Docstoc

Turbo Tax Filing

Document Sample
Turbo Tax Filing Powered By Docstoc
					   SUMMARY OF NEWS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST ON VOICE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTA

DATE        S.NO. TOPIC

4-May-09     55   SMITA AGRAWAL
                  Landmark Allahabad High Court Ruling in Matter of Stay of
                  Tax Demand by CIT-Appeals : Calling to CBDT to issue
                  Circular etc so that CIT-A are enlightened on their duties of
                  Considering Stay Applications etc.

5-May-09     56   YUM RESTAURANT
                  DHC dismissing Yum Restaurants Income Tax Appeal : on
                  Issue of Contribution of Advertisement expenses etc to
                  Subsidiary and Crystallization of Expense & DHC on
                  Commission expense; Importance of Written clause in
                  Agreements for TAX BENEFITS.
             57   NALINI MAHAJAN
                  Latest SC developments on concealment penalty vis a vis
                  debatable claim ; share capital ; revenue’s SLP admitted over
                  Nalini Mahajan / block assessment & subsidy taxation.

9-May-09     58
                  D.S PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS :
                  WELCOME DELHI HIGH COURT RULING ON
                  TAXATION/CHARACTERIZATION OF RENTAL INCOME
                  DERIVED BY PROPERTY/REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS




                  M/s.GPS Sensors Indicators Pvt. Ltd.
             59   Brief Snapshot of Sale Tax/VAT Determinations

14-May-09    60   ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD:
                  LANDMARK SUPREME COURT RULINGS ON
                  ESTIMATED WARRANTY CLAIMS AS ALLOWABLE
                  EXPENSE
14-May-09




            61
                 GREEN WORLD CORPORATION
                 REOPENING U/S 148 VIS A VIS SECTION 150(1)


19-May-09   62   Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. (Assessee's Appeal allowed by
                 Delhi High Court) :                        on scope of
                 Reasons to Believe & scope of additions on unconnected
                 issues.
            63   The Printers House Pvt. Ltd.
                 on allowability of Commission Expense & on invocation of
                 Section 14A.
            64   Mesco Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
                 on block Assessment Section 143(2) Controversy."The
                 questions raised in this appeal are squarely covered against
                 the Revenue by a recent judgment of this Court in ITA No
                 200/2008 titled Commissioner of Income Tax vs Pawan
                 Gupta and/or ITA No 1173/2007 titled Commissioner of
                 Income Tax vs Tulika Mishra. No substantial question of law
                 arises for consideration.
            65
                 Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd
                 on reopening u/s 148 after earlier regular assessment

21-May-09   66   NSG Network Asia LLC
                 In context of liability to pay advance tax by payee-assessee
                 on payment subject to tax withholding u/s 195, in
                 consequence of failure to deduct tax, BHC after considering
                 the matter at length, has upheld underlying ITAT order
                 concluding no liability for advance tax on payee assessee for
                 payment on which tax is deductible (albeit not deducted),
                 placing reliance on Utt. HC ruling in SEDCO case 264 ITR
                 320. In underlying order and from question posited before
                 BHC, it is clear that ITAT placed reliance on Del ITAT
                 Special Bench ruling in Motorola case at 95 ITD 269. In
                 context of tax withholding, landmark SC development in
                 L&T and ITI cases, holding that employer tax deductor u/s
                 192 while taking declaration from employee payee over leave
                 travel concession etc, is not bound to examine the evidence
                 thereof, may also be usefully referred
            67   DBS Limited
                 In context of allowability of Expatriate Salaries u/s 37 of the
                 Act, BHC while affirming underlying ITAT order, concluded
                 that expenditure was incurred in India duly subject to tax
                 withholding in India. In holding so, BHC placed reliance on
                 its earlier ruling in the case of Emirates Commercial 262 ITR
                 55
            68   Om parkash Jain and Others
                 In context of addition made in consequence of surrender and
                 subsequent retraction, BHC while reversing underlying ITAT
                 order and remanding the matter back to AO, concluded that
                 while relying on retraction, genuineness of documents lead in
                 support thereof must be examined and documentary
                 evidence, if genuine, must prevail over oral testimony.
                 Further, BHC replaced the specific direction of ITAT by
                 general discretion to AO.
            69   Monika Gems and Others
                 In context of allowability of foreign travel expenses in Gems
                 Industry, BHC while allowing assessee's appeals, revered the
                 ITAT finding wherein it was concluded that subject expense
                 is neither allowable and nor disallowable. In connection to
                 this ITAT finding, BHC held the same to be vitiated by non
                 application of mind.
            70   Lata Shanti lal Shah
                 In context of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act,
                 BHC concluded that explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c)
                 pointing deemed concealment in specified cases cannot be
                 invoked for first time before HC by revenue, when the same
                 is not pressed before lower authorities.

23-May-09   71   Ashish Rajpal
                 in relation to Section 263 : regarding requirement under
                 Section 263 of the Act to issue a notice before embarking
                 upon revisionary proceedings
            72   B.J.Duplex
                 in relation to depreciation on Passive User : "Since there has
                 been a passive user and that the machinery has been kept
                 ready for use which is a pure finding of fact, the Assessee is
                 entitled to depreciation."
            73
                 Murli Chaudhary
                 regarding Concealment Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) : When
                 Assessment REMAND back : Status : DHC affirmed ITAT
                 view "Even if the addition of Rs 10,00,272/- in respect of
                 which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed, had not been
                 deleted by the learned CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings
                 vide an order dated 14.12.1990 and the issue relating to the
                 said addition was actually remanded by him to the file of the
                 AO for reconsideration, the ultimate result was the same in
                 as much as the very basis of imposition of the said penalty
                 did not survive and the said penalty having no legs to stand
                 was liable to be cancelled as rightly held by the Tribunal."
            74   Shri Raj Kumar
                 regarding Trade Advance and Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e)
                 of Income Tax

27-May-09   75   Bajaj Auto Ltd.
                 BHC has admitted assessee's appeal challenging ITAT order
                 interalia for whether assessee (auto manufacturer) is liable
                 for tax withholding u/s 194C on service charges paid to
                 authorized service stations, for discharge of free service
                 coupons.
            76   Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.
                 BHC has admitted assessee's appeal challenging ITAT order
                 interalia for whether ITAT is justified in
                 disallowing debenture issue expenses pertaining to
                 convertible portion, holding them as capital in nature
                 applying Ahd ITAT Special Bench ruling in Ashima Syntex
                 case 100 ITD 247. In this connection, reference may be made
                 to Raj HC ruling in case of Secure Meters Limited 175
                 Taxman 567.
            77   Blue Star Limited.
                 BHC has admitted assessee's appeal challenging ITAT’s
                 order interalia for whether amount received by assessee
                 on giving up its right in Joint Venture is liable to capital
                 gains or is pure capital receipt non chargeable to tax.
            78    S. R. Enterprises
                 BHC has admitted revenue's appeal challenging ITAT order
                 interalia for whether amount received on sale of transferable
                 development right is assessable to tax as business income or
                 under the head capital gains.

30-May-09   79
                 Apex Metchem(P)
                 Rajasthan High Court on SECTION 254(2) after considering
                 SC in Honda Siel and Saurashtra Exchange.
            80
                 JAL HOTELS LTD. & SUDHIR ENGG. CO LIMITED
                 in context of reopening after earlier 143(3) assessment
                 S.R. BATLIBOI & CO.
30-May-09   81   Petition filed by S.R. Batliboi & Co., reputed Auditors and
                 Accountants against the Department of Income Tax
                 entreating the issuance of an appropriate writ to prevent the
                 Respondents from forcibly gaining or securing access to the
                 data contained in two laptops belonging to employees of the
                 Petitioner were seized by the Dy. Director, Income Tax in the
                 course of conducting a Search and Seizure operation against
                 EMAAR In view of the fact that the Respondents have
                 rejected the offer made by the Petitioner as recorded in order
                 dated 18.11.2008 : the impugned summons, as referred to in
                 Prayer (ii) of the Writ Petition are set aside, and the
                 Respondents are directed to forthwith return the laptops to
                 the Petitioner.
VOICE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
          RELEVANT SEC.  JUDGMENT
             (IF ANY)     PASSED BY




                                 ALLAHABAD
                                 HIGH COURT




        SECTION 37               DHC




        SECTION 271 (1)( c) SC AND DHC




        SECTION 22                DHC
                                 COURT OF
                                 COMMISSIONER
                                 DEPARTMENT OF
                                 TRADE AND TAXES
                                 GOVERNMENT OF
        Section 84of the Delhi   N.C.T. OF DELHI
        Value Added Tax          VYAPAR BHAVAN,
        Act, 2004                NEW DELHI




        SECTION 37               SUPREME COURT
SECTION 148      SUPREME COURT




                 DHC



SECTION 14A      DHC




SECTION 143(2)   DHC

                 MADRAS   HIGH
SECTION 148      COURT

                 BHC




SECTION 195
                 BHC




SECTION 37
                 BHC




                 BHC




                 BHC




SECTION 271(1)
(c)




SECTION 263      DHC




                 DHC
SECTION 271(1) ( c) DHC


SECTION 2(22)(e)   DHC




SECTION 194C       BHC




                   BHC




                   BHC
                 BHC



                 RAJASTHAN
SECTION 254(2)   HIGH COURT


SECTION 143(3)   DHC




SECTION 132      DHC
           SUMMARY OF NEWS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST ON VOICE OF CHARTERED ACCO

DATE       S.NO. TOPIC

2-Jun-09    82
                 GUJARAT MINERAL DEV CORP LTD
                 ON JURISDICTION OF ITAT AND SCOPE OF APPEAL BEFORE ITAT.
            83   Coronation Floor Mills :
                 In context of unreasonable/excessive expense u/s 40A(2) of the Act, Guj
                 HC has interalia concluded that:
                 "The contention raised on behalf of the appellant-assessee that the fair
                 market value having not been ascertained by the Assessing Officer. No
                 disallowance could have been made therefore does not merit
                 acceptance."
            84   Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd.
                 In this interesting case, Guj HC dismissed revenue’s appeal challenging
                 ITAT order whereby assessee’s claim of lease rent of Rs 48 lacs (app)
                 for 99 years has been treated as revenue expense and allowed in one
                 go. (It is noteworthy that before AO it was assessee’s submission that
                 subject claim of lease rent is just like advance rent). Contrary
                 conclusion stands recorded in Ahd ITAT Special Bench ruling in FAG
                 Bearing 118 TTJ 433. It is apparent that Special Bench ruling has
                 received a dent after Guj HC instant ruling, specially being Jurisdictional
                 High Court.

4-Jun-09    85   Home solution Retail India Ltd & ors
                 supreme court issues notice in respect of Service Tax on Rental of
                 Immovable Property on an SLP being filed by UOI against the order
                 dated 18-04-2009 of Hon'ble DHC.
            86
                 Genom Biotech Private Limited
                 (CROSS BORDER TAX EVASION AND INFLATION OF TAX
                 EXPENSE: HELD VALID GROUND FOR SEARCH U/S 132 AND
                 PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER U/S 281B).
            87   Titanor Components Ltd. :
                 BHC Goa Bench has allowed assessee’s appeal and set aside ITAT order
                 by considering extenso implication of assessee’s filing an application u/s
                 158A of the Act (dealing with avoidance of repetitive appeals) before
                 ITAT.
            88
                 Sudhakar T Pendse:
                 BHC has dismissed assessee’s appeal in context of block assessment u/s
                 158BC of the Act and has affirmed underlying appellate orders.
           88
                Sudhakar T Pendse:
                BHC has dismissed assessee’s appeal in context of block assessment u/s
                158BC of the Act and has affirmed underlying appellate orders.
           89
                Solapur Distt Cooperative Milk Producers:
                BHC has dismissed revenue’s appeal against ITAT order and has
                answered an important tax question in favor of assessee.
           90
                S. R. Batliboi
                Income Tax Department has introduced a scheme for centralized
                processing of annual income-tax returns which envisages no interface
                with the tax payer and processing of returns to be done in an automated
                jurisdiction-less manner. Implementation of such scheme requires having
                a robust system for information relating to payment of TDS and TCS so
                that the credit for TDS and TCS can be granted accurately and the risk of
                financial fraud is minimized.

6-Jun-09   91
                 Samir Bio Tech Pvt Ltd
                DHC in context of section 68 of the Act after taking note of latest SC
                ruling in Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195 (FIRST TIME ANY HC
                TAKING NOTE OF SAID SC RULING) has concluded that once
                shareholders are identified (by filing of income tax particulars,
                shareholders audited balance sheets etc) and the transaction is
                conducted through banking channel, no addition can be made for
                unexplained cash credit , in view of aforesaid SC ruling.
92   JSRS Udyog Limited,
     In the case of JSRS Udyog Limited, DHC in context of section 148 of
     the Act, placing reliance on its latest ruling in Haryana Acrylic case
     (3/11/2008), while allowing assessee's writ petition has concluded as
     under:
     "We are of the opinion that the said order has, first of all, not dealt with
     any of the objections raised by the petitioner. Secondly, the order is
     nothing but a repetition of what is given in the purported reasons.

     There is no indication of any specific information with regard to any
     accommodation entry being provided by the assessee / petitioner. Apart
     from merely saying that the receipts of the share application money were
     bogus and sham transactions, there is nothing indicated either in the
     reasons or in the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 to enable us to arrive
     at such a conclusion.
      In a recent decision in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing
     Company v. CIT [WP(C) 4074/2007 decided on 03.11.2008], in a
     somewhat similar circumstances.
93   Integrated Databases India ltd
     In the case of Integrated Databases India ltd., DHC in context of section
     10B(5) dealing with filing of audit report with tax return, has interpreted
     the said requirement as directory in nature (can be submitted any time
     before completion of assessment), holding the said provision to be
     similar to section 80IA(7) and section 80J(6A).
94
     Rani Mishra
     DHC i n context of section 17(3)(iii) dealing with taxability of profits
     in lieu of salary , has concluded that compensation received by assessee
     for being discriminated in offering of job (as also no job offered) by a
     government organization, is capital receipt non chargeable to tax and is
     not covered under said provision.
6-Jun-09   95
                M.L.B.D                    BOOKS                     INTERNATIONAL
                DHC has dismissed assessee’s appeal and has affirmed ITAT order. In
                this case, DHC has affirmed disallowance by Assessing Officer u/s
                40A(2) on account of unreasonable/excessive purchase price, as paid by
                assessee to its sister concern, which was made after comparing the
                purchases rates charged by other persons from assessee company. In this
                case, assessee’s explanation that difference in rates occurred due to hard
                bound volume being supplied by related/sister concern, has been held by
                DHC to be rightly rejected by AO on the ground that bill from sister
                concern never shown that books supplied were hard bound. Further,
                DHC has affirmed the ITAT/CIT-A and AO’s order confirming
                disallowance of commission payment to sister concern u/s 40A(2) on the
                ground that
           96   Flow Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd.: DHC while affirming
                underlying ITAT order has interalia held that: “In these circumstances,
                we find no perversity in the conclusion reached by ITAT that the expense
                in issue incurred for purposes of generating a feasibility report for the
                benefit of the Assessee is in the nature of a revenue expense” where the
                finding of fact that there was unity of control and interlacing of the new
                line of business with the existing business has been returned by the
                ITAT.
           97   Exinn Securities and Credits:                                  DHC while
                dismissing revenue’s appeal pleading that ITAT failed to consider the
                violation of rule 46A(3) (non confrontation of additional evidence etc to
                AO), while highlighting the importance of specific appeal grounds
                before ITAT has held that

                “We are unable to accept this argument for simple reason that violation
                of Rule 46A(3) was not a ground raised before the ITAT despite the fact
                that it may have been contemplated in the order dated 06.06.2002. The
                Tribunal cannot be legally faulted in not taking the said rule into
                consideration if it did not form a part of the appeal at all.”
            98
                  Napcon Turbochargers Ltd.: DHC in context of allowability of
                  expenses to keep the business going, has affirmed ITAT order to the
                  effect:"In fact, I have given a finding in assessment year 2002-03 that the
                  business of turbo chargers is in existence and merely because orders
                  were not received, there could be no adverse inference.

                  As in the case of preceding year, there is no sale of any plant and
                  machinery or closure of the establishment and on the contrary from the
                  various expenses incurred by the appellant, continuation of business is
                  fully supported"


13-Jun-09   99  Prasad Agents Private Limited (engaged in trading of shares etc):
                for the first time, in context of explanation to section 73 of the Act
                (dealing with classification of loss arising from sale/purchase of shares in
                hands of a company assessee as speculative loss).
            100 Cartini India Limited :
                BHC in context of reopening within four years (not covered by proviso
                to section 147), held that AO cannot form a prima facie opinion that
                deduction is not allowable and accordingly reopen the assessment on the
                ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
            101
                  Coca Cola regarding stay of Tax Demand :
                  Assessee’s writ petition allowed : in case there’s delay in disposition of
                  ITAT Appeal & it is not attributable to assessee : Demand must not be
                  enforced & section 292C analysed in extenso r/w section 132(4A).

13-Jun-09   102 BANARASI LAL PASSI
                regarding Concealment Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)SC after condoning delay,
                has dismissed revenue's SLP from Delhi High Court order wherein it was
                                                                               ‐
                held that:" We cannot find fault with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the
                assessee had made the claim of deduction under Section 80 O of the said
                Act under a bonafide belief that it was entitled to such a deduction. The
                Tribunal has, in our view, rightly deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the
                said Act. No interference with the impugned order is called for. No
                substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is
            103 BHARTI CELLULAR LTD
                regarding TDS on Payment for Interconnect & Port Charges.On
                revenue's SLP from DHC order reported at 175 Taxman 573 wherein it
                was held that "The Assessee's were Companies providing mobile phone
                facility to their customers i.e. subscriber's under licences granted by
                DOT. They had set up their own networks. Where subscribers had to
                make call from one network to another network these were routed
                through MTNL, providing interconnection at points, described as
            103  BHARTI CELLULAR LTD
                regarding TDS on Payment for Interconnect & Port Charges.On
                revenue's SLP from DHC order reported at 175 Taxman 573 wherein it
                was held that "The Assessee's were Companies providing mobile phone
                facility to their customers i.e. subscriber's under licences granted by
                DOT. They had set up their own networks. Where subscribers had to
                make call from one network to another network these were routed
                through MTNL, providing interconnection at points, described as
            104 RBG INVESTMENT & FIN LTD
                SC on revenue's SLP in the matter of RBG INVESTMENT from DHC
                ruling reported at 175 Taxman 291, after condoning delay has dismissed
                the same
                SUNDARAM FINANCE
            105 on assessee's SLP has issued notice on following law point:"Issue
                notice. In our view, prima facie, the High Court should have framed the
                substantial question of law, namely, whether provision of contingent
                deposit was deductable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act?"
            106 ACCENT FOR LIVING
                SC has issued notice on assessee's SLP from Punjab & Haryana High
                Court order wherein Liberty ruling 293 ITR 520 was followed to hold
                that duty drawback gains are not profits derived from industrial
                undertaking u/s 80IB of the Act. On earlier occasion, SC has issued
                notice on revenue's SLP in Eltek SGS case wherein DHC (300 ITR 6)
                held in favor of assessee on subject issue that is, duty drawback is
                eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.
                Baidyanath
13-Jun-09   107 SC on Classification of Commodity in Indirect Tax & Res Judicata
                (Consistency):"The primary object of the Excise Act is to raise revenue
                for which various products are differently classified in New Tariff
                Act.
            108 Suretech International :
                Held equipment for recovery and peak performance of batteries being
                subjectmatter of determination, do not form part of “ Renewable energy
                devices and spare parts” covered under item no. 58 of third schedule to
                DVAT ACT, 2004" and is taxable under general unspecified items
                falling u/s 4(1)(e) of DVAT Act 2004 and attract VAT @ 12.5%
            109 General Machinery and Merchants Association:
                In this determination, in context of the question "What is the rate of tax
                upon Electric Motors and Switch gears/starters which are used as a part
                of Machinery”, it is held that the subject items do not find any place in
                any of the schedules of Act, and thus are a general unspecified items
                falling u/s 4(1)(e) of DVAT Act 2004 and attract VAT @ 12.5%.

15-Jun-09   110 Inducto Ispat Alloys Ltd.
                allowing Assessee's Writ Petition and quashing of REOPENING Notice.
                Original assessment u/s 143(3), no reopening can be made after the
                expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year.
15-Jun-09




            111 Manjusha Estate Pvt Limited
                regarding allowing Assessee’s Writ Petition and quashing of
                REOPENING Notice.
                    Merely receipt of Valuation report u/s 142A (which itself is invalid )
                which discloses estimated higher cost of construction as compared to the
                value disclosed in accesee's books/return of income (despite the fact that
                only 143(1) & no regular assessment was made ), cannot be a
                justification for reopening the case u/s 148.
            112 SHRI SIRMAD BUDDHISAGAR SURI JAIN SAMADHI MANDIR
                (Gujarat HC) regarding allowing Assessee’s Writ Petition and quashing
                of REOPENING Notice.
                    In the given case notice u/s 148 is quashed and set aside, as having
                been issued by an authority who did not have jurisdiction to issue the
                notice, and as a consequence, the Assessment Order is quashed and set
                aside.
            113 M/S NAVJIVAN ROLLER FLOUR & PULSE MILLS LIMITED
                "The assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. On
                28.05.1987 the Trade Association made an Award for damages for
                breach of contract by the assessee. Assessee's liability to pay such
                damages comes into existence on the date when Trade Association made
                an Award for damages i.e. on 28.05.1987.

16-Jun-09   114 IAL Shipping Agencies :
                In context of separate-legal entity approach, It cannot be said that the
                assessee company and the other company, which were under the same
                management, are the same entity.
            115 Rajesh Kumar:
                Del HC has upheld ITAT order wherein albeit reference for Special
                Audit was vitiated by principle of Natural Justice.
            116
                Hindustan Indl. Limited,
                while reversing underlying ITAT order and allowing assessee's appeal, in
                a fact situation, where assessee purchased agricultural land for intended
                industrial use, transferred the same under acquisition by Noida
                Development Authority without using it for industrial activity, it is
                concluded by DHC that mere non carrying of agricultural operations
                and mere intention to carry industrial activity, without anything more,
                will not change the character of land from "agricultural" (so
                classified as per land records both at the time of purchase/acquisition
                by/from assessee ) to non agricultural, u/s 2(14) of the Act
            117 Trishla Jain and Others,
                while answering bulk of tax references, in context of non-resident
                taxation for interest accrued on debentures purchased in foreign
                exchange, u/s 5(2) of the Act, has interalia concluded that assessee's
                contention that said interest be taxable on receipt basis, is devoid of
                merit because of section 5(2)(b) of the Act, which as per HC, indicates
                that if taxability can be drawn on basis of accrual then actual receipt is
                immaterial. In concluding so, P&HHC drew support from
                ·SC and Mad HC ruling Standard Triumph cases 201 ITR 391 etc.
                ·BHC ruling in Pfizer Corp 259 ITR 391 which has analysed section 145
                scope vis a vis section 5 of the Act, which remains unconsidered in
                present P&HHC ruling.

18-Jun-09   118 E. I. Dupont,
                SC has dismissed revenue's SLP against DHC order in context of section
                271(1)(c) of the Act.
            119 ITAC Ltd, has dismissed revenue's SLP against the order of DHC
                affirming ITAT and CIT-A order giving relief to assessee u/s 68 of the
                Act.
            120 Reflect Optics,
                BHC has dismissed assessee's appeal against ITAT order where addition
                on account of shortage of stock as computed at the time of survey u/s
                133A was involved.

19-Jun-09   121
                SAMTEL INDIA LTD. (Delhi HC)
                The claim of the assessee for loss suffered on foreign exchange forward
                contract will be allowed as a revenue loss if the loss is in respect of
                import of capital goods & it will be in the capital field and if it is in
                respect of import of raw materials then it will be in the revenue field.
            122 OCL India Ltd. (Delhi HC)
                Once revenue has not challenged a CIT-A order on a subject matter,
                same cannot be disturbed by invoking section 154 seeking to rectify
                appeal effect order originally passed (On part of AO).
                In this case, DHC has affirmed ITAT order which has emphasized and
                pointed that in case Deptt Valuation report do not consider material facts
                relating to a property, an assessee can rebut /dislodge the same by
                placing its own valuer's report, which in turn if accurate as compared to
                DVO report can be relied by appellate authorities.
            123 Urmila Bawa (Delhi HC)
            123
                In this case, DHC has affirmed ITAT order which has emphasized and
                pointed that in case Deptt Valuation report do not consider material facts
                relating to a property, an assessee can rebut /dislodge the same by
                placing its own valuer's report, which in turn if accurate as compared to
                DVO report can be relied by appellate authorities.
            124 Sri Chamundeshwari Sugar Ltd. (Karnataka HC) If a machinery is
                actually put to use but later on it becomes defective & non-functional
                then it can not be said that the machinery was not used for the purpose of
                business & claim of depreciation will be allowed in such a case.

20-Jun-09   125 Ansaldo Energia SPA (Madras HC)
                Landmark Madras High Court ruling on taxability of off-shore supply
                (turnkey contracts) India Italy DTAA etc.

            126 GEO ENPRO PETROLEUM LTD. (Delhi HC)

                  Dismissed Assessee's Appeal: Section 80IB Deduction involved:
                  Commercial Production Year. In our view this finding is a pure finding
                  of fact. If that be so, according to us, no question of law, much less a
                  substantial question of law arises for our consideration. These appeals
                  are thus dismissed.
            127
                  M/S JINDAL EXPORTS LIMITED (Delhi HC)
                  Mat Credit under section 115JAA is advance tax to be deducted before
                  calculating interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & Rectification u/s 154 of the
                  Act on aforesaid issue is not tenable at law.

23-Jun-09   128 Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT)                           Decision on
                2(22)(e)Deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who
                is a shareholder of lender company.
                If a person is a registered shareholder but not beneficial shareholder then
                provisions of section 2(22)(e) would not apply and similarly if a person
                is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also
                provisions of section 2(22)(e) would not apply.
            129 MUKAND GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. (Mumbai ITAT)
                  Miscellaneous issues like Section 50 & 32(1)(iii), section 47 & 49,
                  section 14A, section 115JA.
            130
                  LOKPRIYA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD. (Mumbai
                  ITAT) Section-147 and penalty u/s 271(1) (c)
                  It is well settled that there should be reasonable belief and it should be
                  based on record, for coming to a conclusion that income has escaped
                  assessment when the reason cannot be produced, there is no other
                  alternative but to draw adverse inference and agree with the contention
                  of the assessee.

23-Jun-09   131 TDI MARKETING PVT. LTD. (Delhi HC)
                If the shareholders have appeared and confirmed having entered into
                transaction, in absence of any contrary material, the Assessing Officer
                could not merely on presumption treat the share capital as unexplained
                cash credit.
            132 SURAJMAL MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (Delhi HC)
                DHC rejects assessee’s writ petition and affirms rejection of registration
                application by DGIT (exemption) u/s 10(23C)
            133 TANEJA MINES (Delhi HC)
                If there is any material collected by the Assessing Officer pertaining to
                the exact turnover that would be sufficient reason to make a best
                judgment assessment.

25-Jun-09   134 ANANTRAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. (Delhi HC)
                It is not essential or mandatory that each and every point must be
                reflected in the Assessment Order. A presumption must be drawn that
                issues which were alive and relevant before the Assessing Officer were
                in fact duly considered.
            135 KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILL, GADARPUR, U.S. NAGAR
                (Uttarakhand HC)
                Incentive received by assessee as levy sugar released for free sale,
                claimed by the assessee as capital receipt but the Assessing Officer has
                treated it to be revenue receipt. Appeal filed by department is dismissed
                by Uttarakhand HC.
            136 RANA ROHIT SINGH (Allahabad HC)
                Commissioner could not have refused to entertain the revision on the
                ground that it is not a substitute of appeal, though there may be many
                more reasons, but such reasons have to be germane to the issue and
                valid. Allahabad HC CIT set aside the order of CIT.
25-Jun-09   137 M/s     Hindustan      Mint     &      Agro      Products     P.      Ltd
                Whether in view of the provision of Section 80IA (9) r.w.s 80IB (13), the
                deduction of income under Chapter VI-A can be allowed on entire profit
                and gains of an undertaking or an enterprise of an assessee or it is to be
                allowed on such profit and gains as reduced by deduction claimed and
                allowed u/s 80IB / 80IA.
OICE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
         RELEVANT SEC.
            (IF ANY)   JUDGMENT PASSED BY


        SECTION 273A,    HIGH COURT OF
        273B             GUJARAT




                         HIGH COURT OF
        SECTION 40A(2)   GUJARAT




                         HIGH COURT OF
                         GUJARAT




                         SC



        SECTION 132 &
        281B             BHC




        SECTION 158A     BHC



        SECTION 158BC    BHC
SECTION 158BC   BHC



                BHC




                DHC




                HIGH COURT OF
SECTION 68      DELHI
                 HIGH COURT OF
SECTION 148      DELHI




SECTION 10B(5)   DHC




SECTION 17(3)(iii) DHC
SECTION 40A(2)   DHC




                 DHC




RULE 46A(3)      DHC
                DHC




SECTION 73      BHC




SECTION 154 &
147             BHC




SECTION 292C &
132(4A)        BHC




SECTION 271(1)(c) SC AND DHC




                SC
                 SC




                 SC




SECTION 37       SC




SECTION 80IB     SC




                 SC




                 COMMISSIONER,DEPA
SECTION 4(1)(e) RTMENT OF TRADE
of DVAT Act 2004 AND TAXES




                 COMMISSIONER,DEPA
SECTION 4(1)(e) RTMENT OF TRADE
of DVAT Act 2004 AND TAXES


                 HIGH COURT OF
                 GUJARAT AT
SECTION 143(3)   AHMEDABAD
                 HIGH COURT OF
                 GUJARAT AT
SECTION 148.     AHMEDABAD




                 HIGH COURT OF
                 GUJARAT AT
SECTION 148      AHMEDABAD




                 HIGH COURT OF
                 GUJARAT AT
                 AHMEDABAD




                 BHC
SECTION
142(2A),158BC,
158BE            DHC




SECTION 2(14)    DHC
SECTION 5 & 145


SECTION 271(1)
(C)               SC


SECTION 68        DHC




SECTION 133A      BHC




SECTION 43A       DHC




SECTION 154       DHC
                      DHC


                      KARNATAKA HIGH
SECTION 32            COURT




SECTION 9             MADRAS HIGH COURT




SECTION 80IB          DHC


SECTION
115JAA,234A/234B
,234C & 154      DHC




SECTION 2(22)(e) ITAT(MUMBAI)
SECTION 50 ,
32(1)(iii) , 47 ,49
,14A & 115JA          ITAT(MUMBAI)
SECTION 147       ITAT(MUMBAI)




                  DHC


Section 10(23C)   DHC




                  DHC




                  DHC




                  UTTRAKHAND HIGH
                  COURT




                  ALLAHABAD HIGH
                  COURT
SECTION 80IA &
80IB             ITAT (CHENNAI)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:166
posted:7/9/2010
language:English
pages:32
Description: Turbo Tax Filing document sample