Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
05.09.2014 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Friday, September 5, 2014

  Forthcoming Seminars Schedule:   

Seminars on Tax Audit under Income Tax Act, 1961 & Wealth Tax, Speaker - CA. Sanjay Agarwal, Member Central Council. Details are as under:

  • Saturday Morning on 06.09.2014  at Muzaffar Nagar (Click for detail)
  • Saturday Evening on 06.09.2014  from 5.30Pm to 9pm at Crystal Banquet, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
  • Sunday Morning on 07.09.2014 at Amritsar  (Click for detail)


I. Today's Headlines:    

  1. CBDT Inst.: Norms for Compulsory manual selection of cases for scrutiny during F.Y.2014-15  (Click for detail)
  2. CBDT drops Rs 15-cr cap for transfer pricing scrutiny  (Click for detail)
  3. Circular: CESTAT clarification on mandatory pre-deposit while filing appeals w.e.f. 06.08.2014 subsequent to amendment in the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act 1944 and Finance Act, 1944  (Click for detail)
  4. Insurance cos under service tax net for flouting rules  (Click for detail)
  5. Modi government may allow EPFO to invest in markets, Rs 6,000 crore to flow into stocks annually  (Click for detail)
  6. Parliamentary panel for insurance bill plans to submit report by end November  (Click for detail)
  7. Indian real estate market saw significant change during 2005-14: Report  (Click for detail)
  8. RBI’s new norms will shorten your wait for loan approval  (Click for detail)
  II. Direct Tax Case Laws:

1.   Malpani Estates Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, I.T.A. Nos. 2296 to 2298 of 2012, Date of Order: 30.01.2014, Pune - Trib

Whether deduction under section 80-IB(10) will be available in respect of additional income offered in a statement under section 132(4), duly declared in return filed u/s 153A ?

Held Yes

That the assessee has derived income from undertaking a housing project, which is eligible for section 80-IB(10) benefits.

That the additional income in question relates to the housing project undertaken by the assessee. The material seized in the course of search; the deposition made by the assessee's partner during search under section 132(4); and, also the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 153A(1)(a) after the search, clearly show that the source of impugned additional income is the housing project.

That the expression 'all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section' in Explanation (i) of section 153A, it clearly implies that in assessing or reassessing the 'total income' for the assessment years specified in section 153A(1)(b), the import of section 80A(1) comes into play, and there shall be allowed the deductions specified in Chapter VI-A, of course subject to fulfilment of the respective conditions. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB(10) even with regard to the enhanced income was well within the scope and ambit of an assessment under section 153A(1)(b) and the Assessing Officer was obligated to consider the same as per law. In the result, on the basis of the aforesaid legal position and the material and evidence on record, assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) in relation to impugned additional income offered in a statement under section 132(4) in the course of search and subsequently declared in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A(1)(a).

(Please click here for judgment)


2.  ITO Vs. Mrs. Bibi Siddiqua Husaini, I.T.A. No. 1975/M/2011, Date of Order: 27.08.2014, ITAT - Mumbai

For the purpose of indexation, the date should be reckoned from the date from which the original owner held the property.

Held Yes

Assessees sold some immovable property and while computing capital gain assessee took cost of acquisition of previous owner. AO however observed that indexation could only be allowed from the year in which the asset was first held by the assessee. He held that in the case in hand, the asset for the first time vested in the assessee only on 19.2.2004, he therefore allowed the indexation from Financial Year 2004-05.  Assessee contented that the property was acquired by her late husband Mr. Sultan Huseini in the F.Y.1999-2000.The property was passed to the assessee on 19.02.2004 i.e. the date when her husband died.

Ho’ble ITAT held that in view of the decision of “CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah” (2013) 355 ITR 0474 directed the AO to adopt cost inflation index of acquisition of the capital asset with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

(Please click here for judgment)

 Golden Rules:

  "To Accomplish Great Things,
We Must Not Only Act But Also Dream,
Not Only Plan But Also Believe"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now