Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
30.07.2015 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Thursday, July 30, 2015

  I. Headlines Today:    

  1. CBDT notifies new ITR forms 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; mandates reporting of CSR exp. in ITR 6  (Click for detail)
  2. Govt. to study impact of MAT on firms under new accounting regime  (Click for detail)
  3. Cabinet clears the decks for GST regulating e-commerce  (Click for detail)
  4. Taxpayer info to remain confidential: CIC  (Click for detail)
  5. I-T department addresses 85% of taxpayers' grievances  (Click for detail)
  6. Tax avoidance: Dividend strippers put focus on mutual funds  (Click for detail)
  7. Short of Members, The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) Sits on Appeals Against Sebi Orders  (Click for detail)
  8. Moody’s cautions against curbing RBI autonomy on policy rates  (Click for detail)


II.  Direct Taxes Case Laws:

1.   Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust Vs. DIT(E), I.T.A. No. 141/2013, Date of Order: 27.07.2015, Delhi High Court

Whether claim for depreciation on assets purchased is allowed if expenditure incurred on purchase of the assets has been exempted under Section 11 of the Act.

Held Yes

The issue is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. M/s Indraprastha Cancer Society: Income Tax Appeal No. 240/2014, decided on 18th November, 2014. Insofar as the issue regarding depreciation on assets used for providing Allopathic systems of medicine is concerned, the learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that the depreciation would be allowable if the activities of the Assessee were considered to be within the scope of its objects. The Tribunal had denied the claim of depreciation, in respect of assets used for providing medical relief through Allopathic system of medicine, only on the basis that the Assessee’s activity for running the hospital was ultra vires its objects. In the circumstances, the third question is to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Assessee.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s G.K. Properties Private Limited, I.T.T.A. No. 42 of 2015, Date of Order : 17.06.2015, Andhra High Court.

Whether merely because the assessee made a claim which is not acceptable ipso facto cannot be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, for the relevant assessment year.

Held Yes

In the facts of the present case, the Tribunal had recorded a finding in the penalty proceedings that the assessee had purchased agricultural lands and for a good number of years had offeredincome as agricultural income on account of the assessee earning income on leasing of the agricultural lands. Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the land is outside Municipal limits i.e.,beyond eight kilometres of Municipality. This finding is not challenged. The Tribunal also considered the judgment of this Court in Raghotham Reddy v. ITO , wherein this Court had held that the sale of agricultural lands would not attract income tax and exempt from tax. In other words, the claim made by the assessee cannot be said to be bona fide with the intention to evade the tax. Merely because the claim made by the assessee has not been accepted ipso facto, the said claim cannot be said to be a deliberate act of furnishing inaccurate particulars and it also cannot be said that the information furnished by the assessee is inaccurate inviting penalty.

This issue of the matter is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products , wherein the apex Court held as under: We have already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add hear that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.

(Please click here for judgment)    

III. Company Law & Other Matters:

1.  SIFA Printing Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., CP. No. 2/2013, Date of Order: 17.04.2015, Company Law Board - Chennai

In the matter of Companies Act 1956, Section 111A-R/W 637A As if the respondent is a public limited company and has to follow certain RBI guidelines issued time to time as per this case transfer of shares without insisting for fresh or revalidation transfer of forms cannot be treated as refusal/ rejected to transfer the shares.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Shri Arvind Mohan Johari and Another Vs. M/s Carlton Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. CP NO.11(ND)/111/2011, Date of Order: 13.05.2015, Company Law Board - New Delhi

In the matter of Sec 111 of Companies Act 1956, Petitioner has no right to seek relief over the allotment made to the respondents when the relief is already present before this bench, therefore Petitioner are not entitled to the relief for rectification of shares register in relation to allotment of shares allotted to the respondents.

(Please click here for judgment)


IV.  Reported Cases - Direct Taxes:

1.   Where statement recorded under section 132(4) had been retracted, in the absence of other supporting material, a statement of that nature cannot constitute the basis to burden an assessee.
2.  If seized jewellery were found to belong to ladies of family within permissible limit of 500 gms. each, the same cannot be seized.  
(Please click here for detail)


 Golden Rules:

  "Satisfaction is not always the fulfillment of what you want,
it is the realization of how blessed you are for what you have"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now