-
Date of Filing of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account in XBRL Mode Extended (Click for detail)
-
Tax Treatment of a Consultant Differs From That of an Employee (Click for detail)
-
CBDT says : Vodafone broke FDI cap in Hutch deal, breach continues (Click for detail)
-
CIRCULAR NO. MRD/DMS/13/2011 - SEBI : ANNUAL SYSTEM AUDIT (Click for detail)
II. Recent Updates:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NEW DELHI Vs. GOLD LEAF CAPITAL CORPORATION LTD., ITA NO. 798 OF 2009, DATE OF ORDER : 02.09. 2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Where the Tribunal noticed that there were two coursed open to it. First course was to draw an adverse inference against the assessee and second course was to restore the matter back to the AO. It chose second course only on the ground that the quantum of amount involved was high, that is hardly a ground or justification for restoring and giving premium to the assessee for its negligence. In fact, it is a clear case where adverse inference should have been drawn. When the Tribunal itself concluded that the assessee was non-cooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to produce evidence, as it would have exposed that the transactions in question were not genuine and fraudulent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is a legal error committed by the Tribunal, as in a case like this, only one course of action is presumed, viz., to draw adverse inference.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I Vs. MANISH BUILD WELL PVT. LTD, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 928/2011, Date of Decision: 15.11. 2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A distinction should be recognized and maintained between a case where the assessee invokes Rule 46A to adduce additional evidence before the CIT (A) and a case where the CIT (A), without being prompted by the assessee, while dealing with the appeal, considers it fit to cause or make a further enquiry by virtue of the powers vested in him under sub-Section (4) of Section 250. It is only when he exercises his statutory suo moto power under the above sub-section that the requirements of Rule 46A need not be followed.
(Please click here for judgment)
III. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now