Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
11.01.2014 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Saturday, January 11, 2014



  I. Today's Headlines   


  1.    Resident Bank account maintained by residents in India – Joint holder – liberalization. (Click here for details)

2.    Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 amended vide Notification No. 01/2014-CE(NT) dated 08.01.2014 in reference to cenvat credit on removal/writing off of inputs and capital goods under Rule.
(Click here for details)

 
3.    Withdrawal of exemptions in case of four cricket associations.(Click here for details)
4.    RBI deputy guv appointment hits FinMin wall. (Click here for details)
 
5.    Bank accounts for all adults by 2016 very much possible: Mor. (Click here for details)

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus BHARTI MISHRA, ITA No. 567/2013, Date of Order 18.12.2013, High Court of Delhi.

Whether exemption u/s 54F available, where construction of property has commenced before the date of sale of shares.

Held Yes

In J.R. Subramanya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year from the date of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail of concession under the said Section. The contention of the Revenue that construction of the new building had commenced earlier to the sale of the original asset, it was observed, cannot bar or prevent the assessee from taking benefit of Section 54. The requirement of sub-section (4) is that if consideration was not appropriated towards the purchase of the new asset one year before date of transfer of the original asset or it was not utilised for purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of filing of return under Section 139 of the Act, the balance amount shall be deposited in an authorized bank account under a scheme notified by the Central Government. Section 54F is a beneficial provision and is applicable to an assessee when the old capital asset is replaced by a new capital asset in form of a residential house. The Supreme Court in CCE versus Favourite Industries, (2012) 7 SCC 153 has been referred.

(Please click here to view the Judgment).

2. CIT vs. Globus Securities & Finance (Pvt.)Ltd., ITA no. 409/2012, Date of Order : 10.12.2013, High Court of Delhi.

Assessing Officer should conduct enquiry and carry examination of assessment records, where the assessee has placed all relevant documents identifying the share applicants on record.

Assessing officer had neither conducted any enquiries from the concerned parties nor did he examine the assessment records of the share applicants and despite the request of the assessee, he did not issue summons under Section 131. Assessing officer in the assessment order has not mentioned or recorded that the assessee had made any request for summoning of the shareholders or their Directors or principal officers. Whether any such request was made and if it was made whether it amounts to lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer, why and for what reasons the assessee was not able to produce principal officer or Director of shareholder companies etc. are all aspects which were required to be gone into by the Tribunal in detail. In the given case, an order of remand/remand report or additional evidence may be justified or proper. In these circumstances, we feel that it will be appropriate and proper to pass an order of remit to the tribunal.

(Please click here to view the Judgment).


 Golden Rule:

"I think it's best to keep the controversy on the pages and not in our relationships."

 

  Thanks & Regards

Team

Voice of CA

« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now