I.  Today's Topline News:   

1. IT Inst. No. 3 - Guidelines for engagement of Standing Counsels to represent revenue before High Courts and other judicial forums  (Click for detail)

2. Consolidated FDI Policy – Effected from 10th April 2012  (Click for detail)

3. ST Cir. No. 156 - Service tax paid on taxable services used for export of goods at the post-manufacture stage  (Click for detail)

4. Cabinet okays Public Procurement Bill to bring transparency and efficiency in mechanism  (Click for detail)

5. Undisclosed income exceeding Rs. 9,200 crore detected by CBDT during the search operations in the financial year 2011-12  (Click for detail)

6. Cos Seek Clarity on GAAR Provisions for Local Deals  (Click for detail)

7. Govt. Strips New Tax Pacts of Confidentiality Clauses  (Click for detail)

 

II.  Useful Case laws:

1.   RAJASTHANI SAMMELAN SARVODAY BALIKA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION I(1) AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION NO. 684 OF 2012, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, Date : 26.03. 2012

In the present case, as in several cases which have come up before this Court and particularly in the month of March, it is evident that the AO & DIT have both had scant regard to the parameters which have been laid down by this Court for disposal of stay applications in KEC International Ltd 251 ITR 158 & UTI Mutual Fund. No reasons are indicated.

The orders do not contain a prima facie evaluation of the issues which would arise in appeal. In UTI Mutual Fund, this Court was constrained to issue a cautionary observation to the effect that AOs and Appellate Authorities, when they dispose of applications for stay, act as quasi judicial authorities and not merely as tax gatherers of the Revenue. While they have a duty of protecting the interests of the Revenue, they need to mitigate the hardship to the assessee and applications for stay must be considered objectively. The assessee does have serious issues to be urged before the CIT (A) and the AO & DIT ought to have granted a complete stay of demand u/s 220(6).

(Please click here for judgment)

 

2.  SHRI ASPI GINWALA, SHREE RAM ENGG. & MFG. INDUSTRIES Vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ITA NO. 3226/AHD/2011, DATE: 30.03.2012, ITAT – AHMEDABAD

(i) The Proviso to s. 54EC provides that the investment made in a long term specified asset by an assessee “during any financial year” should not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. It is clear that if the assessee transfers his capital asset after 30th September of the financial year he gets an opportunity to make an investment of Rs.50 lakhs each in two different financial years and is able to claim exemption upto Rs.1 crore u/s 54EC.

(ii) Though the time limit of 6 months for making the investment u/s 54EC expired on 21.4.2008, no bonds were available for subscription between 1.4.2008 to 28.5.2008. The investment was made as soon as the subscription opened on 26.5.2008. The assessee was accordingly prevented by sufficient cause which was beyond his control in making investment in these Bonds within the time prescribed. Exemption should be granted in cases where there is a delay in making investment due to non-availability of the bonds

(Please click here for judgment)

 

III.  Tenders Info.: 

1. Noida S.E.Z. Authority
   Preparation Various Accounts & Financial Statements etc.
   Noida
   Please Click here 

2. Government of Rajasthan
   Reputed CA Firms for various Works
   Jaipur
   Please Click here
   
    

Key of Success :

"A Lot of problems in the world will disappear
if everyone will learn to talk to each other,
instead of talking about each other"

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"  

  
CA. Agarwal Sanjay  
' Voice of CA' 

Founder
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