1. CBDT circular: Treatment of expenditure incurred for development of roads/highways in BOT agreements under IT Act, 1961  (Click for detail)

2. New Companies Act - Tough Reserve Rules to Hit NBFCs  (Click for detail)

3. Finance Ministry to seek Rs 7,000 crore more for bank capitalisation  (Click for detail)

4. YES Bank, L&T Finance independently testing regulatory waters  (Click for detail)

5. RBI prescribes uniform accounting norms for asset reconstruction firms  (Click for detail)

6. ICAI to issue norms on fraud reporting by auditors  (Click for detail)

7. ICAI launches Flexi Working Portal for Women Members  (Click for detail)

1.   Krishna Gopal Maheshwari Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, IT Appeal No.: 23 of 2013, Date of Order: 10.03.2014, High Court of Allahabad

Whether if assesee failed to substantiate business of company was money lending, loans and advances received by assessee were in ordinary course of money lending business, same were to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).

Held: Yes

In the instant case, it appeared that neither the company nor the assessee was having the license of money lending business. Further, as per the balance sheet of the company, total loans and advances were only Rs.47.90 lakh out of which loan to the extent of Rs.37.28 lakh was given to the assessee. Hence a substantial part of the loan has been taken by the assessee. In the circumstances, there was no chance to accumulate the profits pertaining to the available funds.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   CIT Vs. Kisan Ratilal Choksey Share & Securities, IT Appeal No.: 1001 of 2011, Date of Order: 17.04.2014, High Court of Bombay

Costs of Rs. 1 lakh levied on dept for “gross abuse of process of Court”, contending that Revenue ought to have been fair and brought to the notice of this Court the fact that its Appeal challenging the very findings and conclusions for prior Assessment Years has been dismissed by this Court on merits.

Held that it is unfortunate that the Revenue insists in arguing Appeals in this manner and for subsequent Assessment Years. The Revenue ought to have been fair and brought to the notice of this Court the fact that its Appeal challenging the very findings and conclusions for prior Assessment Years has been dismissed by this Court on merits. The reasons assigned ought to have been pointed out to us and thereafter; any explanation should have been offered for admission of this Appeal. It is a gross abuse of the process of this Court. It is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One lakh).

Later on cost revoked on assurance that judicial orders would be abided.

(Please click here for judgment)