I.  Useful Article:   

1.  [ Contribution by  CA Prasenjit Paul, and contributor is available at email-id: paul_prasenjit@yahoo.co.in ]

An Article on 'Impact of Budget on Common Public'

(Please click here for detail)

 

II.  Useful Case laws:

1.    DG Housing Projects Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 179/2011, Date of Decision: 01/03/2012, High Court of Delhi

Issue:  Whether Tribunal rightly reversed the CIT order on the ground that he had not come to the conclusion that the actual receipt of consideration was more than what was declared in the return. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

A distinction must be drawn in the cases where the Assessing Officer does not conduct an enquiry; as lack of enquiry by itself renders the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and cases where the Assessing Officer conducts enquiry but finding recorded is erroneous and which is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In latter cases, the CIT has to examine the order of the Assessing Officer on merits or the decision taken by the Assessing Officer on merits and then hold and form an opinion on merits that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the second set of cases, CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not. The CIT is patently wrong in mentioning and stating that Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was not applicable but, the Assessing Officer should have adopted the said formula/method. The aforesaid reasoning cannot be accepted and does not show or establish that the assessment order was erroneous.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

2.  Crompton Creaves Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TDS), ITA No. 2210/MUM/2000, Date of pronouncement: 24/02/2012, ITAT- Mumbai

The assessee made a public issue of Global Depository Receipts (GDR) for which it engaged international lead managers like Jardine Fleming, Merrill Lynch etc and paid management and underwriting commission without deducting TDS. The AO & CIT (A) held that the said commission constituted “fees for technical services” and that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 195. The assessee was held to be in default u/s 201. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that as no action has been taken by the department against the payees and the time for taking such action had expired, no order u/s 195 & 201 could be passed.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

III.  Today's Topline News:   

1. Expert Panel for Addressing Queries arising during Bank Branch Audits for year ending 31st March 2012  (Click for detail)

2. Restore Your Membership Before 31st March, 2012  (Click for detail)

3. Budget 2012: Plan to change income tax act not vindictive, says Pranab Mukherjee  (Click for detail)

4. Budget impact: Earn less than Rs 8 lakh? Your tax will go up  (Click for detail)

5. Maruti to shift Car making to Gujarat; Gurgaon factory to only make diesel engines  (Click for detail)

 

Key of Success :

"Don't get upset with people or situation.
Because they are powerless without your reaction"

  

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 

CA. Avinash Gupta, Co-Moderator-International Taxation 
caavinashgupta@gmail.com