1. M/S KAS MOVIE MAKERS PVT. LTD. V/s COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX [HIGH COURT OF DELHI]  - The first pre-requisite condition, for export or transfer out of India, of the prescribed software by an assessee is that the ownership or title in the software claimed to have been exported or transferred out of India must necessarily have vested in him. There could not have been any export or transfer, by the assessee company unless the ownership rights in the software in question vested in it.

(Click here for Judgment)

   

2. VISHWANATH PRASAD ASHOK KUMAR SARRAF V/s CIT ,KANPUR  & OTHERS [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]  - Reopening Quashed under WRIT: Held : Circumvention of High Authorities orders not allowed: Further, under Section 147 of the Act the assessing authority can assess or re-assess only that income which has escaped assessment, inasmuch as for taking the action there must be a reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment which comes to his notice subsequently. In the instant case the amounts, which are alleged as an escaped income, have been duly considered in the block assessment. In the block assessment such amounts have been assessed to tax as undisclosed income. In appeal, the Tribunal has held that such amounts are not undisclosed income. Once the Tribunal has arrived to the conclusion that the alleged amounts are not the undisclosed income, it cannot be treated as the escaped income, chargeable to tax, under the provision of Section 147 of the Act. It is not open to the assessing authority to circumvent the order of the Tribunal and to take a different view. The order of the Tribunal is binding on the assessing authority.

(Click here for Judgment)

   

3. M/S SUNDER CARPET INDUSTRIES V/s INCOME TAX OFFICER  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]  - Section 142A used for estimating Unaccounted expense u/s 69C : Held valid : DHC in Aar Pee Apartments 319 ITR 276 dissented : Held, With due respect, we are not able to subscribe the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of   Commissioner of Income-Tax v. AAR PEE Apartments P. Ltd. (Supra) wherein the  Delhi High Court has held that investment made in the construction of building falls  under expenditure incurred by the assessee and is covered under Section 69C of the  Act and not under Section 69 and since Section 69C is not covered under Section  142A of the Act, the reference to the Valuation Cell cannot be made for the purposes  of determination of the investment made in construction of the building.

(Click here for Judgment)

       What's New 

a. Donations out of 15% accumulation permitted under section 11(1)(a) are not to be restricted by Explanation to section 11(2) (Click for detail)

b. Definition of C&F Agent includes Consignment Agent (Click for detail)

c. Constitution of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP-II, Mumbai) comprising of three CITs/DITs (Click for detail)

d. Unabsorbed Depreciation: Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years cannot be included within the scope of section 32(2) (Click for detail)

e. Where assessee files its return u/s 44AD, it is not under obligation to explain individual entry of cash deposit (Click for detail)

f. Cross-border transaction: TPO/AO, before he determines arm’s length price in relation to income from an international transaction, needs to give appropriate notice to assessee, giving him an opportunity to produce evidence in support of arm’s length price computed by him (Click for detail)                    

"Keep your feet on the ground and your thoughts at lofty heights"

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