According to Sudhir Kapadia, national tax leader, EY India, taxpayers
face difficulties when validation errors are thrown up at the time of final uploading of files on the income tax
website. “Ideally, all errors should be identified by return filing utility at the time of filling up Income Tax
Return templates itself to ease compliance burden,” he says.
Many experts feel there is a strong need for a separate tax return form customised for foreign companies. “There are a number of details, such as profit and loss account and balance sheet, that should not apply to foreign companies not having any business presence or permanent establishments in India,” says Sanjay Sanghvi, partner at law firm Khaitan & Co.
Experts say non-availability of tax credits is a sore point for many corporate taxpayers.
“The entire system should be reviewed threadbare from a technology, process and implementation viewpoint,” says Butani. “If SEBI can get the dematerialisation of stocks, why can’t we get automatic tax credit
mechanism?” he asks. As a way forward, Gajaria suggests that the tax department could gain the trust of an overwhelming majority of taxpayers
if they give credit for TDS on the basis of the claim made by her/him.
Experts agree when it comes to assessment and scrutiny of returns, the procedure should be non-invasive in nature. “Fewer taxpayers
should be picked for assessment or scrutiny,” says Butani. While experts welcome the e-assessment process, they are in favour of the taxpayer retaining the option to seek a personal hearing for the assessment officer.
“The success of the e-assessment process will largely depend on how fast taxpayers
and tax administration are able to embrace technology and work in a paperless environment,” says Kapadia.
Tax-related litigation and recovery of disputed tax demand continue to be a pet peeve for most corporates. Butani wants greater accountability at the first level of appeals. According to him, the first appellate level of appeals has lost its relevance as they tend to invariably agree with their subordinate officers’ views instead of independently reviewing the assessment.
The way forward, say experts, is to have a deadline of six months to decide a case. It generally takes two years at the Commissioner Appeals’ level to decide a tax dispute, they add.
Experts say there is need to put in place objective criteria for the tax department in filing appeals. Any penalty should be levied only after second appeal stage, feel most experts. While there is need to constitute separate tax benches at high courts to clear the backlog of tax-related cases, Goenka suggests the setting up of tax arbitration
Kapadia feels a system of private rulings, which is present in countries like the USA, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the European Union could also be considered with appropriate checks and balances between confidentiality of taxpayer’s data and transparency of rulings.
The Wish List
Filing of returns
Focus on taxpayer services
Help centres for small and micro enterprises
Determine compliance burden through stratification of taxpayers
Use appropriate technology, auto-fill options in tax return forms
A single return for Income Tax and TDS to help reduce the burden of compliance
Grant of tax credits
Review the tax credit system from a technology, process and implementation viewpoint
Use the method of accounting followed by the taxpayer for grant of tax credit
TDS should not be mandatorily linked with the year of accrual or receipt of income; taxpayers should be trusted to make the correct choice
Processing/scrutiny of returns
Fewer taxpayers should be picked for assessment or scrutiny
The e-assessment process is welcome, but the taxpayer must have the option to seek a personal hearing
Litigation and recovery of disputed tax demand
Reforms to address the administrative aspects of the dispute resolution process
Deadline of six months to decide a case
Objective criteria for the tax department in filing appeals
Penalties and prosecution
Penalty notices in a routine manner must stop
Multiple penalty provisions should be streamlined
The penalty should be levied only after a decision is made at the second appellate authority level