I.  Today's Topline News : 

1. Correction in OLTAS Income Tax  (Click for detail)

2. Press Release-CBDT PUBLISHES DISCUSSION PAPER ON TAX ACCOUNTING STANDARDS  (Click for detail)

3. ORDER NO-1 /2011 ST - In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 7(4) of the Service Tax Rules  (Click for detail)

4. ST CIR NO-146/15/2011 -  Audit of the accounts of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Tiruchirapalli  (Click for detail)

5. Finance ministry suggests reconciling Accounting Standards  (Click for detail)
    

II.  Recent Updates:

1.     THE A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE COOP & MARKETING FED.LTD., ITA NO. 548/CHD/2011, ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08, DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2011, ITAT – CHANDIGARH

No S. 14A disallowance in absence of nexus between investment in tax-free securities & borrowed funds. S. 14A disallowance cannot exceed exempt income.

In AY 2007-08, the assessee received dividend of Rs. 4 lakhs in respect of investment in shares made in earlier years. No investments were made during the year. It was claimed that the investment in the earlier years was made out of reserves & surplus and that there was no expenditure incurred during the year to earn the dividend. The AO held that as in the earlier years, the assessee had borrowed funds, s. 14A applied. He applied the rate of interest paid on the borrowings and disallowed Rs. 12.73 lakhs. This was deleted by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal, if there is no nexus between borrowed funds and investments made in purchase of shares, disallowance u/s 14A is not warranted

(Please click here for judgment)

 

2.  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX  Vs. MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. P. LTD,  ITA NO. 511/2011, DATE OF DECISION: 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011, HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI

The period of six months provided for imposition of penalty u/s 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order have been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT. The proviso to s. 275(1)(a) extends the period for imposing penalty from six months to one year of the receipt of the CIT (A)’s order after 1.6.2003. The proviso carves out an exception from the main section inasmuch as in cases where no appeal is filed before the ITAT the AO must impose penalty within a period of one year of the date of receipt of the CIT (A)’s order. To read the provision as suggested by the assessee would obliterate the main provision itself. A proviso is merely a subsidiary to the main section and must be construed harmoniously with the main provision. The proviso to s. 275(1)(a) does not nullify the availability to the AO of the period of limitation of six months from the end of the month when the order of the ITAT is received.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

III.  Today's Bottomline News : 

1. Income Tax Dept will disclose names of Defaulters who owe more than Rs 10 crore as unpaid taxes  (Click for detail)

2. Ref.No.IDMD / 1791/08.02.032/2011-12 - Auction of Government of India Dated Securities  (Click for detail)

3. Government of India hereby notifies - Auction for Sale (Re-issue ) of ‘7.99 per cent Government Stock, 2017’  (Click for detail)

4. Government of India hereby notifies - Auction for Sale (Re-issue ) of ‘8.13 per cent Government Stock, 2022’  (Click for detail)
    

Key of Success :

"Never win people with argument but defeat them with your Silence.
Because people who always want to argue with you can't bear your Silence"

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"  

  
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
Founder - Voice of CA 
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com      
   
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA 
mukbansal80@gmail.com