Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
26.10.2015 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Monday, October 26, 2015

  I. Headlines Today:    

  1. CPEC: Importers and exporters required to use digital signatures from January 1  (Click for detail)
  2. You May Have to Pay a Penalty for Switching Loans in First 2 Years  (Click for detail)
  3. Govt to Ease Safe Harbour Rules to Attract PE Funds  (Click for detail)
  4. Taxman Argues in Favour Of MAT, FPIs Want Govt To Clarify, End Row  (Click for detail)
  5. I-T department to roll out 'pilot' project for scrutiny assessment  (Click for detail)
  6. RBI rejects plan for 100% FDI in banks  (Click for detail)
II.  Direct Taxes Case Laws:


1.  Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., I.T.A. No. 545/2015, Date of Order: 08.10.2015, Delhi High Court

Whether ITAT was correct in dismissing the appeal observing, that apart from making a mere reference to information received from the investigation wing, the AO mechanically issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, without coming to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment during the AY in question.

Held Yes

In the present case, after setting out four entries, stated to have been received by the Assessee on a single date i.e. 10th February 2003, from four entities which were termed as accommodation entries, which information was given to him by the Directorate of Investigation, the AO stated: “I have also perused various materials and report from Investigation Wing and on that basis it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of above accommodation entries.”

The above conclusion is unhelpful in understanding whether the AO applied his mind to the materials that he talks about particularly since he did not describe what those materials were. Once the date on which the so called accommodation entries were provided is known, it would not have been difficult for the AO, if he had in fact undertaken the exercise, to make a reference to the manner in which those very entries were provided in the accounts of the Assessee, which must have been tendered along with the return, which was filed on 14th November 2004 and was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the AO to have simply concluded: “it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation entries”. In the considered view of the Court, in light of the law explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case.

(Please click here for judgment)


2.  Thomson Press (India) Ltd.. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A. No. 83/2003, Date of Judgment: 09.10.2015, Delhi High Court

Whether the Assessee could include notional interest as income in computation of profits and gains derived by its undertaking from export of articles or things, for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act.

Held No.

In the present case, the Assessee has not derived any interest income. Therefore, reducing such notional income – which has neither been accrued nor received – from the Assessee’s total income is completely alien to the scheme of the Act. Such notional interest could never form a part of the Assessee’s income and thus the Assessee’s claim that the same is to be excluded under Section 10A of the Act is flawed and wholly unsustainable in law. The view as canvassed on behalf of the Assessee is not, even remotely, plausible and we find no infirmity with the CIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.

(Please click here for judgment)   

III.  Reported Cases:

Direct Taxes Segment:

1.  The service-tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the assessee for the services rendered by it. The assessee is only collecting the service-tax for passing it on to the government. Thus, for the purpose of computing the presumptive income of the assessee under Section 44BB, the service-tax collected by the assessee on the amount paid for rendering services is not to be included in the gross receipt in terms of Section 44BB(2) read with Section 44BB(1).
2.  Where assessee, a transporter, having received freight charges for transportation of goods, paid same at a lesser rate to truck owners resulting in profits, assessee, being a contractor, was required to deduct tax at source under section 194C while making payments to truck owners/sub-contractors.
(Please click here for detail)


 Golden Rules:

  "I never see what has been done;
I only see what remains to be done"
                                                                               ... Buddha


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now