Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
07.07.2015 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Tuesday, July 7, 2015

I. Headlines Today:    

  1. CBDT releases 32 clarifications on compliance window in Q&A format  (Click for detail)
  2. CBEC Noti.: Regarding Digitally signed invoices in Central Excise and Service Tax-Conditions, safeguards and procedures  (Click for detail)
  3. Govt reiterates prospect of steep penalty in black money FAQs  (Click for detail)
  4. Govt plans to crack down on domestic money laundering  (Click for detail)
  5. Govt. authorizes 7 public sector companies to issue tax free bonds  (Click for detail)
  6. Defective income tax returns  (Click for detail)
  7. PF Withdrawal May be Capped at 75%  (Click for detail)
  8. Cash or card? That will be 2% extra for the cash payment  (Click for detail)
  9. Here are a few investment options that help you save tax and reap good return  (Click for detail)


II.  Useful Presentation:

1.  XBRL Filing for the year 2014 - 15

(Please click here for detail)

[ Contribution by CA. Neeraj Mangla; and contributor is available at ]


III.  Direct Taxes Case Laws:

1.  Delco India Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. Nos. 2925-2926/Del/2013, Date of Order: 16.06.2015, ITAT - Delhi

Where the provisions of section 292C of the Act are invoked, the AO has to consider the explanation and documents provided by the assessee before making the addition on presumption.


In brief, some loose papers were found and impounded during the course of Survey from the business premises of assessee. The AO made addition on presumption that they relate to transactions outside the assessee’s books of account.

It was held that the law is well settled that the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable. A statutory presumption can be drawn where any documents is found in possession of a person in the course of a search or survey that it belongs to “such a person”. A presumption is also drawn that the contents of such a document are true. The presumption having been drawn as per law is required to be confronted and the documents as per record have been confronted. Whether the onus placed upon the assessee in a given set of facts is discharged or not has to be seen from the replies of the assessee based on facts. In the instant case, the assessee provided sufficient details regarding the entity to the best of its effort and explain that the alleged computer print-out found during survey might be of someone who visited the assessee's office and used the assessee's computer for mail of the account found or might have left by someone unknowingly. Further, the nature of business of the assessee is entirely different from the details which were found during the search. Therefore, in this case the onus lies upon department to prove that such details belong to assessee. The appeal is dismissed as the department was failed to establish such fact.

(Please click here for judgment)    


2.  CIT Vs. Smt. Mina Deogun, I.T.A No. 438/Cal/2008, Date of Order: 20.04.2015, High Court of Calcutta

Whether the rent received from a property belonging to assessee’s husband is taxable under the head “House Property” and not under “Other Sources”.


The provision of Section 27 of the Act provides an inclusive definition of the expression “owner”. An inclusive definition is not an exhaustive definition. The law permits the situation that where a person can be the owner of the land and another can be the owner of the structure as joint ownership unity of title is not required. In present case, the land admittedly belonged to the husband. He has raised the building with the joint funds belonging to himself and his wife.

Therefore, it is considered that the land belonging to the husband has been thrown into the common stock of joint property between the husband and the wife. Both of them thus became the joint owners by operation of the doctrine of blending and admittedly have borne the cost of construction. Therefore, the income arising out of the property is in fact an income arising out of house property which has to be taxed u/s 22 of the Act rather than as an income arising out of other sources u/s 56. Hence, the court dismissed the revenue appeal.

(Please click here for judgment)

IV.  Indirect Taxes Case Law:

1.  M/s Deora Wires N Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeal No: E/459-463/2009, Date of Order: 30.06.2015, CESTAT - Ahmedabad

Issue: Whether demand can be raised in the case of clandestine removal on the basis of statements recorded of various persons?

Held: No

The department during the course of search recorded the statement of Production/Dispatch in charge of the main appellant and also recorded the statement of one of the Director of main appellant. However, these statements were subsequently retracted. Based on these statements the department confirmed the demand for clandestine removal of excisable goods alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty.

On the matter before CESTAT, the Hon’ble CESTAT held that there is no evidence on record showing any excess raw-material procured by the appellant and also any seizure of clandestine removal of goods or any seizure of cash involved in these transactions of clandestine removals.  No statements of other Director’s were recorded during the investigation in order to ascertain the correct Customers and Sources of raw materials purchased etc.  The case of clandestine activity cannot be established simply on the basis of few confessional statements, which are retracted by the persons.  The Hon’ble CESTAT relied upon the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise vs Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (308) E.L.T. 65 (Guj.) and on the basis of said decision of Hon’ble High Court, the CESTAT gave its decision in the favour of appellant and set aside the demand raised upon the appellant.

(Please click here for judgment)


V.  Company Law & Other Matters:

1.  Ravinder Kumar Maggo Vs. M/s AMA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., C.P No. 89(ND)/2009, Date of Order: 18.12.2014, Company Law Board - Delhi Bench

As per Companies Act, 1956 Section 397,398, with section 402& 403 For valuation of the shares of the company there is a need to appoint Valuer. The remuneration to the valuer has to be borne as per the shareholding held by the parties.

(Please click here for judgment)    


 Golden Rules:

  "Company of good people is like walking in a shop of perfumes.
Whether one buys the perfume or not,
one is bound to receive the fragrance"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now