Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
06.05.2014 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Tuesday, May 6, 2014

  I. Today's Headlines:    

  1. Fiscal consolidation will be tough for new Finance Minister  (Click for detail)
  2. India’s services sector contracts for 10th straight month: PMI survey  (Click for detail)
  3. Sebi proposes new listing & disclosure requirement norms  (Click for detail)
  4. RBI or SEBI should create awareness against ponzi schemes  (Click for detail)
  5. China's economic report card: Slow, safe & steady  (Click for detail)
  6. Financial planning for a volatile 2014  (Click for detail)

II. A Useful Article:

[ Contribution by CA. Jayant Bothra and contributor is available at ]

"Types of assessment under Service Tax".

(Please click here)  


III.  Direct Tax Case laws:

1.   Yogendra Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Writ Tax No. 920  of 2013, Date of Order: 21.02.2014, High Court of Allahabad

There is no provision in Income tax Act which permits withdrawal of an appeal, once it is filed, and registered. Once right of appeal is exhausted, by party concerned, and the appeal is filed before appropriate Appellate Authority, who after receiving same has registered it, there is no provision in the statute permitting withdrawal thereof.

Three Judge Bench of Apex Court in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (supra) said:

"It is also well established that an assessee having once filed an appeal cannot withdraw it. In other words, the assessee having filed an appeal and brought the machinery of the Act into working cannot prevent the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from ascertaining and settling the real sum to be assessed, by intimation of his withdrawal of the appeal."

(Please click here to for judgment)

2.  JM Financial Limited Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 4521/Mum/2012, Date of Pronouncement: 26.3.2014, ITAT - Mumbai

No disallowance U/s. 14A in respect of investment in shares of subsidiaries & Joint Ventures

For the year under consideration the assessee has specifically raised a point before the AO that 97.82% of the investment is in the subsidiary companies and joint venture companies  and, therefore, no expenditure was incurred for maintaining the portfolio on these investments or for holding the same. The assessee has also pointed out that these investments are long term investment and no decision is required in making the investment or disinvestment on regular basis because these investments are strategic in nature in the subsidiary companies on long term basis and, therefore, no direct or indirect expenditure is incurred. therefore, in the absence of any finding that any expenditure has been incurred for earning the exempt income, the disallowance made by the AO is not justified, accordingly the same is deleted.

(Please click here to for judgment)

 Golden Rules:

  "Happy is the person who knows:
What to forget of the past,
What to enjoy in the present and
What to plan for in the future"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now