-
Income Tax - Revised guidelines for e-furnishing Form 15CA (Click for detail)
-
Company Act Notification - The Companies (Amendent) Regulations, 2011 (Click for detail)
-
Companies bill bars non-audit operations of auditors (Click for detail)
-
FEMA : ECB for MFIs and NGOs Engaged in Micro Finance activities under automatic route (Click for detail)
II. Recent Updates:
1. CRAWFORD BAYLEY & CO. Vs. UOI, WRIT PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2011, DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01.12. 2011, BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Where the assessee successfully uploaded its return on the official website of income-tax department then merely because the ITR-V sent to CPC was not received for no failure on part of assessee, the return cannot be treated as invalid. The assessee provided with opportunity to submit a copy of return before AO again.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. JYOTI PLASTIC WORKS (P.) LTD., IT APPEAL NO. 5045 OF 2010, DATE OF DECISION: 15.11. 2011, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Whether condition imposed under section 80-IB(2)(iv) is that assessee must employ ten or more workers in manufacturing process/production of articles or things and it is immaterial whether workers were employed directly or by hiring workers from a contractor - Held, yes....
Assessee, engaged in manufacturing of plastic parts, claimed deduction under section 80-IB - Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee on ground that firstly- Assessee was not a manufacturer as goods were not manufactured at factory premises of assessee but were manufactured at factory premises of job workers, and secondly - Total number of permanent employees employed in factory being less than ten, assessee had not fulfilled condition stipulated in section 80-IB(2)(iv). On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed claim of assessee - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) by recording findings of fact that manufacturing activity was carried out at factory premises of assessee, and that assessee, in addition to its regular employees (which was less than ten), had also employed between 84 to 123 contract laborers per month for manufacturing goods in its factory and, thus, condition of section 80-IB (2)(iv) had been fulfilled.
(Please click here for judgment)
3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR V. SMT. SHAILA AGARWAL, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2008, JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 25.11.2011, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Regular assessment proceedings cannot be abated, which had become final, and restoring them as a consequence of search under Section 132, and notice under Section 153A of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The second proviso to Section 153A of the Act refers to abatement of the pending assessment or re-assessment proceedings. The word 'pending' does not operate any such
Interpretation, that wherever the appeal against such assessment or reassessment is pending, the same along with assessment or reassessment proceedings is liable to be abated. The principles of interpretation of taxing statutes do not permit the Court to interpret the Second Proviso to Section 153A in a manner that where the assessment or Reassessment proceedings are complete, and the matter is pending in appeal in the Tribunal, the entire proceedings will abate.
(Please click here for judgment)
III. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now