1. CBDT issued - Standard Operating Procedure for handling E-filed Returns where self assessment tax is not paid  (Click for detail)
   

2. VAT Notification: Clarifications in respect of filing of the AR-1 report  (Click for detail)

3. VAT Circular:: Extension of period in respect of filing of DVAT 48 for 2nd Qtr 2013-14 upto 20.11.2013  (Click for detail)

4. FinMin to move supplementary note to earlier DTC Bill   (Click for detail)

5. Govt servants can’t draw pension from 2 employers  (Click for detail)

6. Ensure your house owner furnishes a PAN (CBDT recently lowered threshold for this to Rs 8,333 a month. If you don't furnish this, a higher tax will be deducted at source from your income)  (Click for detail)

7. Sebi asks firms to improve quality of disclosures. (Click for detail)  

8. Non-applicability of Companies Act, 2013 for May 2014, Examinations (Click for detail) 
   

1.  CIT Vs. Raghuraji Agro Industries (P.) Ltd., ITA No. 30 of 2010, Date of Order: 30.09.2013, High court of Allahabad

Whether without rejecting books of account maintained by assessee, Assessing Officer could not refer matter to DVO for valuation of investment made by assessee for construction of factory building.

Held Yes

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 observed that the Assessing Authority could not refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer in a case where there was a categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal that the books of account were never rejected.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  CIT Vs. Kamal Family Trust, ITA No. 19 of 2009, Date of Order: 08.10.2012, Punjab & Haryana High Court

Whether Second Proviso to Section 43B of the Act omitted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4-2004 was clarificatory in nature and was to operate retrospectively. (A.Y. 2001-2002).

Held Yes

Apex Court judgment in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 and decision of this Court in CIT v. Rai Agro Industries Ltd. [2011] 334 ITR 122 (Mag.), wherein it has been held that Second Proviso to Section 43B of the Act omitted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1-4-2004 was clarificatory in nature and was to operate retrospectively. Once that is so, Where assessee deposited employer's and employees contribution to PF and ESI after expiry of due date but prior to filing return of income under section 139(1), amount so deposited could not be disallowed by invoking provisions of section 43B

(Please click here for judgment)

3.  M. Nataraj Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2168 (MDS.) of 2012, Date of Order: 23.08.2013, ITAT – Chennai

Tribunal has to decide case irrespective of fact as to whether it would amount to granting relief to other party who did not prefer appeal, since whole appeal is before Tribunal.

The Tribunal discharges judicial function. It dispenses justice. The principle, on which justice is dispensed, is founded on fair play and doing justice in the case. Therefore, while the Tribunal lays down a particular proposition of law, it cannot close its eyes and withdraw its selves without applying the principle or the rationale laid down in the facts of the case. The Tribunal whenever sitting in appeal has to examine the case before it. It cannot avoid its responsibility when deciding the appeal in a manner, which will render the entire order passed by the Tribunal contradictory. It cannot leave the matter in a fluid state deciding the principle in favour of one of the parties and passing an order in favour of the other against whom the principle has been laid down.

The Tribunal is not supposed to pass an anomalous order. Neither can it create a confusing state and permit confusion to continue, nor can it pass an incongruous order. It has to decide the case irrespective of the fact as to whether it would amount to granting relief to the other party who did not prefer the appeal.

(Please click here for judgment)