I. Today's Topline News:
-
A brief summary on FDI policy March 2012 by CA Mukesh Bansal, Co-Moderator - Voice of CA (Click for detail)
-
States talk 2013 date for GST rollout as centre agrees to review CST payments (Click for detail)
-
CBDT pegs tax refunds at Rs 1.25 lakh crore (Click for detail)
-
SC to Rule if AAR Findings Can be Cited as Precedent (Click for detail)
-
Amendments to the Equity Listing Agreement – Formats for Disclosure of Financial Results (Click for detail)
-
Co. Law Notification - Constitution of National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards (Click for detail)
-
Notification - Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2012 (Click for detail)
-
RBI - Monetary Policy Statement 2012-13 (Click for detail)
-
RBI - KYC Guidelines - Accounts of Proprietary Concerns (Click for detail)
II. A Useful Presentation:
[Contribution by CA Naveen Garg, and contributor is available on / email-id: Naveen.Garg@nextgenknowledge.com ]
XBRL handling Revised Schedule VI - A Technical Session
(Please click here)
III. Useful Case laws:
1. Karan Raghav Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 1152/2011, Date: 14.03.2012, High Court of Delhi
Whether penalty should be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) when a debatable and arguable legal issue is decided against the assessee and the assessee had disclosed full and correct facts.
Claim for depreciation is a technical claim based on interpretation of legal provision. Legal opinion, in such cases, is frequently given by Chartered Accountants to help the company to prepare its return of taxable income; mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars; divergent legal views on legal interpretation of a statute can take place, but it is not necessary that there should be uniformity or consensus of opinion on the aspects of law. Assessee cannot be faulted and penalty should not be imposed because the assessee had taken a particular stand point, unless there are grounds or reasons to show that the assessee had not disclosed all the facts before the departmental authorities concerned.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Pune Vs. Finolex Cables Ltd., ITA No. 129 OF 2011, Date: 01.03.2012, High Court of Bombay
Whether where substantial investment has been made and the new plant and machinery is installed in the newly constructed building it can be said that assessee has set-up a new industrial undertaking and it is not the expansion of earlier unit and hence the depreciation of such unit is not to be set-off with the income of that unit which enjoys deduction u/s 80I.
The material on the record before the Tribunal and which has been considered in some detail is sufficient to sustain the finding of fact that: (i) There was a substantial investment of funds in the Unit which was set up in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1994-95; (ii) New plant and machinery was installed; (iii) The Unit was housed in a new building constructed at site and was an independent viable Unit capable of producing goods manufactured by itself; and (iv) There was a substantial increase in the capacity of production. On these findings of fact which have not been shown to be perverse, the final conclusion of the Tribunal would not fall for reappreciation or reconsideration. Accordingly, we dispose of the Appeal by answering both questions of law in the affirmative.
(Please click here for judgment)
Key of Success :
Maturity is not when we start speaking "Big Things"
but actually it is when we start understanding "Small Things"
Thanks for your valuable time
"Voice of CA"
CA. Agarwal Sanjay
' Voice of CA'
New User? 
Subscribe Now