Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
21.04.2016 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Thursday, April 21, 2016


I. Headlines Today    

  1. Bought Property but not Deposited TDS? You may Get a Tax Notice  (Click for detail)
  2. Companies remitting pay overseas to parent may face FEMA scrutiny  (Click for detail)
  3. House Panel for Bringing Cos Under Anti-graft Law  (Click for detail)
  4. Hopes of early passage of GST revive  (Click for detail)
  5. RBI trims list of firms needing bad loan provisioning: Report  (Click for detail)
  6. ICAI: Hosting of provisional panel of Chartered Accountant Firms/LLPs with the O/o C&AG for the year 2016-2017  (Click for detail)
II.  Direct Taxes Case Laws: 

1.  M/s Earth Stone Group Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No. 2188/Del/2012, Date  of Pronouncement: 18.04.2016, ITAT - Delhi

Whether the export made by the assessee who is a 100% Export Oriented Unit through its sister concern would be deemed export and would qualify for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act?


Brief Facts:
The assessee company is 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in manufacturing and processing of Marble, sand stone, slate stone, tiles, lime stone, quartzite etc., etc. It filed the Return of Income for Assessment Year 2008-09 declaring NIL income after claiming the deduction u/s 10B amounting to Rs.9,64,64,001/-. AO in his order disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of local sale to its sister concern M/s Stone World which is the proprietary concern of one of the partners.. Aggrieved by which, the assessee appealed before the ITAT.

It was held that the goods which were exported through the sister concern firm were directly sent for shipment by the assessee and the shipping bill also has the assessee’s name for the name of the exporter. In the light of the judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd. vs ACIT, it can be said that the export sales directly made to the overseas buyer through the sister concern was the deemed export of the assessee and deduction u/s 10B was available as the three essential ingredients of exports namely, 1.The goods are manufactured by 100% EOU; 2. The goods are exported out of the country as per FTP provisions; 3. Convertible foreign exchange is brought into India; are fulfilled by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted.

(Please click here for judgment)


2.  DCIT Vs. M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., I.T.A. No. 1082/Kol/2013, Date  of Pronouncement: 15-04-2016, ITAT - Kolkata

Whether the disclosure made voluntarily by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act would qualify for claiming the immunity from penalty u/s 271AAA(2)?


Brief Facts:
The search and seizure operation was conducted on the office premises of the assessee. The assessee filed the return of income in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act declaring total loss of Rs. 4,71,01,221/-, wherein the assessee included the disclosure made during the course of search operations of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for Assessment year 2009-10. Assessee also made a disclosure of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1). Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA on both the assessment years was initiated by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) deleted such penalties based on the submissions made by the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue appealed before ITAT.

ITAT held that no definition could be given to the “specified manner” insofar as the very statement on oath u/s 132(4) specifies the manner on which the assessee is prepared to pay tax thereon.  The inscribing in the books of account was taken care of by the assessee when he filed the returns in pursuance to notice u/s 153A accounting the assets. Moreover, the tax and interest have been recovered by the revenue from the assessee. Where during course of search assessee admitted undisclosed income, paid tax together with interest, filed return showing said income as business income and Assessing Officer had accepted same, it could not be said that assessee had not specified manner or could not substantiate manner in which income was derived. The levy of penalty u/s 27lAAA in the instant cases is not justified. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

(Please click here for judgment)   

 Golden Rule of Success:





Do Again

And Again

Keep Doing



  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now