, may be available. However it would be imperative for such MI to take registration u/s 12AA. It would be noteworthy that every receipt like advertisement receipts for souvenirs and journals which is not open for sale shall not be commercial income attracting proviso to section 2(15). In PHD Chamber of commerce & industry v. DIT(exem.)*14, it was held that any activity in the nature of rendering assistance to trade should not be considered as business.

The doctrine of mutuality, as the law so far developed, may be understood in the way that the surplus funds so invested in bank deposits and the interest earned on such deposits have resulted out of the transactions held amongst the members then also income would be exempt applying the mutuality principle and if generated from non-members then taxable. It may be advised that a Ma may account for separately the income earned out of the transactions with members and non-members. However the writer of this article is of the opinion that all income of a Ma would be exempt if there is no taint of commerciality regardless of separate accounting.

Surprisingly there is no section in Income Tax Act which straightly allows Ma to claim exemption. A new clause in section 10 can be inserted in line with section 10(23AAA) and 10(23C) for Ma. In the absence of the same, it becomes very difficult to choose the correct return Form and appropriate columns to claim exemption. This flaw needs to be looked into by the law makers.

Case laws referred in this article-

1. (2009)318 ITR (AT) 407 MUM.

2. (1981)129 ITR 787(PAT.),(1997)226 ITR 97(SC)

3. (2000) 243 ITR 89(SC)

4. (1984) 146 ITR 181(ALL.)

5. (1963) 49 ITR 52(ALL.

6. (1981) 127 ITR 264(MAD)

7. (1988) 171 ITR 504 (GUJ.)

8. (2010)328 ITR 348 (MAD)

9. (2011) 339 ITR 525 (DEL.)

10. (2009) 319 ITR 179(DEL.)

11. (2013) 350 ITR 509(SC)

12. (2013) 22 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 277 CHENNAI

13. (1980) 121 ITR1 (SC)

14. (2013)357 ITR 296(Del.)

Introduction

1. The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or Hindu Joint Family is a special feature of the Hindu community. The concept of HUF or Hindi Joint Family emanates from Hindu Law. The Hindu Joint Family has been a fundamental aspect of the life of the Hindus for centuries.

Hindu

2. As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) a Hindu includes Buddhist, Jain and Sikh by religion but excludes a Muslim, Christian, Parsi and Jew by religion. Therefore, the concept of HUF applies to Buddhist, Jain and Sikh.

Hindu Undivided Family

3. The Hindu Undivided Family is defined as a unit consisting of a common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants together with their wives and unmarried daughters. At the time when Insurance Scheme had not yet come into existence, the Joint Hindu Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), as it is called under the Tax Statutes, provided a fairly sophisticated form of insurance to all its members, by making provisions for its members, including unmarried daughters, widowed daughters and deserted daughters, wives and widows of the male members of the family, minor children as well as adult members. It provides a maintenance policy to all its members. Widowed daughters and deserted daughters may come back to their father’s home and claim maintenance so long as they live and do not re-marry. Daughters of the family are provided with the marriage policy. All members receive education out of Joint Family Chest and free medical care is provided to all. The HUF defends them when they are involved in a civil litigation or criminal charge. The family lives under the benevolent head of the family called ‘the Karta’. The structure of the joint family is so knit that interests of junior and weaker members of the family are adequately protected.

There are two main schools of Hindu law prevailing in India, the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools. Dayabhaga School mainly prevails in Bengal and Assam whereas Mitakshara School prevails in the rest of India. A special feature of the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law is coparcenary.

4. Hindu male with his wife and children automatically constitutes an HUF. HUF is a creature of Hindu law. It cannot be created by acts of any party, save in so far as by adoption or marriage, a stranger may be affiliated as a member thereof. An undivided family which is the normal condition of the Hindu society is ordinarily joint not only in estate but in food and worship. The joint family being the result of birth of a son or daughter, possession of joint property is only an adjunct of the family and is not necessary for its constitution. It is well established now that since HUF is a creature of Hindu law it can exist even without any nucleus of ancestral joint family property.

Coparcenary

5. Hindu coparcenary is a special feature of the Mitakshara School of Law. It is a narrower body of the HUF. Coparcenary originally consisted of father and his three male lineal descendants i.e. father, son, grandson and great grandson. A son becomes a coparcener in the HUF by birth in the family. As long as the Son is alive the grandson or great grandson do not become the coparceners of the HUF of the father. The grandson is the coparcener of the HUF of the Son. Similarly the great grandson is the coparcener of the HUF of the grandson.

Subsequent to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by the Amendment Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as “the Amendment Act’) a daughter has also been conferred with the status of a coparcener. It follows that the birth of a male or female in Hindu joint family makes him or her a coparcener of the HUF. In view of this, all the sons and daughters born in the family automatically become coparceners of the HUF. A daughter is a coparcener of her father’s HUF and becomes the member of her husband’s joint family after her marriage. The children of the female coparcener become the coparceners of their father’s HUF. They do not become the coparceners of the maternal grandfather’s HUF for the simple reason that they are born in the father’s family and not in the family of the maternal grandfather.

Coparcenary property

6. Coparcenary property is the one which is inherited by a Hindu from his father, grandfather, or great grandfather. Property inherited from others is held in his individual rights and cannot be treated as forming part of the coparcenary. The property in a coparcenary is held as joint owners. In case a coparcenary property comes to the hands of a ‘single person’ temporarily, it would be treated as his property, but once a son is born and after the Amendment Act after the birth of a daughter, a coparcenary would revive in terms of the Mitakshara Law.

Rights of a coparcener

7. The following are the rights of a coparcener:

(i) Right by birth,

(ii) Right of survivorship,

(iii) Right to ask for partition,

(iv) Right to joint possession and enjoyment,

(v) Right to restrain unauthorised acts,

(vi) Right of alienation,

(vii) Right to ask for accounts, and

(viii) Right to make self-acquisition.

Coparcener – Daughter

8. Prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, a daughter was excluded from participating in the coparcenary as she was not considered as a coparcener like a son. It lead to her discrimination on the ground of gender and also led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. To render social justice to women, the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1985, the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1989, the State of Karnataka in the year 1994 and the State of Maharashtra in the year 1994 had made necessary changes in the law for their respective states giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property. In order to remove the discrimination, section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was amended by the Central Government giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have.

9. With the object of attaining gender equality and the removal of gender discrimination the Hindu Succession Act was amended in the year 2005 to confer the status of a coparcener on a daughter born in the family.

10. The amended section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, (“the Amendment Act”) is as follows:

Section 6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. —

“(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,—

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,

and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:

“Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

“(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub­-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.

“(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,—

(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;

(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and

(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre­-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

“Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

“(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt:

“Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect—

(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.

“Explanation. —For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

“(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.

“Explanation. —For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.”

11. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Prakash v. Phulavati in Civil Appeal No. 7217 of 2013 dated 16th October, 2015 [(2016) 2 SCC 36] held that section 6 is not retrospective in operation, and it applies when both coparceners and his daughter were alive on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, i.e., 9th September, 2005. The Supreme Court further opined that the provisions contained in the Explanation to section 6(5) provides for the requirement of partition for substituted section 6 is to be a registered one or by a decree of a court, can have no application to a statutory notional partition on the opening of succession as provided in the unamended section 6 of the Act. The notional statutory partition is deemed to have taken place to ascertain the share of the deceased coparcener which is not covered either under the proviso to section 6(1) or section 6(5), including its Explanation. The registration requirement is inapplicable to partition of property by operation of law, which has to be given full effect. The provisions of the amended section 6 have been held to be prospective.

12. In Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors. dated 1st February, 2018 in C. A. Nos.188-189 of 2018, [(2018) (1) Scale 657] the Supreme Court following its decision in the case of Prakash v. Phulavati (supra) held that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20-12-2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected. In other words, the amended section 6 applies to daughters born prior to June 17, 1956 (the date on which Hindu Succession Act came into force) or thereafter (between June 17, 1956 and September 8, 2005) provided the daughters and father are alive on September 9, 2005 i.e., on the date when the Amendment Act, 2005 came into force. Requirement of partition being registered can have no application to statutory notional partition on opening of succession as per the unamended provision, having regard to nature of such partition which is by operation of law.

13. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangammal @ Thulasi and Ors. v. T.B. Raju and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.1933 of 2009 dated 19th April, 2018 followed the decision of Prakash & Anr. V. Phulvati & Ors. (supra) and explained the decision of Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors. as under:

“10) Moreover, under Section 29-A of the Act, legislature has used the word “the daughter of a coparcener”. Here, the implication of such wordings mean both the coparcener as well as daughter should be alive to reap the benefits of this provision at the time of commencement of the Amendment of 1989. The similar issue came up for the consideration before this Court in Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36, this Court while dealing with the identical matter held at Para 23 as under:-

“23. Accordingly, we hold that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born……” (emphasis supplied by us)

“It is pertinent to note here that recently, this Court in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors, 2018 (1) Scale 657 dealt, inter-alia, with the dispute of daughter’s right in the ancestral property. In the above case, father of the daughter died in 2001, yet court permitted the daughter to claim the right in ancestral property in view of the amendment in 2005. On a perusal of the judgment and after having regard to the peculiar facts of the Danamma (supra), it is evident that the Division Bench of this Court primarily did not deal with the issue of death of the father rather it was mainly related to the question of law whether daughter who born prior to 2005 amendment would be entitled to claim a share in ancestral property or not? In such circumstances, in our view, Prakash & Ors. (supra), would still hold precedent on the issue of death of coparcener for the purpose of right of daughter in ancestral property. Shortly put, only living daughters of living coparceners would be entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property.”

14. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 32601 of 2018 with SLP No. 684 of 2016 and others dated 11th August 2020 [118 taxmann.com 322] clarifies the position in relation to certain issues arising out of the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, made in 2005 in relation to the conferring the status of a coparcener on a daughter.

Q.(i) Whether the coparcener father must be alive on 9th September, 2005 for the daughter to be a coparcener?

15. The important aspect to be understood here is the difference between Unobstructed and Obstructed heritage. Mulla on Hindu Law has discussed the concept as below:

“216. Obstructed and unobstructed heritage. – Mitakshara divides property into two classes, namely, unobstructed heritage and obstructed heritage.

“(1) Property in which a person acquires an interest by birth is called unobstructed heritage, because the accrual of the right to it is not obstructed by the existence of the owner. Thus, property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father, but not from his maternal grand-father, is unobstructed heritage as regards his own male issue, i.e., his son, grandson, and great-grandson. His male issues acquire an interest in it from the moment of their birth. Their right to it arises from the mere fact of their birth in the family, and they become coparceners with their paternal ancestor in such property immediately on their birth, and in such cases ancestral property is unobstructed heritage.

“Property, the right to which accrues not by birth but on the death of the last owner without leaving a male issue, is called obstructed heritage. It is called obstructed, because the accrual of right to it is obstructed by the existence of the owner. Thus, property which devolves on parents, brothers, nephews, uncles, etc. upon the death of the last owner, is obstructed heritage. These relations do not take a vested interest in the property by birth. Their right to it arises for the first time on the death of the owner. Until then, they have a mere spes successionis, or a bare chance of succession to the property, contingent upon their surviving the owner.”

16. The Supreme Court after considering the contentions of both the parties and various judgments of the Supreme Court held as under:

“44. It is apparent that unobstructed heritage takes place by birth, and the obstructed heritage takes place after the death of the owner. It is significant to note that under section 6 by birth, right is given that is called unobstructed heritage. It is not the obstructed heritage depending upon the owner’s death. Thus, coparcener father need not be alive on 9.9.2005, date of substitution of provisions of Section 6.

“55. The amended provisions of section 6(1) provide that on and from the commencement of the Amendment Act, the daughter is conferred the right. Section 6(1)(a) makes daughter by birth a coparcener “in her own right” and “in the same manner as the son.” Section 6(1)(a) contains the concept of the unobstructed heritage of Mitakshara coparcenary, which is by virtue of birth. Section 6(1)(b) confers the same rights in the coparcenary property “as she would have had if she had been a son”. The conferral of right is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of a son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth. Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 9.9.2005, the provisions are of retroactive application; they confer benefits based on the antecedent event, and the Mitakshara coparcenary law shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener. At the same time, the legislature has provided savings by adding a proviso that any disposition or alienation, if there be any testamentary disposition of the property or partition which has taken place before 20.12.2004, the date on which the Bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha, shall not be invalidated.

“56. The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights. The retrospective statute operates backward and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in futuro. However, its operation is based upon the character or status that arose earlier. Characteristic or event which happened in the past or requisites which had been drawn from antecedent events. Under the amended section 6, since the right is given by birth, that is an antecedent event, and the provisions operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date of Amendment Act.”

“63. Considering the principle of coparcenary that a person is conferred the rights in the Mitakshara coparcenary by birth, similarly, the daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener, with equal rights and liabilities as of that of a son. The expression used in section 6 is that she becomes coparcener in the same manner as a son. By adoption also, the status of coparcener can be conferred. The concept of uncodified Hindu law of unobstructed heritage has been given a concrete shape under the provisions of section 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b). Coparcener right is by birth. Thus, it is not at all necessary that the father of the daughter should be living as on the date of the amendment, as she has not been conferred the rights of a coparcener by obstructed heritage. According to the Mitakshara coparcenary Hindu law, as administered which is recognised in section 6(1), it is not necessary that there should be a living, coparcener or father as on the date of the amendment to whom the daughter would succeed. The daughter would step into the coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the Act. However, daughter born before can claim these rights only with effect from the date of the amendment, i.e., 9.9.2005 with saving of past transactions as provided in the proviso to section 6(1) read with section 6(5).

“64. The effect of the amendment is that a daughter is made coparcener, with the date of amendment and she can claim partition also, which is a necessary concomitant of the coparcenary. Section 6(1) recognises a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law. The coparcenary must exist on 9.9.2005 to enable the daughter of a coparcener to enjoy rights conferred on her. As the right is by birth and not by dint of inheritance, it is irrelevant that a coparcener whose daughter is conferred with the rights is alive or not. Conferral is not based on the death of a father or other coparcener. In case living coparcener dies after 9.9.2005, inheritance is not by survivorship but by intestate or testamentary succession as provided in substituted section 6(3).”

“75. A finding has been recorded in Prakash v. Phulavati that the rights under the substituted section 6 accrue to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9.9.2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. We find that the attention of this Court was not drawn to the aspect as to how a coparcenary is created. It is not necessary to form a coparcenary or to become a coparcener that a predecessor coparcener should be alive; relevant is birth within degrees of coparcenary to which it extends. Survivorship is the mode of succession, not that of the formation of a coparcenary. Hence, we respectfully find ourselves unable to agree with the concept of “living coparcener”, as laid down in Prakash v. Phulavati. In our opinion, the daughters should be living on 9.9.2005. In substituted section 6, the expression ‘daughter of a living coparcener’ has not been used. Right is given under section 6(1)(a) to the daughter by birth. Declaration of right based on the past event was made on 9.9.2005 and as provided in section 6(1)(b), daughters by their birth, have the same rights in the coparcenary, and they are subject to the same liabilities as provided in section 6(1)(c). Any reference to the coparcener shall include a reference to the daughter of a coparcener. The provisions of section 6(1) leave no room to entertain the proposition that coparcener should be living on 9.9.2005 through whom the daughter is claiming. We are unable to be in unison with the effect of deemed partition for the reasons mentioned in the latter part.”

17. Thus the Supreme Court corrected the view of the Division Bench and held that it is irrelevant whether the coparcener father is alive or not on 9th September, 2005 for the daughter to be a coparcener.

Q.(ii) Whether the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son when the proceeding for final decree or appeal is pending, even though a preliminary decree has been passed?

Partition

18. The right to claim partition is a significant basic feature of the coparcenary and a coparcener has the right to claim partition. Prior to the amendment in 2005 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter was not a coparcener and therefore, she was not entitled to claim partition. The daughter has now been conferred the status of a coparcener and as a result becomes entitled to claim partition which is a vital change. By the amendment of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the rights of a daughter have been amended to be equal to that of a son. Therefore, in case of a partition, the father coparcener (Karta), sons, daughters and wife of the coparcener (Karta) are entitled to an equal share. The right of a wife of a coparcener (Karta) in the coparcenary property is in no way taken away. After taking a definite share in the property, a coparcener becomes the owner of that share and he or she can alienate the same by sale or mortgage in the same manner as he or she can dispose of his or her separate property.

19. In ITO Calicut v. N.K. Sarada Thampatty, [AIR 1991 SC 2035], it was held that if a preliminary decree for partition is passed, it will not amount to a partition unless an actual physical partition is carried out pursuant to a final decree.

20. In S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy & Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 647] a suit for partition was filed. A preliminary decree determining the shares was passed. The final decree was yet to be passed. It was observed that unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete. A preliminary decree does not bring about the final partition. Pending the final decree, the shares themselves are liable to be varied on account of the intervening events and the preliminary decree does not bring about any irreversible situation. The concept of partition that the legislature had in mind could not be equated with a mere severance of the status of the joint family, which could be effected by an expression of a mere desire by a family member to do so. The benefit of the provision of section 29A of the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 could not have been denied to women whose daughters were entitled to seek shares equally with sons in the family. In S. Sai Reddy (supra), it was held:

“7. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the preliminary decree has the effect of depriving respondents 2 to 5 of the benefits of the amendment. The learned counsel placed reliance on clause (iv) of Section 29-A to support his contention that it does. Clause (ii) of the section provides that a daughter shall be allotted share like a son in the same manner treating her to be a son at the partition of the joint family property. However, the legislature was conscious that prior to the enforcement of the amending Act, partitions will already have taken place in some families and arrangements with regard to the disposition of the properties would have been made and marriage expenses would have been incurred etc. The legislature, therefore, did not want to unsettle the settled positions. Hence, it enacted clause (iv) providing that clause (ii) would not apply to a daughter married prior to the partition or to a partition which had already been effected before the commencement of the amending Act. Thus if prior to the partition of family property a daughter had been married, she was disentitled to any share in the property. Similarly, if the partition had been effected before September 5, 1985 the date on which the amending Act came into force, the daughter even though unmarried was not given a share in the family property. The crucial question, however, is as to when a partition can be said to have been effected for the purposes of the amended provision. A partition of the joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, viz., by a family settlement, by a registered instrument of partition, by oral arrangement by the parties, or by a decree of the Court. When a suit for partition is filed in a court, a preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the members of the family. The final decree follows, thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete. The preliminary decree which determines shares does not bring about the final partition. For, pending the final decree the shares themselves are liable to be varied on account of the intervening events. In the instant case, there is no dispute that only a preliminary decree had been passed and before the final decree could be passed the amending Act came into force as a result of which clause (ii) of Section 29-A of the Act became applicable. This intervening event which gave shares to respondents 2 to 5 had the effect of varying shares of the parties like any supervening development. Since the legislation is beneficial and placed on the statute book with the avowed object of benefitting women which is a vulnerable section of the society in all its strata, it is necessary to give a liberal effect to it. For this reason also, we cannot equate the concept of partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case with a mere severance of the status of the joint family which can be effected by an expression of a mere desire by a family member to do so. The partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case is undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and which has brought about an irreversible situation. A preliminary decree which merely declares shares which are themselves liable to change does not bring about any irreversible situation. Hence, we are of the view that unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. Any other view is likely to deprive a vast section of the fair sex of the benefits conferred by the amendment. Spurious family settlements, instruments of partitions not to speak of oral partitions will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of the legislation depriving a vast section of women of its benefits.

21. In Prema v. Nanje Gowda, [AIR 2011 SC 2077] it was held that by the change of law, the share of daughter can be enlarged even after passing a preliminary decree, the effect can be given to in final decree proceedings.

22. The Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), after considering the various decisions of the Supreme Court held as under:

“99. Once the constitution of coparcenary changes by birth or death, shares have to be worked out at the time of actual partition. The shares will have to be determined in changed scenario. The severance of status cannot come in the way to give effect to statutory provision and change by subsequent event. The statutory fiction of partition is far short of actual partition, it does not bring about the disruption of the joint family or that of coparcenary is a settled proposition of law. For the reasons mentioned above, we are also of the opinion that mere severance of status by way of filing a suit does not bring about the partition and till the date of the final decree, change in law, and changes due to the subsequent event can be taken into consideration.

“106. ….. This Court consistently held in various decisions mentioned above that when the rights are subsequently conferred, the preliminary decree can be amended, and the benefit of law has to be conferred. Hence, we have no hesitation to reject the effect of statutory fiction of proviso to section 6 as discussed in Prakash v. Phulavati (supra) and Danamma (supra). If a daughter is alive on the date of enforcement of the Amendment Act, she becomes a coparcener with effect from the date of the Amendment Act, irrespective of the date of birth earlier in point of time.

Effect of Oral partition

Q.(iii)What is the effect of oral partition subsequent to the insertion of explanation to section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

23. Section 6(5) as proposed in the original Bill of 2004 read as under:

“(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2004.”

24. Subsequent to the introduction of the bill a Note for the Cabinet issued by the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, suggested as under:

“As regards sub-section (5) of the proposed new section 6, the committee vide paragraph has recommended that the term “partition” should be properly defined, leaving any arbitrary interpretation. Partition for all practical purposes should be registered have been effected by a decree of the Court. In case where oral partition is recognised, be backed by proper documentary evidence. It is proposed to accept this recommendation and make suitable changes in the Bill.”

25. The Explanation to section 6(5) provides that for the purposes of section 6, ‘partition’ means a partition effected by any registered partition deed or by a decree of a court. The intention was to avoid any claim of partition which is sham or bogus to defeat the purpose of conferring rights of coparcener to daughters by the Amendment Act, 2005.

26. The intention of inserting the explanation to section 6(5) is to ensure that daughters are not deprived of their rights of obtaining their shares on becoming coparceners and claiming a partition of the coparcenary property by setting up the frivolous defence of oral partition and/or recorded in the unregistered memorandum of partition.

27. The Supreme Court has observed that a Court has to keep in mind the possibility that a plea of oral partition may be set up, fraudulently or in collusion, or based on unregistered memorandum of partition which may also be created at any point of time which is not recognized as partition under section 6(5) of the Amendment Act.

28. However, under the law that prevailed earlier, an oral partition was recognised. The intention of amended section 6(5) of the Act is only to accept the genuine partitions that might have taken place under the prevailing law and oral partitions without any documentary evidences are to be out rightly rejected. The amended provisions of section 6(5) are required to be interpreted to cast a heavy burden of proof upon the person who claims partition such as separate occupation of portions, appropriation of the income, consequent entry in the revenue records and invariably to be supported by other contemporaneous public documents admissible in evidence. Even this may be accepted most reluctantly while exercising all safeguards. Otherwise, it would become very easy to deprive a daughter of her rights as a coparcener. The Supreme Court observed that Courts cannot defeat the object of the beneficial provisions made by the Amendment Act. The Supreme Court also observed that the exception is carved out by them as earlier execution of a registered document for partition was not necessary. There is a clear legislative departure with respect to proof of partition which prevailed earlier. Therefore, the Court has recognised the other mode of partition in exceptional cases based upon documentary evidence.

29. To summarize the above the Supreme Court decision, it has held that:

(i) A daughter born before or after the amendment or born before commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is conferred the status of a coparcener.

(ii) The rights of coparcenary can be claimed by a daughter with effect from 9th September, 2005.

(iii) It is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living on 9th September, 2005.

(iv) The statutory notional (fiction) partition created by proviso to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The notional (fiction) partition was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener. The provisions of the substituted section 6 are required to be given full effect even after a notional (fiction) partition took place.

(v) Even if a preliminary decree has been passed in the partition suit, the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.

(vi) In view of the Explanation to Section 6(5), a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as a statutorily recognised mode of partition. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evidenced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected out rightly.

30. Subsequent to the amendment in 2005 of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the difference between a Coparcenary and Hindu joint family has diminished considerably. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (supra) is a judgment of a three judges’ bench of the Supreme Court and therefore, it overrides the earlier judgments of the division benches of the Supreme Court. The judgment has certainly given a clarity to various issues having a huge number of pending litigations on the subject throughout the country.

Light at the end of Tunnel

Although we are surrounded with the cases of Covid-19, the partial opening has started shaping the economy. We the professionals have started attending to the work. The meeting with clients be best kept virtual. I am sure we all have now adopted ourselves to virtual world; virtual meetings and virtual hearings before Courts as also appellate authorities. The incoming festivals would bring hopes for a brighter year. The hustle-bustle of activities every where indicates the economy is slowly trying to revive. It’s a very good sign. While we are expecting and looking forward to brighter days of festival ahead, we can’t afford to be slack about the health care protocols to be followed in office and at home. So friends, let’s be part of the reviving economy.

Faceless Appeal under Income Tax Act

After faceless assessment, we have now faceless appeal proceedings under Income Tax Act. There is difference between faceless assessment and faceless appeal. A person files the appeal as he is aggrieved by the assessment order and he wish himself to be heard by higher authority. Appeal is a statutory right provided by the law. In the new Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020, the right of being heard, even through the videoconferencing mode shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Director General and therefore the same is discretionary, i.e. he “may’ or “may not” provide a right of personal hearing in the matter. Such provision would not only result in injustice, but would promote corruption and malpractice. This would promote highhanded attitude of superior authorities. Such provisions take away the entire charm of scheme Faceless appeal. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has directed the respondents in case of LAKSHYA BUDHIRAJA to file affidavit in reply.

The aforesaid mechanism was challenged as discriminatory, against the settled principles of law and in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right to provide or not to provide a hearing in the matter is also against the principle of audi alteram partem i.e. no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given an opportunity to respond to the evidence against them. The Faceless Appeal Scheme is contrary to sections 250(1), 250(2) and 250(5) of the Act, which specifically state that right of hearing shall be granted to an assesse at the appeal.

One more aspect I find missing in faceless appeal is with regard to right to the inspection of assessment and Investigation records. Federation would represent to the CBDT and FM about many such lacuna in the faceless appeal scheme. If required we may file writ petition challenging arbitrary and unjust provisions.

Extension for the name sake

The trying times on account of pandemics are being made more miserable by the Government. The annual return form 9 and audit report in form 9C under GST acts for the FY 2018-2019 were required to be filed by 30th September 2020. Representations were made from all the corners of India, including by Federation to extend the time up to 31st Dec 2020. Unfortunately, like a miser giving charity, the time was extended only by one month, that too, just a day prior to the prescribed date. The time is obviously not sufficient for major part of Country, mainly big cities where the partial opening also has restrictions. The public transport and local trains are not working. The Registered persons and CA and Cost accountants are not having their support staff in full strength. Under such circumstances the dates for audit report under GST ought to have been extended up to 31st Dec 2020. In any case the government has no revenue to loss, but granting time would ensure that a satisfactory compliance is made by the registered persons.

Mega event by North zone

The second virtual NTC was organized by North Zone on 2nd and 3rd October. The Chief Guest and the Guests of Honour were the High court Judges who had been our active members in past. It was wonderful to have all the Gems of the association being present on one platform. One more unforgettable part of the VNTC and icing on the cake was the last session named Ashirvachan. We had the opportunity to meet our heroes of past, Shri R D Sharma, who is 90 + age, Shri Bharatji Agarwal, ……….etc. I congratulate The North zone Chairman and the Conference Chairman Shri Sanjaykumar for wonderful experience of meeting the persons who have been regular source of inspiration for activities of Federation.

Release of Book – 151 landmark judgments of SC

On the second Virtual NTC, we have released a very important, informative and valuable book i.e. 151, land mark Judgments of SC. A rare book containing gist of 151 judgments of SC which are applicable as on today, along with special comment by the team of experts. We have made it available on our website free to all members. I request you all to down load the same for future reference. This book would be permanently helping the tax practitioners.

Refresher course for the legal concepts by West Zone

While we are grappling to digest GST and new schemes under Income tax Act, the West Zone has thought of a novel idea of having six work shops on some basic legal concepts the Subject selected are on law of writs, principles of Interpretation of statues as applicable to tax laws (two lecture), law of precedents, evidence Act and Information technology acts, law of affidavits and doctrine of natural Justice.

The first workshop would be on 11th November 2020, our foundation day. Kindly watch our website for the detail program.

Gear up for multiple compliances

The lockdown has delayed many compliances and legal formalities. You would find yourself loaded with host of pending work and new work. Yes the silver line in the clouds is visible now. Lets look forward to brighter and better days.

Maa Durga Devi’s Navratri days have started, Diwali is not so far. Enjoy the festive season.

But safety first. Mask, social distancing and regular hand wash should be the way of life. Stay safe and healthy.

Nikita R. Badheka
National President, AIFTP

Recent Developments Under GST

1. Interest on Net tax liability

It started with the GST council in its 31st meeting recommending the amendment in GST law to specify that interest is liable only on the ‘Net liability’ paid in cash. Truly speaking, this is wholly unwarranted and would have avoided the battle of the taxpayers in this subject matter.

Then the matter has gone to the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in case of Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited v. C.C.T, 2019-TIOL-893-HC-TELANGANA-GST wherein it was held that the interest has to be paid on Gross Tax Liability. However, the review petition is admitted by the HC and pending as on date.

Honouring the GST council recommendation, the Central Government vide Finance Act, 2019 has amended GST law to specify that the interest will be paid only on the net tax liability which read as under-

Provided that the interest on tax payable in respect of supplies made during a tax period and declared in the return for the said period furnished after the due date in accordance with the provisions of section 39, except where such return is furnished after commencement of any proceedings under section 73 or section 74 in respect of the said period, shall be levied on that portion of the tax that is paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger’.

Taking analogy that the amendment would be prospective, the Revenue department started issuing notices & initiated recovery proceeding by attaching bank accounts and deducted the amounts directly from the bank account of the registered persons & further the CBIC further with his twitter handle on 15.02.2020 clarified that the amendment will be made on prospective basis & till the amendment is made effective the interest has to be paid on Gross tax Liability. In this process certain taxpayers have filed writ petitions contesting the demands and got a stay while some taxpayers paid/recovered by the department. Meanwhile, the Hon’ble HC of Madras in case of Refex Industries v. AC of CGST 2020-TIOL-382-HC-MAD-GST held that interest is only on the net liability.

Considering the Hue & cry across the Country, the GST Council in its 39th Meeting has recommended for retrospective amendment.

Recently, the Government vide Notification No. 63/2020-C.T dated 25.08.2020 has notified the FA, 2019 amendment w.e.f. 01.09.2020. The issuance of this notification has left the question of the liability for the period prior to 01.09.2020.

There was an expectation that Government may come with another amendment in CGST Act, 2017 as notification is incapable of making retrospective effect in line with GST council recommendation. Instead, the CBIC has chosen the issuance of press release to assure that recoveries will not be made for the past period. While it is unknow as to why CBIC has chosen the press release route instead of law amendment or at least a circular, There were apprehensions on the binding nature of press release but the section 168 of CGST Act, 2017 can save from such worries to great extent.

2. E invoicing

E-Invoice is a standard format of the invoice recommended by the GSTN for the GST registered suppliers. There is a myth or misconception that e-invoicing means the generation of invoices from a central portal of the tax department (GSTN PORTAL). Existing software would adopt the new e-invoice standard wherein they would re-align their data access and retrieval in the standard format.

As per Rule 48(4) of CGST Rules 2017, the invoice shall be prepared by such class of registered persons as may be notified by the Government, by including such particulars contained in FORM GST INV-01 after obtaining an Invoice Reference Number by uploading information contained therein on the Common GST Portal. Further, Rule 48 (5) prescribes – Every invoice issued by a person to whom sub-rule (4) applies in any manner other than the manner specified in the said sub-rule shall not be treated as an invoice.

By Notification No. 71/2020 – dated 30 September Central Tax The government has also deferred the requirement of Dynamic QR code on B2C invoices till 31 December 2020 which is also a relief for the Taxpayers.

In the recent press release issued by CBIC on 30th September 2020, the penalties as leviable u/s 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been waived on e-invoices issued during October, if companies issuing them get reference numbers within 30 days. It has been decided that the invoices issued by such taxpayers during October 2020 without following the manner prescribed under rule 48(4), shall be deemed to be valid and the penalty leviable under section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, for such non-adherence to provisions, shall stand waived if the Invoice Reference Number (IRN) for such invoices is obtained from the Invoice Reference Portal (IRP) within 30 days of the date of invoice.

3. Highlights of 42nd GST Council Meeting

A. Levy of Compensation Cess to be extended beyond 5 years

Levy of Compensation Cess to be extended beyond the transition period of five years i.e. beyond June, 2022, for such period as may be required to meet the revenue gap.

B. Relief For Small tax payers

As a further step towards reducing the compliance burden particularly on the small taxpayers having aggregate annual turnover less than ` 5 cr., the Council’s has recommended of allowing filing of returns on a quarterly basis with monthly payments by such taxpayers to be implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2021.

Such quarterly taxpayers would, for the first two months of the quarter, have an option to pay 35% of the net cash tax liability of the last quarter using an auto generated challan.

C. Revising the requirement to mention HSN/SAC on Tax Invoices

The council has recommended following changes w.e.f 1 April 2021 as under :-

PRESENT SCENARIO RECOMMENDED
TURNOVER HSN DIGITS TURNOVER HSN DIGITS
UPTO 1.5 CRORE Not Required Upto 5 Cr 4 digits
More than 1.5 Cr upto 5 Cr 2 Digits More than 5 cr 8 digits
More than 5 Cr 4 Digits Govt notified supplies 8 Digits

D. Enhancement in features of return filing

With a view to further enhance Ease of Doing Business and improve the compliance experience, the Council has approved the future roadmap for return filing under GST. The approved framework aims to simplify return filing and further reduce the taxpayer’s compliance burden in this regard significantly, such that the timely furnishing of details of outward supplies (GSTR-1) by a taxpayer and his suppliers would-

• Due date of furnishing quarterly GSTR-1 by quarterly taxpayers to be revised to 13 of the month succeeding the quarter w.e.f. 01st January, 2021.

• Auto-population of liability from own GSTR-1 w.e.f. 1st January, 2021.

o Auto-population of input tax credit from suppliers GSTR-1s through the newly developed facility in FORM GSTR-2B for monthly filers w.e.f. 01st January, 2021 and for quarterly filers w.e.f. 01st April, 2021.

• In order to ensure auto population of ITC and liability in GSTR 3B as detailed above, FORM GSTR 1 would be mandatorily required to be filed before FORM GSTR3B w.e.f. 1st April, 2021.

• The present GSTR-1/3B return filing system to be extended till 31.03.2021 and the GST laws to be amended to make the GSTR-1/3B return filing system as the default return filing system.

• Enabling the taxpayer to view the ITC available in his electronic credit ledger from all sources i.e. domestic supplies, imports and payments on reverse charge etc. prior to the due date for payment of tax.

E. GST Council exempts satellite launch services by ISRO, Antrix

To encourage domestic launching of satellites particularly by young start-ups, the satellite launch services supplied by ISRO, Antrix Corporation Ltd. and NSIL would be exempted.

F. Refund to be paid/disbursed

Refund to be paid/disbursed in a validated bank account linked with the PAN & Aadhaar of the registrant w.e.f. 01.01.2021.

M. L. Patodi,
Member, Editorial Board

To be held

Date / Day Zone Topic Speaker
20/05/2023 Central Zone Full Day Mega Tax Conference,Bhilwara Click Here
27/05/2023 – 29/05/2023 Central Zone National Spiritual Conference,Mount Abu Click Here
17/06/2023 Western,Northern & Eastern Zone One Day Conference,Thane Click Here
21/06/2023 – 22/06/2023 Southern Zone National Tax Conference,Tirupathi Click Here
25/06/2023 Central Zone Full Day Conference,Kota Click Here
30/06/2023 Central Zone National Tax Conference,Raipur Click Here
07/07/2023 – 08/07/2023 Southern Zone National Tax Conference,Chennai Click Here
15/07/2023 – 16/07/2023 Northern Zone National Tax Conference,Amritsar Click Here
04/08/2023 – 05/08/2023 Southern Zone National Tax Conference,Bengaluru Click Here
20/08/2023 Central Zone National Tax Conference,Alwar Click Here
21/08/2023 – 22/08/2023 Western Zone National Tax Conference,Shirdi Click Here
26/08/2023 – 27/08/2023 Eastern Zone National Tax Conference,Rourkela Click Here
02/09/2023 – 03/09/2023 Northern Zone National Tax Conference,Vrindavan Click Here
23/12/2023 – 24/12/2023 Eastern Zone National Convention,Kolkata Click Here

Past Conference & Convention

Sr. No. Date Day Zone Topic Chairman Speaker YouTube Video link PPT / Webinar Material
52 13/05/2023 – 14/05/2023 Saturday Central Zone One Day National Tax Conference,Gaziabad   Click here    
51 06/05/2023 Saturday Western Zone One Day National Tax Conference,Gaziabad   Click here    
50 29/04/2023-30/04/2023 Saturday Western Zone Two Day National Tax Conference with visit to Statute of Unity,Vadodara   Click here    
49 22/04/2023 Saturday Southern Zone One Day Conference, Vishakapatnam   Click here    
48 15/04/2023 Saturday Western Zone One Day Tax Conference, Ahmedabad   Click here    
47 18/03/2023 – 19/03/2023 Saturday Northern Zone Two Day National Tax Conference, Lucknow   Click here    
46 25/02/2023 Saturday Southern Zone One Day Conference, Puducherry   Click Here    
45 25/02/2023 Saturday Northern Zone 78th Foundation Day Celebrations , Varanasi   Click Here    
44 03/02/2023 Friday National Tax Conference, Puri   Click Here    
43 20/01/2023 Friday Eastern Zone National Evaluative Conference On GST, Kolkata   Click Here    
42 06/01/2023 Friday National Tax Conference, New Delhi   Click Here    
41 16/11/2022-18/11/2022 Saturday 25th National Tax Convention 2022, Jaipur   Click Here    
40 26/11/2022 Saturday Northern Zone Kashi Vishwanath Dham Tax Conference 2022, Varanasi   Click Here    
39 12/11/2022 Saturday Western Zone Full Day Conference, Pune   Click Here    
38 12/11/2022 Saturday Central Zone State Level Conference – ABHIGYAAN, Indore   Click Here    
37 12/11/2022 Saturday Eastern Zone Ranchi Tax Conference, Ranchi   Click Here    
36 12/11/2022 Saturday Northern Zone Prerna Direct And Indirect Taxation Conference, Chandigarh   Click Here    
35 1/10/2022-2/10/2022 Saturday & Sunday Western NATIONAL TAX CONFERENCE   Click Here    
34 28/8/2022-2/9/2022 Saturday   International Conference & Study Tour   Click Here    
33 13/8/2022 Saturday Eastern Annual General Meeting followed by One Day Tax Conference        
32 14/08/2022 Sunday Eastern One Day Tax Conference   Click Here    
31 6/08/2022-7/08/2022 Saturday & Sunday Northern National Tax Conference        
30 25/6/2022 Saturday Central Full Day Seminar on Income Tax and GST   Click Here    
29 11/06/2022-12/6/2022 Saturday-
Sunday
Northern National Tax conference 2022   Click Here    
28 11/6/2022 Saturday   National Executive Committee Meeting        
27 28/5/2022 Saturday Eastern One Day Tax Conference 2022 at Jamshedpur   Click Here    
26 21/5/2022 Saturday Central TAX CONCLAVE- 2022 (Full Day Physical Seminar on Income Tax, GST & Allied Laws)   Click Here https://youtu.be/AeB5vSCcNus  
25 14/5/2022 Saturday Northern One Day Tax Conference at Kanpur   Click Here    
24 30/4/2022 Saturday Western One Day Tax Conference at Surat   Click Here    
23 23/4/2022 Saturday Southern One Day GST Educational Seminar   Click Here    
22 15/4/2022 Friday Eastern One Day Bhubaneswar Tax Conference on 15.4.2022   Click Here    
21 16/3/2022 Wednesday Western Half Day Conference 2021-22   Click Here    
20 11/03/2022-13/3/2022 Friday – Sunday Central Residential Refresher Course 2022   Click Here    
19 26/2/2022-28/2/2022 Saturday – Monday Eastern Two Day National Tax Conference alongwith Gangasagar Darshan on 28th February, 2022   Click Here Day 1 –
https://youtu.be/bAoLBD3N9YM
Day 2 –
https://youtu.be/8zrK0wLsr0s
Photos
18 18/2/2022-19/2/2022 Friday – Saturday   Taxcon – 2022 [Hybrid Mode]   Click Here   Photos
13 24/12/2021-26/12/2021 Friday – Sunday Northern National Tax Convention 2021, Lucknow   Click Here https://youtu.be/mXa4enxexx4 Photos
12 1/10/2021-3/10/2021 Friday – Sunday Northern National Executive Committee Meeting & National Tax Conference (NZ)   Click Here    
11 8/8/2021-9/8/2021 Sunday -Monday Central Residential Refresher Course 2021   Click Here    
10 13/5/2021-17/5/2021 Thursday-Monday Central AIFTP International Study Tour, 2021   Click Here    
9 10/4/2021-11/4/2021 Saturday & Sunday Eastern National Tax Conference   Click Here    
8 23/2/2021-27/2/2021 Tuesday to Saturday Central Residential Refresher Course 2021   Click Here    
7 20-2-2021 Wednesday & Thursday Northern Finance Bill 2021   Click Here    
6 17/2/2021-18/2/2021 Wednesday & Thursday Western Virtual National Tax Conference    Click Here   Click Here 
5 6/12/2020 Sunday Southern Joint Development Agreements under GST Sri. ML Patodi, Advocate CA S. Venkataramani    
Indian Economy – Need for Structural Reforms Sri. Ganesh Purohit, Senior Advocate Dr. MR Venkatesh, Advocate    
Latest Judicial Pronouncements on Business Income under Income Tax Hon’ble Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, Judge Sri. KK Chaitanya, Advocate    
Faceless Assessments – e-Appeals under Income Tax Smt. Premlatha Bansal, Senior Advocate Dr. Girish Ahuja    
5/12/2020 Saturday Intricacies in ITC and Place of Supply under GST Sri. PC Joshi, Advocate CA Bimal Jain    
Applicability of Stamp Value Rate to Income Tax Act, 1961 Dr. K Shivaram, Senior Advocate Sri. Kapil Goel, Advocate    
Important Advance Rulings and Judicial Pronouncements Dr. MYK Moorthy, Supreme Court Advocate Sri. Vikram Mankani, Senior Advocate    
4 7/11/ 2020 Saturday Central Virtual National Tax Conference – Day 2 Mr. M. Srinivas Rao, Deputy President AIFTP Chief Guest: Smt Nirmala Sitharaman, Union Finance Minister https://youtu.be/Gfbw1D8cKKk  
6/11/ 2020 Friday Virtual National Tax Conference – Day 1 Mr. Ganesh Purohit, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M L Patodi, Adv.
Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv.
https://youtu.be/CWXobsB_lpA
https://youtu.be/Ia-iMK_InVA
 
3 3/10/ 2020 Saturday Northern Virtual National Tax Conference – Day 2 Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court
Dr. M. V. K. Moorthy, Advocate, Supreme Court
Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate, Supreme Cour
CA S. Venkatramani
https://youtu.be/-R8CQ7R5b5A Click Here
(Zip file)
2/10/ 2020 Friday Virtual National Tax Conference – Day 1 Dr. Ashok Saraf, Senior Advocate, Gauhati High Court
Mr. P. C. Joshi, Advocate, Bombay High Court
Dr. Girish Ahuja, FCA, New Delhi
Mr. Tarun Gulati, Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court
https://youtu.be/QjwhJSjX6zE
2 12 & 13/09/2020 Saturday & Sunday Western Virtual National Tax Conference – Dnyan-Sangam 2020 1. Adv. M. L. Patodi, Kota
2. Adv. P. C. Joshi, Mumbai
3. Sr. Adv. V. Sridharan, Mumbai
4. Sr. Adv. Dr. Ashok Saraf, Guwahati
5. Sr. Adv. Dr. K. Shivaram, Mumbai
1. CA Bimal Jain, New Delhi
2. Adv. P. C. Joshi, Mumbai
3. Sr. Adv. V. Sridharan, Mumbai
4. Sr. Adv. Dr. Ashok Saraf, Guwahati
5. Sr. Adv. Dr. K. Shivaram, Mumbai
https://youtu.be/YnJziY6ZBqk
https://youtu.be/hF4z3u3LCw0
https://fb.watch/1azVhlys7u/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2811721225820285
Click Here 
(Zip pdf)
1 13-14-15/12/2019 Saturday & Sunday Western 22nd National Convention
Inauguration
Inauguration by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge, Bombay High Court, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. P. Bhat, President ITAT https://youtu.be/L526rYnwQLQ  
E-Assessments – Paving for Pioneering Tax Reforms Dr. K. Shivaram Sr. Advocate, Mumbai Shri Mukesh Patel, Advocate, Ahmedabad https://youtu.be/skb1SnK0HI4  
Power of Arrest and Prosecution under Tax laws Shri Vikram Nankani, Sr. Advocate, Mumbai Shri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate, Allahabad https://youtu.be/4w8QIDt2_7Y  
Panel Discussions – Shifting of Burden of Proof – Direct & Indirect Tax Moderator: CA. Pradip Kapasi, Mumbai Panellists: Shri V. Sridharan,
Sr. Advocate, Mumbai and
Shri Saurabh Soparkar,
Sr. Advocate, Ahmedabad
https://youtu.be/xJc0y8calFE  
Valuation under GST law with reference to treatment of discounts, price variations, incentives and its implications on Input Tax Credit Shri P. C. Joshi, Advocate, Mumbai CA. Sujata Rangnekar, Mumbai https://youtu.be/5v4Jy38neDA  
Direct Taxes: Dilution of Fundamental Taxation Principles (or deeming provisions) Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv., New Delhi Shri Hiro Rai, Advocate, Mumbai https://youtu.be/7cl7NcjlGws  
Intricacies of recent amendments under GST (including return) Shri Vinayak Patkar Advocate, Mumbai CA. Umang Talati, Mumbai https://youtu.be/0b05BLtJFH4  
Valedictory session Valedictory session   https://youtu.be/M2Co3EV4Gxc