Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
05-07-2010 - Recent Update as on 05.07.2010
Monday, July 5, 2010

1. Paramount Health services (TPA) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. ACIT, Writ Petition ( Lodg.) NO.684 OF 2010- Bombay High Court

Held: That apart, it is also the grievance of the Petitioners that absolutely no reason has been set out in the impugned order for declining to stay the enforcement of the demand for Assessment Year 2010-11. Now a perusal of the order of the CIT(TDS) shows that he has rested his reasoning merely with the observation that the plea of the assessee is not acceptable and that the demands have to be realized forthwith for the current year. This cannot be even suggested to be a form of reasoning to sustain the rejection of the application for stay. In a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in KEC International Limited v. B.R. Balakrishnan1, parameters have been laid down to govern the manner in which applications for stay should be dealt with by adjudicating officers. Evidently, the CIT (TDS) is either ignorant of the law laid down by this Court or has acted in breach of the principles enunciated in the judgment. In either view of the matter, the entire approach of the CIT (TDS) is thoroughly misconceived. In KEC International (supra) the Division Bench noted that in a large number of matters this Court has been observing that orders are passed perfunctorily by the department  only with an idea of effecting recovery before March 31, though such orders could have been passed earlier in detail and after recording proper reasons. It was in this background that the Division Bench was constrained to lay down the parameters on the basis of which applications for stay should be dealt with. Evidently, the law laid down by the Division Bench has not led the authorities to act in compliance. This is an unfortunate state of affairs....

(Click here for judgment)

  

2.  CIT vs Lsakhani Rubber Works- P & H HC: Power Load extension expense allowable as REVENUE in nature:

Held : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the  Ld. ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld.  CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,22,964/- made by the  Assessing Officer on account of expenditure incurred in  connection with load extension (P&E) and purchase of  distribution panel (R&M) even though the benefits flowing from extension of load and replacement of old panel were of enduring  nature, therefore, the same were capitalised? Accordingly,question No.3 is also answered against the revenue by upholding the order of the Tribunal.”

(Click here for judgment)

 

What's New 

 

a.  Exempts services in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage in excess of 25%  (Click for detail)

b.  Let foreigners set up LLPs in areas open to FDI  (Click for detail)

c.  SEZs unlikely to get tax sops under DTC  (Click for detail)

d.  Time limit extension in duty drawback rules a good move  (Click for detail)

e.  Due date of Professional tax in Maharastra-Notification  (Click for detail)

f.   When assessee commits default under a bona fide belief which is rectified by filing a revised return, it cannot be held liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c)  (Click for detail)

g.  To fall under ambit of section 170, there must be a transfer of ownership  (Click for detail)

 

"You must do the things you think you cannot do"


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 


« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now