1. CBDT Noti.: New ITR Form ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-2A and  ITR-4S released by Income tax department for filing a return of A.Y 2015-2016  (Click for detail)
   

2. CBDT: No Taxman Can Terrorise Assesses of Scrutiny  (Click for detail)
   

3. Draft Outline of the Sovereign Gold Bonds Scheme  (Click for detail)
   

4. No need for bank balance details, foreign trip info in new ITR forms  (Click for detail)
   

5. FM: Reforms Must in Land Labour & Taxation  (Click for detail)
   

6. The Central government has launched a scheme called ‘DigiLocker’. Anyone having an Aadhar card can login to www.digitallocker.gov.in and upload scanned copies of all the important documents.

7. Sebi eases norms but start ups to wait & watch before queueing up for scrutiny  (Click for detail)
   

8. ICAI: Comments invited upon draft taxonomy for Commercial and Industrial Companies updated on the basis of  notified provisions of Companies Act 2013 and new rules and forms thereunder  (Click for detail)

1. Income Tax Officer Vs. Sh. Mahender Singh, I.T.A. No. 6339/Del/2013, Date of Order: 17.06.2015, ITAT - Delhi

Personal non appearance of buyer cannot be made the sole basis for additions u/s 69, where due documentary evidence produced before revenue authorities to explain inflow for making investment.

The advances received against sale of agricultural land concerned, the same are genjuine as the appellant submitted copy of agreement and sale deed of the agricultural land of the buyer in support the sources of investments/advances made by them. Further, the appellant also submitted the affidavits of the buyers in support of the advances made by them. The claim of the appellant cannot be rejected only on the ground that the appellant could not personally produce the purchaser of land as the purchasers of land had received the summons but did not appear, the assessee could not be blamed for all this as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. UM Shah, Prop. Shrenik Trading Co. Ltd. (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) and by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Arora (2009) 29(1) ITCL 40: (P&H – H.C) (2009) 24 DTR (P&H) 227 and by the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Surinder Nath Singla (1995) 51 TTJ (Del.Trib) 179. The appellant had discharged its burden of proof by producing the affidavits and circumstantial evidences on the facts of the case.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Smt. Ruta S Jindal Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No. 5279/DEL/2012, Date of Order: 17.06.2015, ITAT - Delhi

Whether the explanation that “in joint hindu families and that the jewellery of one family member is given to the other member for use only and therefore the jewellery found in the possession of one member could belong to another member of the family” could be a possible explanation – Held Yes.

The Revenue has in some cases considered the jewellery found in the possession of one family members, as jewellery belonging to the other family member. It is undisputed that all these family members are residing together. Under these circumstances the submissions of the assessee that jewellery cannot be said to be kept in water tight compartments in joint hindu families and that the jewellery of one family member is given to the other member for use only and that the jewellery found in the possession of one member could belong to another member of the family, is a possible explanation. Further the amount of jewellery found short in the hands of the mother in law and father in law of the assessee tallies in value, with the jewellery found in excess in the room of the assessee. Regarding non tallying of the items of jewellery the explanation that the items are changed frequently by the ladies of the house, is a possible explanation.

(Please click here for judgment)      
 

1.  Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs. M/s. Roger Exports, S.T.A. No. 608 of 2009, Date of Decision: 12.06.2015, CESTAT - New Delhi

Whether service tax wrongly paid by the person can be claimed back by way of refund? Held: Yes

The respondents are manufacturing and exporting goods. They availed the services of foreign commission agent during the period 1995 – 1997 and paid the commission to their foreign agent during the period June, 2005 to June, 2007. The respondents inadvertently paid the service tax on such amount. Later, on realization that the respondent is not required to pay service tax for the services received during the period 1995 – 1997, they filed refund claim for service tax paid on commission. The adjudicating authority denied the refund claim but on appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim.

On appeal before CESTAT by department, the Hon’ble CESTAT held that service tax is payable when the services has been provided. The services were provided during the period 1995 – 1997 and at that relevant point of time the services were not taxable. So, even when the consideration was received later on when such services became taxable this would not make these services received earlier liable to service tax and hence refund allowed to the respondents.

(Please click here for judgment)

1. Central Bank of India Vs. C.L. Vimala, Civil Appeal Nos. 4043 - 4046 of 2015, Date of Judgment: 28.04.2015, Supreme Court of India

As per loan agreement (contract) Guarantor couldn't escape from her liability if it was co-extensive with principal debtor.

(Please click here for judgment)    

V.  Reported Cases:

Direct Taxes Segment:

 Golden Rules:

  "Prayers, dreams and seeds are similar in nature.
They all have nothing within...
but they have the potential of creating everything"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team

Voice of CA