Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
20.06.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Thursday, June 20, 2013

 I.  Today's Headlines:  

  1. Finance Ministry to notify Commodity Transaction Tax soon  (Click for detail)
  2. FinMin may cut service tax on takeaway, home-delivery  (Click for detail)
  3. Sebi to auction Rs 42,022 crore worth government bonds for FIIs  (Click for detail)
  4. IRDA draft permits insurers to deal with financial derivatives with 10 yrs' tenure  (Click for detail)

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

1.    ACIT Vs. M/s A R Enterprises, Civil Appeal 2688 of 2006, Date of order: 14.01.2013, Supreme Court of India

Once during the search, documents were obtained, and on scrutiny, revealed undisclosed income, ROI subsequently filed, after initiation of computation of income u/s 158BB, shall not be considered as voluntary disclosure of income, for the purpose of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Mere duly payment of advance tax, shall not determine bonafide intention of the assessee for the purpose of disclosure of income. Filing of ROI is mandatory, even if advance tax is duly paid.

Held :

In the instant case, after the search was conducted on 23rd February 2006, it was found that for the assessment year 1995-96, the respondent- assessee had not filed its return of income by the due date. It is only when block assessment proceedings were initiated by the assessing officer, that the assessee filed its return for the said assessment year on 11th July, 1996 under Section 158BC of the Act, showing its total income as Rs.7,02,768/-. The assessee claimed, that since Advance Tax had been paid in three installments, it could not have been said that the income had not been disclosed or that there was no intention to disclose income. We have already held that the payment of Advance Tax, which is based upon estimated income, cannot tantamount to the disclosure of the total income, which must be declared in the return. In our opinion, the fact that the assessee had not filed its return of income by the due date, the Assessing Officer was correct in assuming that the assessee would not have disclosed its total income. For all these reasons, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   CIT Vs. M/s Suren International (P) Ltd, ITA No. 289/ 2012, Date of judgement: 07.05.2013, Delhi High Court

In the given case, the AO served a notice on the assessee for re- examination of receipt of share application money, on the basis third party statement that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries. The Hon’ble High Court, considering the facts, stated that such statement could not form the basis, as detailed examination of such receipt was made during the first round of assessment proceedings, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to produce truly and fully all the material facts and had disclosed entire income in ROI. Also seizure of stock does not imply escapement of income, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

(Please click here for judgment)

III. Useful Article:

[ Contribution by CA Nitin Gupta and contributor is available at ]

Analysis of Negative List 

(Please click here)


 Golden Rules:

"The difference between a successful person
and others is not lack of strength
not a lack of knowledge
but rather a lack of WILL"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA




« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now