Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
12.06.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Wednesday, June 12, 2013

 I.  Today's Headlines:   

  1. Bombay HC upholds retro amendment to VAT law  (Click for detail)
  2. Transfer pricing rules do not apply if dealing doesn't lead to income rise  (Click for detail)
  3. Customs Inst.: Reduction of Govt. litigation - providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT/High Courts and Supreme court  (Click for detail)  
  4. Noti. No. 18: Import of live-stock products - Amendment in ITC (HS) 2012, Schedule 1 (Import Policy)  (Click for detail)
  5. RBI hikes cap for online repatriation of export proceeds  (Click for detail)

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

1.  M/s Girnar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 30/2012, Date of decision: 04.02.2013, Punjab & Haryana High Court

Decision: In favor of Revenue
Section: 158BB of I.T. Act, 1961
Assessment Year: 2003- 04, 2004- 05

Case referred:
1.    CIT vs R.M.L. Mehrotra, (2010) 35 DTR (All) 160
2.    CIT vs Concorde Capital Management Co. Ltd., (2009) 25 DTR (Del) 97

Whether the material obtained during search showing a variation in expenditure may be considered as evidence for disallowance of expenditure for a block period u/s 158BB of the Act and would not amount to assessment on estimation basis?

Held Yes-

In the instant case, the AO obtained spiral pads from office premises and residence that disclosed the expenditure that had variation with the expenses in percentage terms of consumption of coal and fuel. The AO made an assessment for a block period considering the spiral pads having accounts for a particular assessment year and disallowed certain expenditure. Held that such inference cannot be said to be made on estimation basis, as the spiral pads were seized during the procedure.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 804/ 2011, Date of decision 28.05.2013, Delhi High Court

Section: 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961
Assessment Year: 2001- 02

Whether the bonafide claim of assessee for an expenditure to be revenue in nature which in itself is debatable, attracts the provision of 271(1)(c) of the Act?

Held No-

Levy of penalty is not an automatic consequence when an addition is made by disallowing an expense and by not accepting the interpretation given by the assessee. Merely making a claim which is held as not sustainable under law should not lead to penalization, when the assessee had furnished full details in the return itself and the claim is a debatable, reasonably plausible or may well have been accepted. Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) could not be levied.

(Please click here for judgment)        

III. Useful Article:

[ Contribution by Respected Central Council Member CA Rajkumar S. Adukia Ji ]

A Useful Presentation on "Due Diligence" 

(Please click here)  


IV.  Tenders Info.:

  1. CAs for books of accounts of department f.y. 01.04.05 to 31.03.12
    Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
    New Delhi
    (Click for detail)   
  2. CA Firms for various services
    (Click for detail)


 Golden Rules:

"Be slow in choosing the people and
much slower while losing them.
A relationship is not an opportunity,
but a responsibility"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA



« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now