Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
20.02.2012 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Monday, February 20, 2012


I.  Today's Topline News : 
  1. IT Notification No. 9 - Exemption to specified persons from requirement of furnishing a return of income under section 139(1) for assessment year 2012-13  (Click for detail)

  2. IT Notification No. 7 – Section 10(15), Item (h) of sub-clause (iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Exemptions - Interest on bonds/debentures - Notified bonds/debentures of public sector companies  (Click for detail)

  3. IT Notification No. 6 - Section 10(15), Item (h) of sub-clause (iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Exemptions - Interest on bonds/debentures - Notified bonds/debentures of public sector companies  (Click for detail)

  4. Govt. to cover exempt sectors in second phase of XBRL roll-out  (Click for detail)

  5. Assessing officer can't be part of tax appellate body deciding the appeal  (Click for detail)

  6. Parliamentary Panel to take up Companies Bill after report on DTC  (Click for detail)

II.  Recent Updates:

1.   Rajendra Singh Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10707 of 2011, Date of Judgment: 02/02/2012, HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Interrogation till late night amounts to “torture” & violation of “human rights”

The assessee filed a complaint before the Bihar Human Rights Commission stating that interrogation & recording of statement was conducted for more than 30 hours and till the odd hours of the night without any break or interval and this violated his human rights. The Commission upheld the plea and directed the concerned officials to show-cause why the assessee should not be compensated from their salary. The Department filed a Writ Petition to challenge the order. HELD by the Court:

“The search and seizure manual does not prescribe any time limit for search and survey operation and the same may continue for days if required, but it has to be in keeping with the basic human rights and dignity of an individual. There is no possible justification to continue interrogation and keep the assessee awake till 3 a.m. on the second night of search and interrogations. Sleep deprivation method of interrogation amounts to inhuman treatment and violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

(Please click herefor judgment)


2.  M/s. Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2886 OF 2009, Date of Judgment: 02/02/2012, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY


The assessee set off the share trading loss from the service charges and claimed that as its’ gross total income comprised mainly of dividend income, the Explanation to s. 73 was not applicable. The department claimed that the share trading loss had to be kept out of the computation for determining whether or not the gross total income comprised mainly of dividend etc. The Tribunal rejected the department’s plea. On appeal to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:


The explanation to Section 73 provides as follows:

“Where any part of the business of a company ([other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads “Interest on securities”, “Income from house property”, “Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”], or a company principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale of such shares.”

Held that the gross total income of the assessee was required to be computed inter alia by computing the income under the head of profits and gains of business or profession as well. Both the income from service charges in the amount of Rs.2.25 crores and the loss in share trading of Rs.2.23 crores, would have to be taken into account in computing the  income under that head, both being sources under the same head. The assessee had a dividend income of Rs.4.7 lacs (income from other sources). The Tribunal was justified, in coming to the conclusion that the assessee fell within the purview of the exception carved out in the explanation to Section 73 and that consequently the assessee would not be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business for the purpose of Sec. 73(1).

(Please click herefor judgment)


III.  Tenders Info. : 
  1. Directorate General of Hydrocarbons
    Bids are invited from qualified firms of recognized Chartered Accountants
    (Click here for detail)

  2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
    Appointment for Concurrent Audit
    (Click here for detail)

Key of Success :

"Life never turns the way we want but we live it the best way we can,
 there is no perfect life but we can fill it with perfect moments


Thanks for your valuable time


"Voice of CA"  

CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
Founder - Voice of CA 
Mob : 9811080342,      
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator 
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA    


« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now