1)         CIT vs Rajesh Sharma –DHC-Parallel Search on Assessee and Third Party : Whether cognizance of third party – place documents under 158BD only vis a vis assessee (who is otherwise searched also) : Question admitted on Revenue’s Appeal: Rajesh Sharma case: ?Whether the Income-tax Appellate  Tribunal  had not erred in law in holding that since the procedure of Section 158 BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had not been followed in respect of the diaries seized during  the course of search conducted in respect of the company, the same could not  form  part  of  the  block  assessment insofar as the respondent / assessee was concerned ?

(Click here for judgment) 

   

2)         CIT vs Anupam Sweets-DHC-Section 158BD : Search Assessment Third Party: Whether Satisfaction Must to be recorded by Searched Person AO: UPHELD: “The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the assessee by holding that no satisfaction, as required under Section 158 BD of the said Act was recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person searched and consequently the proceedings initiated under Section 158 BD of the said Act were bad in law. In this behalf the Tribunal vide the impugned order noted that it is a settled legal position that, recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, having jurisdiction of the searched person, that some undisclosed income belongs to a person other than a searched person, is mandatory before proceedings under Section 158 BD can be initiated against such other person. In this case, after going through the records the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the letter dated 14th August, 2002 predicated on which the proceedings under Section 158 BD of the said Act had been initiated by the Assessing Officer of the assessee “did not show that he was satisfied that the investment had been made by the assessee”…” 

(Click here for judgment) 

  

3)      CIT vs. Hari Ram Chaggan Lal & Party- DHC: Unsecured Loans: Section 68 Unexplained Cash Credit: Upheld:“The second objection was that the assessee had not produced the bank statement of M/s Sri Ram & Company. As against this, the assessee had pointed out before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that it had discharged its burden inasmuch as it had produced the required documentary evidence in the form of (i) confirmation letter from M/s Sri Ram & Company giving all the relevant details such as name, address, permanent account number etc.; (ii) the income tax return of M/s Sri Ram & Company; as well as (iii) the balance sheet of the said party. After taking into account the material supplied by the assessee, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal were satisfied with regard to the identity of the creditor as well as its creditworthiness as also with regard to the genuineness of the transaction.”

(Click here for judgment)   

      

What's New 

a.  Important points on TDS for 2010-11 (Click here)

b.   Nominee, not heir, to get shares after holder’s death: HC (Click here) 

c.    Import duty on power gear opposed (Click here)

c.   Press Release-Ceiling on remuneration of Chief Executives of Companies (Click here)

   

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

        

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament"

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, Mob:9540022533,mukbansal80@gmail.com