1.  Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. CIT- Mad. HC: HELD ON SECTION 127 :

"18.A reading of 127(2)(a), according to me, would mean that only when they are in agreement, then the transfer order can be passed by one Commissioner to another Commissioner and no material has been placed before me that there was an agreement between the two Commissioners viz., Madurai and Thiruvananthapuram and in pursuance of that, the order of transfer was made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai.  In the absence of such agreement, in my opinion, the transfer cannot be made...37.Therefore, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has objected  to the transfer order, by sending petition to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Dehli.  praying for re-transfer, it cannot be stated that by fling a Block return, the petitioner has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thiruvanandapuram, Kerala State.....Therefore, as per the above judgment, even in the show cause notice the respondent should disclose the reasons/basis for the contemplated action and in this case, it has been stated.  Further, the reasons recorded in the final order must not only take into consideration the objections raised by the assessee, but the reasons recorded in the order must also have a direct nexus/bearing to the object sought to be achieved. It is further stated that for a valid order under section 127 of the Act, the reasons expressed must disclose an actual financial nexus justifying the action.  In my opinion, in this case, all the ingredients stated in the judgement are absent and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed."

(Click here for judgment)

2.  CIT vs The Coonoor Tea Estates Company Ltd-Madras HC: Held on Applicability of Law:

"It is also a settled principle of law that where a return is filed, the law applicable would be the law as it stood on the date of filing of the return"

(Click here for judgment)

ORDER UPHELD:

"Though the Tribunal has observed that ideally the   Assessing Officer should have discussed the result  of the queries etc. however, not doing so per se does  not lead to the conclusion that he has passed an order  without due care and caution. The Assessing Officer has also  referred to the replies given by the assessee on 17.3.2005  and 21.3.2005, which were duly taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. After making this observation  in the order, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the action of  the Commissioner of Income Tax fails on the touchstone of the twin principles laid down by the Apex Court namely the order  is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue."

(Click here for judgment)

What's New 

b.   SARAL II (ITR 1 A.Y.2010-11)  (Click for detail)

c.    PAN for premia: limit may be cut to Rs 10,000  (Click for detail) 

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"