1.    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV  Vs. GIVO LTD. [HIGH COURT OF DELHI] The learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the ITAT had erred in law in deleting the addition of interest of Rs. 4,00,320/- on account of advance given to Mr. V.K. Chabra. He also submitted that ITAT had erroneously deleted Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of foreign traveling expenses. The judges observed “we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the present case.” 

(Click here for details)

  

2.    Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA] 

The question raised inter se is “Whether on the facts and circumstances, evidences on  record and established principles of law the ITAT was justified in confirming the orders  of the authorities below in treating the agricultural income to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/-  as income from unknown sources  by allowing partial relief despite of the confirmatory  statements as recorded by the AO of   the genuine cultivators of the agricultural land of  the appellant so that the order of the ITAT is perverse and thus unsustainable in the eyes  of law in view of the various judicial pronouncements?” Held Nothing could be pointed  out which may show that the reasoning of the Tribunal was erroneous in any manner. No substantial question of law arises. 

(Click here for details) 

  

3.    DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) Vs. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY [HIGH COURT OF DELHI]  

Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that on 27th October, 2005  assessee-society filed a return declaring nil income and claiming benefit under Section 11  of Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the  assessee-society had in the assessment year 2005-2006 given a loan of Rs. 90,50,000/- to  another educational society, namely, Nav Bharti Educational Society. It is pertinent to  mention that the President of Nav Bharti Educational Society was the brother of the  President of assessee-society. The assessing officer held that there was violation of  Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) of Act, 1961 and accordingly, he denied benefit  of Section 11 of Act, 1961 to the assessee-society.  

(Click here for details) 

  

What's New 

a.  DTC lens on personal assets abroad  (Click for detail)

b.  STAXCIR-129-10-Clarifies on classification of services under Export of Services Rules 2005  (Click for detail) 

c.  Held hostage by politicians, GST may miss next rollout deadline too  (Click for detail)

d.  Govt to take up requests for new SEZs on Oct 21  (Click for detail)

e.   No Third-Party Cheques for MF Investments  (Click for detail)

f.   Surrender bogus Ration Cards or face criminal prosecution- Food Ministry  (Click for detail) 

g.  Discount given by assessee to its distributor at time of sale of Sim Cards or Recharge Coupons is nothing but commission on which tax is deductible under section 194H of the Income-tax Act  (Click for detail)

 h.  Section 145 of Income-tax Act cannot be invoked for carrying out business imprudently or very good results in business are not shown  (Click for detail)

 

"A true friend reaches for your hand and touches your heart"

  

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, kapilnkgoelandco@gmail.com
 
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA
Mob:9540022533, mukbansal80@gmail.com