Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
29.01.2014 - Voice of CA presents - Updates
Wednesday, January 29, 2014

  I. Today's Headlines   

1. CBDT issues Circular on 'Explanatory Notes to the Provisions of the Finance Act, 2013'; Providing additional comments on amendment relating to wealth tax exemption to agricultural land in urban area and time limit u/s 153 and 153B for assessment or reassessment where reference is made to TPO (Click here to view details)

2. Revision of rate of duty on pan masala and gutkha under the compounded levy scheme vide notification no. Notification No.   04/2014-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 24.01.2014. (Click here to view details)

3. Excise duty based on production capacity, actual speed of machines and actual productions is irrelevant; Duty is payable based on deemed production. (Click here to view details)

4. export duty of 5% on iron ore pellets. (Click here to view details)

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:


1. Sahitya Housing Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 246/Hyd/2011, Date of pronouncement: 24/01/2014, ITAT – Hyderabad.

S. 40(A)(3) – if banking facilities are not available at the place where land is purchased no disallowance u/s 40A(3)

Sec 40A(3) itself provides that the exceptions will have  to be prescribed having regard to the nature and extent of  banking facilities available, considerations of business  expediency and other relevant factors. In the case under consideration, no banking facility is  available where the properties were purchased by Assessee,  therefore, there was no choice for the assessee except to  make the payments in cash due to exceptional or unavoidable  circumstances as provided under Rule 6DD. In view of the  above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the additions

(Please click here to view the Judgment)

2. The Deputy CIT Central Circle versus Sri K. Babu Rao, ITA No. 329/Hyd/2012, Date of order: 24.01.2014, ITAT – Hyderabad.

The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. Guess work is not possible in case of search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 153A of the Act.

It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that "file containing loose sheets of papers are not books" and hence entries therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, the seized material (two note books) marked as KBR/A/02 and KBR/A/04 wherein certain entries are found recording various transactions pertaining to the assessee. These entries in the notebook are unsubstantiated and on that basis the AO reached to the conclusion that the figures mentioned therein are to be read by adding 3 zeros and thereby he came to conclude that there is undisclosed income in these 6 assessment years. In our opinion, the document recovered during the course of search was a dumb document and led nowhere.

(Please click here to view the Judgment)


 

 Golden Rule:

 

"The difference between a successful person and others is not lack of strength,

not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of will"

 

  Thanks & Regards

Team

Voice of CA 

« Back
 
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now