I.  Tender Info. :   

• Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producer's Federation Ltd.
  CA Firm for carrying out Internal/System Audit
  Chandigarh
  (Click for detail)

• Municipal Corporation
  Conversion of Accounting System
  (from Cash based Single Entry to Accrual Based Double Entry)
  Chandigarh
  (Click for detail)

II.  Today's News :   

• Service Tax - Proposed EA 3, EA 4 and EA 5 forms  (Click for detail)

• Service Tax - Proposed CA 3, CA 4 and CA 5 forms  (Click for detail)

• Service Tax - Proposed ST 5, ST 6 and ST 7 forms  (Click for detail)

• SEBI cuts deadline for transfer of shares to 15 days  (Click for detail)

• RBI Cannot Allow Foreign Law Cos Under Fema: SC  (Click for detail)

III.  Useful Case laws :

1.  CIT Vs. M/s Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 756 of 2004, Dated: 26/04/2012, High Court of Madras

Issue:

Whether the assessee is entitled to the depreciation on electrical fittings and typewriters etc., on plant and machinery and granted relief, even after the assessment year 1987-88 the plant and machinery and furniture and electrical fittings are classified separately for the purpose of depreciation?"

Held:

By Applying the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1964) 53 ITR 165 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Mir Mohammed Ali), we hold that typewriter is a machinery entitled to depreciation at 25% and not at 33 1/3 %.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   Shri Dinesh Khemabhai Patel, Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2131/Mum/2009,  ITAT- Mumbai

Proper reasons rendered for non-acceptance of additional evidence under rule 46A -

Held that the AO has not given sufficient opportunity; the case of the assessee is that the additional evidence produced before the CIT (A) ought to have been admitted under Rule 46A. If additional evidence is not admitted, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have furnished reasons for non-admission so that the assessee could explain properly as to whether the reasons for non-admission of additional evidence are in accordance with law or not. In the instant case, the ld. CIT (A) completely ignored to take notice of the additional evidence. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that in the interests of substantial justice the matter requires to be sent back to the CIT (A), who is directed to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of heard. Suffice to say that the ld. CIT (A) should consider the additional evidence in accordance with law. If there are no justifiable reasons for admission of the additional evidence, the ld. CIT (A) has to pass a speaking order so that a superior forum can consider the correctness of the reasons mentioned therein.

(Please click here for judgment)

Key of Success :

"Behaviour is greater than knowledge,
because there are many situations 
where our knowledge may fail, but 
our behaviour can handle that very well" 

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"