-
IT : NSC (VIII Issue) Second Amendment Rules, 2011 - effect from 1-12-2011 notified (Click for detail)
-
IT : Public Provident Fund - Interest effect from 1-12-2011 notified (Click for detail)
-
IT : Public Provident Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 2011 - Amendment in Paragraphs 3, 11 and Form A (Click for detail)
-
IT : Small Savings Schemes - Notified rate of commission for canvassing/securing investment in (Click for detail)
-
IT : National Small Savings Fund (Custody and Investment) Amendment Rules, 2011 - Amendment in Rule 9 (Click for detail)
II. Recent Updates:
1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, ITA NO. 345/2009, DATED: 31st OCTOBER 2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Whether where unless the inference, that the income of the employees has not been calculated correctly while deducting the tax at source, can be reasonably raised against an employer, it cannot be held that he has not deducted tax on the estimated income of the employee and cannot be treated as an assessee in default.
It is seen that TDS has been deducted on “estimated income” of the employee, and the employer was not expected to step into the shoes of the AO and determine the actual income. AO without application of mind proceeded with the determination of the value of the perquisite based on the survey operations in many other schools without reference to the “cost” of such education in a similar institution in or near the locality. CIT(A) held that on the basis of the accounts maintained by the Assessee, the cost of education was less than Rs 1,000/- per month per child and, therefore, the Assessee was also entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Rule3(5) of the Rules, 1962. Thus, the case was not fit for passing orders u/s 201(1) and consequently levying interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HARNARAIN, ITA NO. 2072/2010, DATE OF DECISION: 31ST OCTOBER 2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
In the present case it is observed that the AO included the amount of gift in the total income of the Assessee merely on the basis of the Assessee's declaration. Also, the AO did not point out or refer to any evidence or material to show and establish that the gift received by the Assessee was either bogus or sham. Admittedly, the Assessee had offered the gift for taxation voluntarily and it was not the case of the Revenue that the same was done after its detection by the Department. Further, it was also not the case of the Revenue that material was found during the search indicating that the gift transaction was an arranged affair to accommodate the Assessee's unaccounted money. In this respect it is evident that the ITAT correctly came to the conclusion that the AO did not possess any piece of information that the gift was not genuine and was part of the undisclosed of the Assessee. In the questionnaire dated 10th October, 2005 the AO had simply raised a query for the relevant assessment year in the following manner:-
“Had you taken/given any loan/gift during the F.Y. under consideration? If yes, please furnish details”. In response to this query the Assessee had furnished the details of gift received in the relevant year from NRI's and had also furnished the copy of gift deed along with reply. Apart from this, simultaneously the Assessee made it clear that aforesaid amount was received by the Assessee as gift, but to buy peace and to avoid any dispute the Assessee was offering the amount of gift as taxable income subject to the condition that no penalty action should be initiated against the Assessee. Furthermore, it was made clear by the Assessee that the gift under consideration was a genuine one and the related documents of gift were sent to the AO. Thus it was quite clear, that this entire transaction was not detection of the AO that the gift was not genuine, and that the Assessee had offered the amount without any specific enquiry regarding such gift by the AO.
In view of the discussion above and the cited decisions, surrender of the amount by the Assessee after receipt of the questionnaire could not lead to an inference that it was not voluntary, in the absence of any material on record to suggest that it was bogus or untrue. It is further evident that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of the Revenue which might lead to a conclusion that there was a detection by the Revenue of concealment. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
(Please click here for judgment)
New User? 
Subscribe Now