Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
28.01.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Monday, January 28, 2013

I.  Headlines Today: 



II.  Useful Contrubitions:

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

An article - "Place of Provision Service Rule,2012".

(Click here for detail)  


 III.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.   CIT Vs. Shri Kamal Wahal, ITA No. 4/2013, Date of Decision: 11-01-2013, High Court of Delhi

Deduction u/s 54F was available on the portion of investment made in the name of the assessee’s wife.

The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee’s wife. This view was disapproved by this Court. It noted that the entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by the assessee’s wife. It also noted that a purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in the section to show that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed “a residential house”.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, W.P.(C) 7023/2010, Date of Decision : 10-01-2013, High Court of Delhi

Whether a complaint filed by one of the directors before the Common Law Board alleging irregularities such as illegal siphoning off of the company’s funds by two other directors   constitutes tangible material, on the basis of which reopening U/s 147 is possible?


If the complaint can constitute tangible material for reopening the assessments of the hotel, it can equally constitute tangible material giving rise to the belief that the amounts allegedly siphoned off by the present petitioners from the hotel had escaped assessment in their hands. It must be remembered that we are not at this stage concerned with the merits of the matter. We are at this stage concerned only with the question whether a prima facie belief regarding escapement of income can be entertained by the respondent on the basis of the complaint filed by the Company Law Board by Raj Kumar Devraj, one of the directors of the hotel. Our answer is in the affirmative. Accordingly, we uphold jurisdiction of the respondent to reopen the assessments of the petitioners.

(Please click here for judgment)           

 Golden Rules:

"Every test in life makes us bitter or better.
Every problem comes to make us or break us.
Choice is ours....
whether become victim or victor


  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA    




« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now