I.  Headlines Today: 

• GAAR tax laws deferred to April 2016: Finance minister P Chidambaram  (Click for detail)

•  I-T Officer Must Give Taxpayer Reasons for Reopening Case: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal  (Click for detail)

• An Important Announcement Discontinuation of Professional Competence Examination (PCE)  (Click for detail)

• Retail inflation rises to 10.56 per cent  (Click for detail)

II.  Useful Contrubitions:

[Contribution by Respected CA Bimal Jain Ji and contributor is available at bimaljain@hotmail.com ] ] 

1.  An article - "AP High Court grant interim stay against CBEC’s Circular on recovery of confirmed demand during pendency of stay application"

(Click here for detail)  

 III.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.  Xerox Modicorp Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, W.P. (C) 8483/2010, 8485/2010, 8486/2010, Date of Decision: 2nd January, 2013, High Court of Delhi

Whether issue of Notice U/s 148 “based on information received from Revenue Audit” for reopening of assessment is valid?

It is difficult to sustain the notice issued u/s. 148. The audit objection is only an inference that the royalty payment resulted in a capital benefit; such an opinion expressed by the audit cannot constitute tangible material on the basis of which the assessment can be reopened. In the case of Indian Eastern and Newspaper Society v. CIT, (1979) 119 ITR 996 the Supreme Court expressed the view that information as to correct legal position must come from a formal source or body which is competent to pronounce upon the issue and that revenue audit is not competent to pronounce on issues of law. There is no averment that the revenue audit only pointed out to any factual aspect or material or primary fact that was omitted to be disclosed by the petitioner.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Service Tax Appeal No. 2370 of 2010, Date of Decision: 13/7/2012, CESTAT - Bangalore

Order of Commissioner (Appeals) remitting back case for verification or quantification is not a remand order

The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a remand order and he has clearly held that the refund was available in respect of all services except Air Travel Agent service. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission that the Commissioners (Appeals) order is a remand order. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not valid and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. (supra) does not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, I find that the original authority has already implemented the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(Please click here for judgment)
  
 

 Golden Rules:

"Don't turn back half way from your goal,
as the distance still remains the same,
Either Ways"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA