Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
21.02.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Thursday, February 21, 2013

 I.  Today's Headlines:

  1. ITax Noti.11: Income Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2013 – Amendment in Rules 31A & 31AA; Substitution of Rules 31ACB, 37J & Form Nos.15G, 15H, 16, 16A, 24Q, 26Q, 27C, 27D, 27Q & 27EQ and Insertion of Form No. 26B  (Click for detail)  
  2. Budget session begins; Govt pledges probity in governance, slew of measures in offing  (Click for detail)
  3. Govt taking steps to revive economy: President  (Click for detail)
  4. Gujarat presents surplus budget, but fiscal deficit widens  (Click for detail)
  5. Budget 2013: Macroeconomic challenges ahead of budget  (Click for detail)
  6. FM crosses Montek hurdle, courtesy PM  (Click for detail)
  7. What’s in for Indian markets in the upcoming Budget 2013  (Click for detail)
  8. Time for commodities transaction tax  (Click for detail)
  9. Budget 2013: Tax on super rich has uncertain economic benefits, says Standard Chartered  (Click for detail)
  10. Budget 2013-14: Likely to be austere on threat of credit rating downgrade  (Click for detail)
  11. FM: Cabinet may consider Vodafone tax issue next week  (Click for detail)

  II.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.   Shri Sunil Bhandari Vs. ACIT,  IT Appeal No. 122/JU/2011, Dated: 30-11-2012, ITAT - Jodhpur

Assessee engaged in property trading too can claim exemption u/s 54F

There is no dispute regarding the source of income of the assessee which is mainly from the business of purchase and sale of plots/lands. But it does not mean that such an assessee is debarred from purchasing and holding some plots/land as capital asset and claim benefit u/s 54F. The entire facts regarding this aspect go to prove that the assessee had kept the impugned asset and has earned LTCG, which has been invested in terms of provisions of section 54F. Accordingly, we are convinced that the action of the AO does not lack any enquiry in this regard and he has taken one of the possible views keeping in view the entire facts. The ld. CIT can have his own view and that may be other possible view. But as we have discussed above in such situations, the order cannot be treated as erroneous. Accordingly, in view of our foregoing discussion, we hold that the A.O. had made proper enquiries and has taken a correct decision. The ld. CIT cannot revise the order on this aspect.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  CIT Vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co., ITA No. 240/2009, Date of Order: 12.02.2013, High Court of Delhi

Admission of quantum appeal by High Court shows issue is debatable for levying penalty u/s Sec. 271(1)(c)

Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the issue of deduction u/s 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction u/s 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court u/s 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case.

(Please click here for judgment)  


III.  Tender Info.:

  1. Zilla Panchayath
    CA Firms for maintenance of accounts in Double Entry System
    Bangalore (Karnataka)
    (Click for detail)
  2. Panchayat And Rural Development Department
    CA Firms for Auditing work
    Bhopal, M.P.
    (Click for detail)


 Golden Rules:

"Pray ordinarily for God,
He will do extraordinary for you.
Be natural to God,
He will do supernatural for you.
Do whatever possible for God,
He will do what is impossible for you.."


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA    



« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now