Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
11.06.2011 - Recent Updates as on 11.06.2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011

 

1.  SHRAMJIVI NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ITA NO. 477/PN/2010, ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07, DATE OF ORDER : 8TH JUNE 2011, ITAT – PUNE

The AO’s order of attaching the bank account of the assessee even before the service of the CIT(A)’s order was wrong in view of (a) the CBDT’s letter dated 25.3.2004 advising that penalties u/s 271-D & 271-E for violation of s. 269-SS & 269-T should not be indiscriminately imposed without considering s. 273-B, (b) the CCIT’s direction that demand arising out of penalties imposed u/s 271-D & 271-E should be stayed in cases of co-operative credit societies, (c) UOI v/s Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammed AIR 2005 SC 4383 where concern was expressed over dangerous attitude developing amongst Executive resulting in institutional damage & (d) KEC Interntional Ltd 251 ITR 158 (Bom) where it was held that generally coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the Statute to go in appeal. Accordingly, the assessee was unnecessarily subjected to harassment by the actions of the lower authorities. It is thus a fit case for imposing costs u/s 254(2B) on the Revenue to compensate the harassment caused by the officers of the Revenue at fault.

(Please click here for judgment)

  

2.  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SAFETAG INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., ITA NO.355 OF 2010, DATE OF DECISION : 3RD FEBRUARY  2011, DELHI HIGH COURT

The “short-cut method” adopted by the Tribunal is totally unsustainable. While the AO is required to record reasons, Law does not mandate the AO to suo moto supply the reasons to the assessee. It is for the assessee to demand the reasons and raise objections to the reopening which the AO is required to dispose of by passing a speaking order. As the assessee did not ask for the reasons and instead participated in the reassessment proceedings, the Tribunal could not have restored the matter back to the file of the AO and give another opportunity to the assessee to raise objections to the “reasons to believe” recorded by the AO. It was the assessee’s own creation that it did not ask for the reasons or raise objection thereto. Merely because the assessee was oblivious of such a right would not mean that the Tribunal should have granted this right to the assessee, that too, at the stage when the matter was before the Tribunal and travelled much beyond the AOs jurisdiction. It is trite that what cannot be done directly, it is not allowed indirectly as well. This novel and ingenuousness method adopted by the Tribunal in setting aside the reassessment orders on merits cannot be accepted.

(Please click here for judgment)

   

What's New
  1. Income Tax Notification No. 32 - Exemption from interest on Post Office Savings Bank Account  (Click for detail)

  2. Income Tax Notification No. 33 - clause (23AAA) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, the benefit allowed to meet the cost of annual medical tests or medical checkups of the member, his spouse and dependent children  (Click for detail)

  3. Circular No. 37/2011 - CO LAW-Filing of BL & PL Account in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) mode  (Click for detail)

  4. RBI/2010-11/559 - Retail Electronic Payment Systems – NEFT / NECS / RECS / ECS – Levy of Processing Charges  (Click for detail)

  5.  RBI/2010-11/ 560 -  Remittance of assets by foreign nationals- Opening of NRO Accounts  (Click for detail)

     

"Don't make your voice loud to make others listen to you. But,
make Your personality loud, that others wait to listen to you
"

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"

  
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
Founder - Voice of CA 
agarwal.s.ca@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