(Click here for Judgment)
2. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX Vs. SOCIETY FOR WORLDWIDE
INTERBANK FINANCIAL, TELECOMMUNICATIONS [Delhi High Court] - The provisions of Section 143(2) make it clear that the notice can only be served after the Assessing Officer has examined the return filed by the assessee. Whereas what para 3.4 indicates is that when the assessee came to file the return, the notice under Section 143(2) was served upon the Authorized Representative by hand. Thus, even if we take the statement of the Assessing Officer at face value, it would amount to gross violation of the scheme of Section 143 (2) of the said Act.
(Click here for Judgment)
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. JBM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Delhi High Court] - This appeal is delayed by 517 days. The issue that is involved in the present appeal relates to the question of imposition of penalty when the income determined is a loss. It is after the decision of the Supreme Court in Gold Coin Health Food that the department has woken up and has decided to file this appeal after a delay of 517 days. There is no other reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is rejected.
(Click here for Judgment)
What's New
a. ITAX Notification-50 to 53-10 (Click for detail)
b. ROC serves notice on 11, 888 firms for not filing returns (Click for detail)
c. Term “Brand” falls within ambit of section 32(1)(ii) and assessee is eligible for depreciation on same (Click for detail)
d. Limited Liability Partnership (Winding up and Dissolution) Rules, 2010 (Click for detail)
"Education is the mother of leadership"
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