Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
21.05.2014 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Wednesday, May 21, 2014

  I. Today's Headlines:    

  1. CBDT Instruction: Orders Passed Under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act - Administrative Supervision  (Click for detail)

  2. Six income-tax changes the Narendra Modi government needs to bring  (Click for detail)

  3. Announcement on prohibition to undertake the assignment of audit and accounting work together for the same entity  (Click for detail)

  4. Observers Portal by ICAI for CA Examinations May/June 2014  (Click for detail)

  5. RBI: Customer protection code to be mandatory for banks  (Click for detail)

  6. RBI eases rules for loans to exporters  (Click for detail)

  7. Set off losses against other income heads  (Click for detail)

  8. Smart asset allocation key to effective wealth creation  (Click for detail)


II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

1.   Venkatesh Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. Nos. 719 & 720 OF 2007, Date of Order: 04.04.2014, High Court of Karnataka

No concealment penalty if sec. 54F relief was denied since deal of acquiring house property couldn’t completed

Where the property was in litigation, the transaction was not completed. The Assessing Officer, in the order, observed that the assessee had not furnished any information regarding the Court matter-litigation against the said property. This observation is factually incorrect. In paragraph-5 of the reply dated 25-5-2006 the assessee had clearly made reference to the copies of the court paper and stay order in respect of said property which were enclosed with the reply. This is a fit case where the Assessing Officer ought not to have imposed any penalty in exercise of the discretion vested in him. The order imposing penalty, thus deserves to be set-aside. Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Please click here for judgment)


2.  B.Sivasubramanian Vs. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No. 01/Mds/2013, Date of Order: 12.03.2014, ITAT – Chennai

Exemption u/s 54F cannot be denied on account of unapproved building plan.

The provisions of section 54F mandates the construction of a residential house, within the period specified. However, there is no condition that the building plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. If any person constructs a house without approval of building plan, he will be raising construction at his own risk and cost. As far as for availing exemption u/s.54F, approval of building plan is not necessary.

(Please click here to view Judgment)  

III. A Useful Article:

[ Contribution by CA Yatendra Agrawal and contributor is available at ]

"Cyber Crime Changing Scenario"

(Please click here)  


 Golden Rules:

  Dariya ne Jharne se puchha
"Tujhe samunder nahi bannaa h kya".

Jharne ne badi namrata se kaha:
"Bada bankar khaara ho jane se achha hai ki
main Chhota rahkar meetha rahu"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now