-
Vodafone effect: Taxmen to seek Supreme Court advice on foreign bank accounts of Indians (Click for detail)
-
SEBI Board Meeting - Amendment proposed in SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996 and (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 1993, etc. - PRESS RELEASE (Click for detail)
-
Four companies skip IPO plans (Click for detail)
-
Direct Tax Code set for debut only in 2013 (Click for detail)
-
Aayakar Seva Kendra to make I-T filing easy (Click for detail)
II. Useful Updates:
1. DOSHION LTD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18574 of 2011, Date of Judgment: 16/01/2012, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
For AY 2005-06, the AO passed order u/s 143(3) in which he allowed section 80-IA deduction. Thereafter, after the expiry of 4 years, he reopened the assessment u/s 147 on the ground that in view of the retrospective amendment to the Explanation to section 80-IA by the F (No. 2) Act 2009 w.r.e.f. 1.4.2000, the assessee, being a works contractor, was not eligible for section 80-IA deduction. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee to challenge the assessment order, HELD allowing the Petition:
I. That an assessment can be reopened beyond 4 years without there being any failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts, even where law is amended with retrospective effect.
II. The argument that the assessee failed to disclose the nature of works executed and that the same was executed only as works contractor and not as a developer, cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the reasons recorded do not refer to such a ground. Secondly, when the assessee filed the return of income, the Explanation in question was not in picture.
(Please click here for Judgment)
2. Chadha Sugars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 1773(Del)/2010, Date of pronouncement: 23.12.2011, ITAT-Delhi
The argument that the assessee does not have expertise in taxation matters and so it relied on expert opinion is not acceptable because the opinion was furnished for accounting purposes. An accountant’s view is not really material for deciding the deductibility or otherwise of an expenditure. Where the assessee knew about the problem at the time of filing of return, but still made the claim. Not only this, the claim was pursued even up to the level of the CIT (A) in gross disregard for the decision of the Supreme Court, which the assessee came to know at least after receiving the assessment order. Therefore, the claim was not only wrong but also false and it was persisted with for some time.
(Please click here for Judgment)
III. Today's Tenders Info. :
New User? 
Subscribe Now