1.     The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda Vs. The Faridkot-Bathinda Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bathinda [HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA] 

The assessee made cash payment to its customers for repayment of certain fixed deposits exceeding Rs.20000/- in violation of Section 269-T of the Act. The Assessing Officer  imposed penalty under Section 271-E of the Act, on that ground. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the payments to the customers were genuine transactions and bonafide.Held in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, as noticed earlier, the question raised about the leviability of penalty has to be decided against the revenue. 

(Click here for details) 

  

2.    The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. Fateh Singh (HUF) [HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA] 

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in  confirming the order of the learned CIT ITA No.16 of 2010 & other connected cases (A)  in deleting the penalty of Rs.11,41,889/-levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of judgment of Apex Court as the entire controversy on the year of taxability of enhanced compensation and interest thereon has now come to rest with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 315 ITR 1, wherein it has held that the year in which enhanced compensation is received is the year of taxability? 

(Click here for details) 

   

3.    Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Tiny Tots Education Society [HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA]  

“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 directing the Assessing  Officer in allowing depreciation of Rs.15,21,994/- even though the deduction u/s  11 was already allowed in respect of the same asset, which amounts to double   deduction and is in contravention of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the  case of Escorts Limited and Another vs. Union of India and others 199 ITR 43.” 

(Click here for details) 

 

What's New 

a.  STAXCIR-130-10-Powers of adjudication of Central Excise Officers in Service Tax cases – instructions – regarding  (Click for detail) 

b.  Del HC-Mere Lack Of Inquiry By AO Not Sufficient For S. 263 Revision - CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (Delhi High Court)  (Click for detail)

c.  Order No. Order No. 123 of 2010 dated 21.09.2010 of CBDT making transfers of CIT / DIT  (Click for detail)

d.   Exporters ask FM to increase duty drawback by 2 Percent  (Click for detail)

e.   India Inc to gain as cash-rich govt may borrow less in second half  (Click for detail)

"A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back -- but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us"

  

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