Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
16.01.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Wednesday, January 16, 2013

I.  Headlines Today: 


II.  Useful Contrubitions:

[Contribution by CA Sanjeev Singhal, and contributor is available at ] 

1.  An article on Valuation of Services - Section 67 with Service Tax 'Determination of Value' Rules - 2006

(Click here for detail)  


 III.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.    CIT Vs. M/s. Dewan Chand Satyapal, ITA Nos. 87/2003 & 1411/2006, Date of order: 21.12.2012, High court of Delhi

Whether a Diagnostic Centre is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act 1961, Held- No.

Held that the unit or activity is deemed an industrial undertaking, if it is involved in production of goods or articles.

What is important is that the primary activity is not manufacture or processing of goods; the end use product is one capable of use only by one person, for a limited purpose; even the “producer” has no right to disseminate it in any manner, because it is the private property or confidential matter of the patient. Plainly, it is a service that is provided. Another aspect to the matter is that the negative list – the contents of the Eleventh schedule, all point to articles or things, which illustrate that facilities provided by diagnostic centers do not result in manufacture or production of goods or things, or their processing.

That the expression “manufactures” or “production” or processing has to be of “articles or things”. They are to be interpreted as such along with the company (of the other words) they keep. While the benefit which might flow to the general public if diagnostic facilities are deemed industrial undertakings is undeniable, as it would probably result in lower cost of diagnosis of diseases and conditions, yet that result cannot be achieved by doing violence to the statute, in the guise of interpretation. The remedy (to this perceived mischief) is clearly elsewhere. In view of the above conclusions, the questions of law framed in these appeals are answered in favour of the revenue, and against the assessee;

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   ACIT Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Jain, ITA No. 163/Hyd/2011, Date of order 28.09.2012, ITAT – Hyderabad

Share Trading is a business activity, if High volume, frequency, regularity & systematic.

Held that the assessee have made several transactions of purchase of shares during the relevant year under consideration, and if there high volume, frequency and regularity of the activity carried on by the assessee in a systematic manner, it would partake the character of business activities carried on by the assessee in shares, and it cannot be said that the assessee have merely made investments in shares.

(Please click here for judgment)   

 Golden Rules:

"Never choose any friend without understanding and
never loose him because of misunderstanding.
He may be wrong sometime, somewhere
but not every time everywhere


  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA 




« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now