Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
15.03.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Friday, March 15, 2013

I.  Today's Headlines:

  1. FM: Pay income tax dues to get penalty waiver  (Click for detail)
  2. Indian economy not facing stagflation, growth is picking up: Raghuram Rajan   (Click for detail)
  3. RBI Money Transfer Service Scheme - Revised Guidelines  (Click for detail)
  4. RBI probing charges of money laundering, ICICI, HDFC & Axis Bank under lens  (Click for detail)
  5. RBI to keep rates on hold next week: Morgan Stanley  (Click for detail)
  6. Special Examination for Members of Foreign Accounting Bodies with whom ICAI had entered into Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) / Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)  (Click for detail)

II.  Useful Caselaws:

1. CIT Vs. Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 569/2012, Date of Decision: 07-03-2013, High Court of Delhi

a.    Advance received against sale of land is not taxable in the year of receipt.

“No agreement has been signed in this year. The possession has also not been delivered in this year. The twin conditions of execution of written agreement and handing over of the possession have to be cumulatively satisfied. None of these conditions are satisfied. Therefore, it is held that the property has not been transferred in this year”.

b.  An assessee could hold lands either for business or as an investment. Accordingly it may offer for taxation under the head ‘Capital gain”.
“The assessee could very well be a trader in land as well as an investor in land simultaneously, depending on what his intention was and how he treated the asset in question. The land was purchased and was shown as an asset in the balance sheet. There was no evidence that borrowed capital had been used for the purchase.  Hence the assessee had appropriately taxed under the head ‘capital gains”.
(Please click here for judgment)

2.  CIT Vs. Bhushan Capital and Credits Services Ltd. ITA No. 751/2011, Date of Decision: 01-02-2013, High Court of Delhi

If there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose the income, there was no escapement of income
If the assessment is sought to be reopened after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it is incumbent upon the AO, under the first proviso to section 147, to show that the escapement of income was on account of failure of the assessee to file the return of income or to furnish fully and truly all material facts relating to the assessment. As there was no failure to disclose the income, there is no escapement of income. In the relevant assessment year, there was no difference in the rate of tax applicable to capital gains. Therefore, neither is there any escapement of income nor is there any under assessment. Hence the reassessment was without jurisdiction.

 III.  Tender Info.:

  1. West Bengal State Watershed Development Agency
    Chartered Accountant firms for Statutory Audit
    (Click for detail)


 Golden Rules:

"Most of the problems in life are b'coz of two reasons:
We act without thinking or
we keep thinking without acting


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA    



« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now