Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
07.05.2018 - Voice of CA presents - Latest Updates
Monday, May 7, 2018

  I. Headlines Today:   

  1. Companies get scrutiny notices for mismatch in GST returns  (Click for detail)
  2. Finance ministry gears up for second round of PSB recapitalisation  (Click for detail)
  3. NCLT suggests IBBI to review insolvency code regulations to curb misuse  (Click for detail)
  4. Delhi High Court refuses to stop Vodafone's UK arbitration  (Click for detail)
  5. Coaching classes to pay 18% GST, students bear brunt  (Click for detail)
  6. MCA Plans to Collect Passport Details of Companies’ Directors  (Click for detail)  

II. A Useful Presentation:

1.  Changes in ITR Forms for A.Y. 2018-19

(Please click here)

2.  Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988
[As amended by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016]

(Please click here)

(Contribution by CA. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA; and contributor is available at Email-id: )

  III. Direct Taxes Case Law: 

1.  Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. Vs. DCIT, I.T.A. No. 1045/Mum/2016, Date of Pronouncement: 13.04.2018, ITAT - Mumbai

Where one of the supplier admitted providing accommodation entry would lead to conclusion that purchase made by the assessee from him is also bogus.

Held:- No

Brief Facts
The assessee-company engaged in business of manufacturing of jewellery filed its return of income declaring the total income of Rs.60.56 lakhs for AY-2011-12. Invoking provisions of 133(6) the Act Ld.AO called for details of purchases from three parties controlled and managed by a single group to which one of the supplier admitted providing accommodation entries. The Ld.AO straightway proceeded to add Rs.14.99cr to income of assessee rejecting documents filed to prove genuineness of sales. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of purchases being the VAT evaded on such purchases by relying on judgement in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (372 ITR 619). Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT.

The Hon’ble ITAT while considering the fact that assessee did not sell goods locally, the Ld.AO not doubting the sales of assessee and suppliers admitting sale of goods by filing affidavits held that there is a subtle difference between issuing bogus bills and providing accommodation entries and the supplier had admitted of issuing bogus bills but nowhere on record he had admitted of providing accommodation entries specifically to the assessee. Moreover, suppliers were paying VAT and were filing their returns of income. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Ld. CIT was not justified in partially confirming the addition.
The appeal was held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

(Please click here for judgment)

Golden Rules:

  "Time is the most elastic element of world.
Because it increases when we are waiting
and decreases when we are enjoying" 


Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now