Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
17-07-2010 - Recent Updates as on 17.07.2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010

1.  LODHI PROPERTY COMPANY LIMTED Vs. UNDER SECRETARY (ITA-II) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [Delhi High Court] - The fact of the matter is that the petitioner did reach the Central Revenue Building before the closure of the counter on 01.11.2004. It is only because he was sent from one room to the other and had to wait in long queues that he could not present the return at the counter which was receiving the returns prior to 6.00 p.m. on that date. We feel that sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay of one day in filing the return.

(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 


« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now