1. New I-T norms require firms to make more disclosures on foreign income  (Click for detail)

2. Legal heirs need to file returns for deceased  (Click for detail)

3. Sourcing norms for single brand retail likely to be reviewed  (Click for detail)

4. Land bill: Parliament panel to seek 4 more days to submit report  (Click for detail)

5. Finance Ministry to review small savings schemes; banks complain of high interest rates  (Click for detail)

6. As Reserve Bank of India holds rates steady, firms debt burdens weigh heavily  (Click for detail)

1.  CIT Vs. M/s Kapur Investments Pvt. Ltd., I.T.A. No. 158/2014, Date of Order: 20.04.2015, High Court of Karnataka

Whether the income on investment made through portfolio management scheme is business income?

Investment through portfolio management services, which may deal with the shares of the assessee so as to derive maximum profits cannot be termed as business of the assessee but would be a case of more careful and prudent mode of investment, it would not mean that the assessee is carrying on the business of investment in shares. Profits from such investment either directly or through professionally managed firm would remain as profits to be taxed as capital gain.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Smt Saira Banu Vs. ACIT, I.T.A. No. 228/2009, Date of Order: 26.06.2015, High Court of Karnataka

Whether the amount paid in cash by appellant for purchase of capital asset later converted in to stock in trade shall attracts the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not ?

The court remanded the matter back to Assessing Officer under the observation that if the authorities below were to treat the transactions of purchase of land as stock in trade (business purpose) and not as a capital asset, then they ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prove her stand because this has not been done even though the genuineness of the transactions has not been disputed by the authorities and even the books of account of the assessee came to be accepted.

(Please click here for judgment)   
 

1.  K.V. Narayana Reddy v. Additional Commisssioner, Writ Petition No. 162 of 2015, Date Of Decision 20/02/2015, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh

Issue: Whether writ petition is maintainable if appeal against the     adjudication order is dismissed as time barred by Commissioner (Appeals)?

Held: No

The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in levying Service Tax on the works undertaken by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the Original Order dated 1/2014 passed by the respondent for the period 2011-2012.

The petitioner case was that the appeal against adjudication order has been dismissed as time-barred by Commissioner (Appeals) being beyond his power of condonation. On appeal before CESTAT, the Hon’ble CESTAT also rejected the appeal of appellant.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed this writ before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that on identical fact and issue, we have delivered a judgment on 29.1.2015 in Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2015 between Resolute Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein the High Court has held that the petitioner keeping eyes open allowed the period for preferring the appeal as well as that of for condonation of delay allowed to expire and thereafter he approached. In other words, the petitioner had fitter away its own remedy. Therefore alleged situation of remediless is its own creation. According to us, the provision of Section 35(1) of the Act is absolutely rigid and cannot be extended either directly or indirectly by the Court of law.

Further, the HC has also stated that when appellate authority has already decided the matter against the petitioner, the writ Court is debarred from doing so as the same binds the writ Court applying the principle of res judicata, particularly, when the appellate authority's orders are not challenged in the writ jurisdiction. Thus, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

Hence, writ petition is not maintainable.

(Please click here for judgment)       
 

1.  Shri Shamsher Kataria Vs. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., Case No. 03/2011, Date of Order: 27.07.2015, Competition Commission of India

In this case as per Sec 27 of COMPETITION ACT, 2002 OP is directed to file an individual undertaking, within 60 days of the receipt of their order, about compliance to cease and desist from the present anti-competitive conduct, and initiation of action in compliance of the other directions. This will be followed by a detailed compliance report on all directions within 180 days of the receipt of the order.

(Please click here for judgment)      

V.  Reported Cases:

Direct Taxes Segment:

 Golden Rules:

  "Two ways to be happy in life.
Never give the help of tears to your emotions.
Never give the help of words to your anger"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team

Voice of CA