Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
03.10.2012 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Wednesday, October 3, 2012

 I.  Whats New:

  1. IT Notifi - Section 35(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 - Scientific Research Expenditure – approved social science or statistical research associations or institutions  (Click for detail) 
  2. Taxmen may reduce TDS-related paperwork for assessees  (Click for detail) 
  3. ICAI - Let RBI appoint auditors of private banks  (Click for detail) 

   II.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.  CIT Vs. M/s Wander Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2753 of 2010, Date: 21-08-2012, Highcourt of Bombay

If Quantum Appeal admitted by Court, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C ) may be kept in abeyance till the decision of the High Court on the merits

The assessee’s quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court. If the assessee succeeds in the quantum proceedings, it would not even be necessary to consider the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings and so no prejudice has been caused to the department qua the penalty proceedings. The department’s apprehension that the penalty proceedings may be barred by limitation u/s 275(1A) is not well founded. In any event, the apprehension is set at rest by directing that in the event the proceedings are held to be barred by limitation, this appeal shall stand revived automatically and without further orders of the Court.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  CIT Vs. M/s Aditya Birla Nova Ltd. (Successor), ITA No. 3899 of 2010, Date:14-08-2012, High court of Bombay


Whether penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c ) on the ground that expenditure disallowed under section 35D was valid?


Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer for any reason, theassessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)( c ) . That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature. In any event we are bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd... Merely because Supreme Court was not referred the Explanation-1 to section 271(1) in the judgment of the in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be said that the judgment is per-incuriam.

(Please click here for judgment) 

 III.  Tenders Info.: 

  • Bihar Education Project Council
    Appointment of Concurrent Auditors for Financial Year 2012-13
    Patna - Bihar
    (Click for detail)
  • National Rural Health Mission
    CA firm for Concurrent Audit of District Health Societies
    (Click for detail) 


  Golden Rules:

"Everything in life is valuable & precious only at two times.
First before getting it and second after losing it. 
Otherwise the same has no value


  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA 




« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now