Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
20.01.2014 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Monday, January 20, 2014



  I. Today's Headlines   

1. Caveat emptor: Ulips are subject to market risks. (Click here for details)

2. Rupee lower on global dollar strength. (Click here for details)

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

 

1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX  Versus PRAMOD KUMAR DANG,  ITA 62/2001, Date of Order : January 2014, High Court of Delhi.

Whether the Tribunal was correct in its view that requirements of Section 249(4)(a) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 were complied with, where advance tax paid together with cash seized is in excess of tax on returned income, where due request made by assessee to adjust seized cash against tax due?

Held Yes.

The rationale behind Section 249(4) is where an Assessee has filed a return of income, then the tax which is admittedly payable by the Assessee should be paid prior to the hearing of any appeal filed by the Assessee. It is to enforce payment of tax on admitted income. Where an Assessee files the return of income then at least the tax which is payable in terms of the return income should be paid by the Assessee. But where the Assessee either has paid the tax on the returned income or sought adjustment of the amount admittedly lying with the revenue towards the tax payable on the returned income, the Assessee cannot be denied a hearing. 

(Please click here to view the Judgment)


2. Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Golden Finance, TAX APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2011, DATE OF ORDER: SEPTEMBER  15, 2012, High Court of Gujrat.

Addition by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of a document impounded during survey and statement of partner of the assessee's firm who stated that one zero was omitted from such impounded document, whether justified?

Held No.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that such statement recorded during survey could not have been relied upon. Reference was placed on decision of Kerala High Court in case of Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. The Tribunal further noted that theory of omission of one zero is not borne out from the impounded document. Tribunal was therefore, of the opinion that the addition made on basis of such theory was thus not justified. The Tribunal. further observed that the contents of the documents do not suggest or bring out that notings are of loans and advances. The Tribunal was therefore, of the opinion that such addition was made only on conjectures and surmises. On such basis the Tribunal reduced the additions from Rs.31,21,590/- to 3,12,159/- and deleted the rest. 

(Please click here to view the Judgment)

 

 Golden Rule:

"So many dreams at first seem impossible.  And then they seem improbable.

  And then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable"

 

  Thanks & Regards

Team

Voice of CA 

« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now