I.  Today's Topline News : 

1. LLP – Reminder for For filing Form 8 and Form 11  (Click for detail)

2. New PAN Application Form 49A (Click for detail)

3. Second Quarter Review of Monetary Policy 2011-12  (Click for detail)

4. ICAI asks independent directors to question high provisioning by banks  (Click for detail)

5. NRIs liable to file tax returns too in India  (Click for detail)
    

II.  Recent Updates:

1.      DCIT Vs. MS. LEROY SOMER & CONTROLS (INDIA) (P) LTD., ITA NO. 1330/DEL/2011, ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06, DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/09/2011  ITAT – DELHI

S. 271G authorizes the levy of penalty if the information/ documents prescribed by s. 92D (3) are not furnished. Rule 10D prescribes a voluminous list of information and documents required to be maintained and it is only in rare cases that all clauses would be attracted. Some of the documents may not be necessary in case of some assessees. Before issuing a notice u/s 92D(3), the AO has to apply his mind to what information and documents are relevant and necessary for determining ALP. A notice u/s 92D(3) is not routine and cannot be casually issued but requires application of mind to consider the material on record and what further information on specific points is required.

The notice cannot be vague or call for un-prescribed information. On facts, the TPO issued a notice calling for “information and documents maintained as prescribed u/s 92D r.w. Rule 10D” without specifying any particular information under any clause of Rule 10D. The notice was “omnibus”, issued in a casual manner, without examining records nor nature or details of international transactions and showed total lack of application of mind as to what information was required in this case. Even in the penalty order, the exact nature of default was not brought out.

(Please click here for judgment)

  

2.  THE METAL ROLLING WORKS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO. 966 OF 2011, DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11TH OCTOBER 2011, BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The development agreement did contain a clause to that effect and, therefore, since the last instalment was not received in AY 2002-03, the assessee was justified in not offering the capital gains to tax in AY 2002-03 in the original return of income filed on 31/10/2002. Although Rs.6 crores received initially was not offered to tax in the original return filed for AY 2002-03, it is not in dispute that in the original returns filed for AY 2002-03 the assessee did disclose receipt of Rs.6 crores as advance on account of development agreement entered into with a developer in respect of its land. Once the receipt of Rs.6 crores was disclosed in the original return of income as advance receipt under the development agreement entered into with the developer, the assessee cannot be said to have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

III.  Today's Bottomline News : 

1. Govt plans to bring corporate guarantees under tax net  (Click for detail)

2. Deregulation of Savings Bank Deposit Interest Rate – Guidelines  (Click for detail)

3. Standing Liquidity Facilities for Banks and Primary Dealers  (Click for detail)

4. SGL and CSGL Accounts – Eligibility Criteria and Operational Guidelines  (Click for detail)
    

Key of Success :

"Patience is the spiritual power to wait with faith,
remembering that the universe is on your side
even when other people aren't"

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"  

  
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
Founder - Voice of CA 
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com      
   
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA 
mukbansal80@gmail.com