Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
02.07.2015 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Thursday, July 2, 2015

  I. RBI - Master Circulars:   


  1. For Banking Regulation (Please click here)
  2. For Co-operative Banking  (Please click here)
  3. For Currency  (Please click here)
  4. For Financial Markets  (Please click here)
  5. For Foreign Exchange  (Please click here)
  6. For Government Business  (Please click here)
  7. For Non-banking Supervision  (Please click here)
  8. For Payment Systems  (Please click here)
  9. For Primary Dealers  (Please click here)


II. Headlines Today:    

  1. E-filing of Income Tax Returns begins  (Click for detail)
  2. I-T Dept. releases Java and Excel utility for ITR 1,2,2A & 4S; enables e-filing for AY 2015-16  (Click for detail)
  3. Customs Noti.: in respect of fixation of Transaction Value of Edible oil, Brass, Poppy seed, Areca nut, gold and Silver  (Click for detail)
  4. Roadmap for Cutting Corporate Tax in 45 Days  (Click for detail)
  5. Sebi plans new outsourcing policy for exchanges, key entities  (Click for detail)


III.  Direct Taxes Case Laws:

1.  DCIT Vs. Sh. Sham Sunder Sharma, I.T.A. No. 966/Chd/2014, Date of Order: 16.06.2015, ITAT - Chd

Whether orders of the ITAT are binding on the lower authorities and not following the same could invite contempt proceedings?

Held Yes.

It is a clear case of showing disrespect to the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, contempt proceedings could have been initiated against the CIT (A) for blatantly disobeying the order of the Tribunal. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Agrawal Warehousing & Leasing Ltd. vs. CIT 257 ITR 235 held that the CIT (A) cannot refuse to follow the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The CIT (A) is a quasi – judicial authority and is subordinate in judicial hierarchy to the Tribunal. The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities (Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation AIR 1992 SC 711 referred).

(Please click here for judgment)


2.  Dharmayug Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No. 1284/Mum/2013, Date of Order: 10.06.2015, ITAT - Mumbai

Whether the net income or income after indexation, arising from transfer of long term capital asset is to be included in the book profit for the purpose of S. 115JB?

The concept of indexation while computing the Long term capital gain cannot be imported to the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB as per the expressed provisions of the said section itself which is a complete code in itself. Thus, in our opinion, the net amount on account of sale of shares will alone be taken into account in computation of book profit and not the amount of Long term capital gain after indexation.

(Please click here for judgment)

IV.  Indirect Taxes Case Law:

1.  M/s Shubham Electricals Vs. CST & ST, Service Tax Stay Application No. 57519 of 2013 in Appeal No. 56958 of 2013, Date of Hearing: 16.06.2015, CESTAT - New Delhi

Whether the Department can invoke best judgment assessment (Section 72), where the department has failed to gather sufficient information?

Held: No

The department has sought numerous documents from the appellant. The appellant on various dates furnished the documents to the department. The department on the basis of documents submitted by the appellant has formed the opinion that the appellant has failed to provide detailed contractual documents for ascertaining the exact nature of the works executed and that on the basis of the facts and documents on record, a best judgment assessment method, provided under Section 72 of the Act is being pursued for valuation of the tax liability.

On the matter before CESTAT, the Hon’ble CESTAT observed that the appellant had provided copies of 20 work orders executed in relation to Projects, particulars of which are set out in a tabular form in para 5 of the show cause notice. From the description of the works in this table, officers could have classified the several works into the appropriate taxable service which may appropriately govern rendition of these services. The failure to gather relevant facts for issuing a proper show cause notice cannot provide justification for a vague and incoherent show cause notice. Hence, the adjudication order was quashed.

(Please click here for judgment)


V.  Company Law & Other Matters:

1.  Union of India Vs. Lal Chand, Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2006, Date of Judgment: 03.03.2015, High Court of Madras

Foreign Exchange Management Act, Accused was to be acquitted for offences under section 9 of FERA, where except statement of co-accused there was no other independent witness and accused had proved his innocence by way of marked documents.

(Please click here for judgment)


VI.  Reported Cases:

Direct Taxes Segment:

1.   Whether application for seeking registration u/s 12AA could be rejected on ground that no activity has been carried out by trust since its creation – Held No.
2.  Whether Charitable organization can claim Depreciation as allowable, where capital expenditure for respective assets had already been allowed as deduction by way of exemption under section 11 – Held Yes.  
(Please click here for detail)


 Golden Rules:

  "A decision is made with the brain.
A commitment is made with the heart.
Therefore, a commitment is much deeper and more binding
than a decision"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now