[Contribution by  CA. Madhukar Hiregange, Member Central Council, and author is available at email-id:  mhiregange@hotmail.com ]

A Useful Article on Health Care

(Click here for details)

   

Recent Updates :

1.  CIT vs LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA Ltd-DHC.: Reimbursements; taxability and TDS credit tc: upheld –

 “In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to give credit of the whole of the amount of Rs 51,15,000/- of TDS against the tax  assessable in the year. The department is not justified in contending that the  income of Rs 4,65,00,000/- corresponding to the TDS with regard to which the AO  has been directed to allow credit, was not offered to tax. As noted, this amount had been received by the assessee company as tooling advance and it was paid to the vendors of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra as a reimbursement. This being so, the amount of Rs?4,65,00,000/- received by the assessee company as tooling advance and paid as reimbursement to the vendors of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra cannot at all be termed as the assessee?s income”

(Click here for judgment)

   

2.   CIT vs  Sunil Sethi- DHC : Deemed Dividend: Section 2(22)(e)  Imperest Account  Payment: “After hearing the counsel for the appellant / revenue, we are unable to agree with her submission that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the said addition. This is so because we are of the view that the finding was one which
was purely of fact. The Tribunal observed that the only basis on which the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were contested by the assessee was that the amount of Rs 30 lakhs, which had been given by the company to the assessee, who was a director in the said company, was neither a loan or an advance and nor was it for individual benefit of the said assessee. The Tribunal has accepted the factual position that the said sum of Rs 30 lakhs was given to the assessee for the purposes of making advance in respect of certain land dealings which were proposed to be entered into by the company through the assessee… In view of the clear finding returned by the Tribunal that since the amount of Rs 30 lakhs which was given to the assessee was in the nature of imprest payment, the same could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the said Act”

(Click here for judgment)

   

3)   Tej Pratap Singh vs ACIT –DHC-Mass Importance Real Estate transaction Questions Admitted : CAPITAL GAINS:

“Whether the date of transfer of the property in question, in view of the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and particularly Section 2(47)(vi), would be: 

(i) 02.05.1987- The date of execution of the development agreement; or

(ii) 19.02.1992- The date on which possession was handed over to the developer by the assessee; or

(iii) 10.09.2003- The date on which the irrevocable Power of Attorney was Executed  by the assessee in favour of the developer” 

(Click here for judgment)

   

 What's New 

a.   Click for KYC duty may be imposed on Customs agents too

b.   Click for MCA scheme mulls leniency for delay in filing balance-sheet

c.   Click for Accounting norms timeline soon

  

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

        

"Self contentment is the key of happiness"

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