Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
13.03.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Wednesday, March 13, 2013

 I.  Today's Headlines:

  1. Pay advance tax before March 15: I-T department  (Click for detail)
  2. India looks forward to stop misuse of DTAA  (Click for detail)
  3. Seven new firms get access to EPFO money  (Click for detail)
  4. Spanco gets notice for service tax evasion of Rs 27 crore  (Click for detail)
  5. Street expects RBI to slash rate, despite higher CPI  (Click for detail)
  6. Gold: the best possible liquid investment, finds RBI (Click for detail)
  7. RBI Circular: “Write-off” of unrealized export bills - Export of Goods and Services - Simplification of procedure (Click for detail)

II.  Useful Caselaws:

1.   Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gita Duggal, ITA No. 1237/2011, Judgement Delivered on: 21.02.2013,  High Court of Delhi

Whether Buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, shall be construed to mean a single residential house?

Held: “Section 54/54F uses the expression “a residential house”. The expression used is not “a residential unit”. This is a new concept introduced by the assessing officer into the section. Section 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a “residential house” and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be constructed, for the sake of convenience, in such a manner as to consist of several units which can, if the need arises, be conveniently and independently used as an independent residence, the requirement of the Section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use.

We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. For the above reasons we are of the view that the Tribunal took the correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs”.

(Please click here for judgment)


2.   The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Delhi  Vs. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, W.P. (C.) 8295/2011, Judgement Delivered on: 27.02.2013, The High Court of Delhi

No tax liability on either the USA Company or the Singapore company in case of transfer of shareholding of the USA Company to its 100% subsidiary in Singapore without consideration under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961.  

Held: “It is apparent that income arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset, if it is an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, where the transaction of sale of such equity share is chargeable to securities transaction tax, then such income would be exempt. To put it in plain language, if income arises out of the transfer of a long term capital asset being an equity share in a listed company, the said income would be exempt under section 10(38) of the said Act. There is no doubt that the shares of Goodyear India Limited are listed shares and therefore even if a consideration had been charged for the transfer of the 74% share, the income arising therefrom would be exempt by virtue of the provisions of section 10(38) of the said Act. The writ petition is dismissed”.

(Please click here for judgment)


 III.  Tender Info.:

  1. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.
    CA firm/co. for Scrutiny of Agents Accounts
    (Click for detail)


 Golden Rules:

"Mistakes are painful when they happen.
But years later its collection called experiences
which lead to success"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA    




« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now