1.     Shakti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT –Gujarat  HC-  HELD allowing assessee's appeal: ITAT perverse order: The Tribunal has not at all discussed about the findings recorded by the CIT(Appeals) and why the said finding is not sustainable. If the Tribunal were not agreeable with the finding recorded by the CIT(Appeals), in that case, the Tribunal is supposed to deal with the finding recorded by the CIT(Appeals) and to give its own reasons as to why the said finding is not sustainable either on facts or in law. In absence of this exercise, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and hence the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is restored back to the Tribunal to decide it denovo.

(Click here for judgement)

  

2.     CIT vs M/s Self Saving Scheme- Mad High Court: Appeal against ITAT order u/s 254(2) limited scope: Held  The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tax effect was less than Rs.1,00,000/- by order dated 14.5.2003 and that order was passed following the decision of this Court in C.W.T. v. S.ANNAMALAI [258 (2002) ITR, 675). Subsequent application was dismissed as not maintainable as it was an arguable point.  In all probability, the Revenue should have questioned the order dated 14.5.2003 which it had failed and it had questioned the order passed in Miscellaneous Application which was dismissed on the ground that the issue was an arguable one and not on merits.  In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.  No costs.  We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion as to the applicability of the Circular either prospectively or retrospectively in this appeal as it is not the issue raised in this appeal. 

(Click here for judgement)

   

3.     CIT vs Sri Ravindran Prabhakar- Madras High Court: HELD Reopening: “It is not in dispute that after the returns were accepted by the assessing officer under Section 143(1), at that point of time, no materials were placed before the assessing officer relating to the Will in particular, on which basis 1/3rd share was claimed by the assessee.  It is also an admitted fact that only thereafter notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee for furnishing certain information, which the assessee had filed.  As per Section 143(2) of the Act, after the materials which were available on the file of the assessee and if they are considered, then the question of change of opinion may arise. But that cannot be the case when a communication calling for certain particulars was issued to the assessee under Section 143(1) of the Act.  In the absence of any entitlement for the assessing officer to form any opinion at the stage when the proceedings were pending under Section 143(1), the Tribunal is not right in holding that there was a change of opinion.”

(Click here for judgement)

   

4.     Malhotra group cases - HP High Court- suppression of Hotel receipts Working etc: Held “There is absolutely nothing on record, indicating that the Tribunal has misread or misconstrued any material document or other evidence, relied upon by the parties. From the perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as also the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has fairly taken into account, while working out the occupancy days, that peak season in Shimla is only during summer months of May, June and July. He has given sufficient discount for lean period of remaining nine months. Out of total 365 days of a year, only 105 days have been taken to be occupancy days. This has been done by taking into account the peak seasons and lean seasons and, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the assessees to say that occupancy days have been worked out without there being any material or basis.”

(Click here for judgement)   

  

What's New 

a.   SEZs : Procurement, Import and Export of Prohibited and Restricted Goods

b.   Government may ask TPAs to get audited by external auditors

c.   Govt panel to fix circle rates hike

 

(Click here) for Team Voice of CA Chapters detail.

      

If you have any query please e-mail at voiceofca@gmail.com  

 

"Arriving at one goal is the starting point to another"

 

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"

CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA

Member - Central Council ICAI  (Former Chairman - NIRC)

Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com

CA. Kapil Goel, Moderator-Direct Taxes, Mob:9910272806, cakapilgoel@gmail.com

CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator, sidhjasso@yahoo.com

CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA, mkak@rediffmail.com