-
Mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional: Supreme Court (Click for detail)
-
Budget 2012 likely to increase income tax exemption limit to Rs 2 lakh (Click for detail)
-
Text of the Speech of Union Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the India Corporate and Investor Meet (Click for detail)
-
Know Your Unique Code No. - Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF) 2010-11 (Click for detail)
-
PAN Likely to Become Most Potent Tool to Unearth Black Money, Tax Evasion (Click for detail)
-
RBI - Guidelines issued under Section 36(1)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Implementation of the provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (Click for detail)
II. Recent Updates:
1. M/s Kodiak Networks (India) Private Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 1413/Bang/2010, Date of Pronouncement: 27/01/2012, ITAT- Bangalore
TPO can rely on “contemporaneous” data even if not available at specified date
In a transfer pricing appeal, the Tribunal had to consider two issues: (a) what is the data to be considered by the TPO at the time of determining ALP? & (b) whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to refute the material sought to be utilized by the TPO? HELD by the Tribunal:
(i) Under Rule 10D (4) the information and documents should as far as possible be contemporaneous and should exists latest by the ‘specified date’ specified in section 92F (4) i.e. the due date for filing the ROI. There is no cut-off date up to which only the information available in public domain can be taken into consideration by the TPO while making the transfer pricing adjustments and arriving at the ALP. The assessee argument that section 92D and Rule 10D is defeated if the TPO takes the data which is available in the public domain after the specified date is not acceptable.
(ii) While the TPO is empowered by section 131(1) & 133(6) to call for information without informing the assessee about the process, he cannot use such information against the assessee without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the assessee seeks an opportunity to cross-examine third parties, it has to be given the opportunity.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Kushal K Bangia, Vs. Income Tax officer, I.T.A No. 2349/Mum/2011, Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2012, ITAT- MUMBAI
Gains on housing society redevelopment is non-taxable capital receipt
The assessee was the member of a housing society. The housing society and it’s members entered into an agreement with a developer pursuant to which the developer demolished the building owned by the housing society and reconstructed a new multistoried building by using the FSI arising out of the property and the outside TDR available under Development Control Regulations. The assessee, as a member of the housing society, received a larger flat in the new building, displacement compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs (at Rs.34,000 p.m. for the period of construction of the new building) and additional compensation of Rs.11.75 lakhs. The AO & CIT (A) held that the said “additional compensation” was assessable as income in the assessee’s hands. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:
In principle, though the scope of “income” in section 2(24) is very wide, a capital receipt is not chargeable to tax as income unless there is a specific provision to that effect. As the residential flat owned by the assessee in the society’s building was a capital asset in his hands, the compensation was a capital receipt.
(Please click here for judgment)
3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJAN NANDA, ITA 400/2008, DECISION DELIVERED ON: 16TH DECEMBER, 2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and to see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax. If that is permissible, no further scrutiny is required and this would not amount to tax evasion. Benefit inured owing to the combined effect of a prudent investment and statutory exemption provided under Section 10(10D) of the Act, the section does not envisage of any bifurcation in the amount received on maturity on any basis whatsoever. Nothing can be read in Section 10(10D) of the Act, which is not specifically provided because any attempt in that behalf as contended by Revenue would be tantamount to legislation and not interpretation.
Accordingly, we answer the questions of law as framed in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. As a result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those of the assessees are hereby allowed.
(Please click here for judgment)
4. [Contribution by CA. Amarpal and contributor is available at email-id: amar.p.ca1@gmail.com ]
"New Year Bonanza - For Refund of Input Service Tax used for Export of Goods"
Analysis of Notification no. 52/2011 dated 30/12/2011, which has given new year bonanza to exporter of goods.
(Please click here for detail)
III. Tenders Info. :
New User? 
Subscribe Now