I.  Today's Topline News:   

1. Dvat Dealers to deposit Tax by 21  (Click for detail)

2. Quaterly Tax Deposit by Half Yearly, Yearly Dvat Dealers by 21  (Click for detail)

3. Notification No. 23 Central Excise (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2012-Quarterly Return for those paying 2 per cent excise  (Click for detail)

4. Central Excise Circular No. 965 - Clarification regarding admissibility of exemption under area-based Notification No. 56/2002  (Click for detail)

5. Retrospective change in tax laws hurt investments, CEOs tell PM  (Click for detail)

6. SEBI : Timeline for Submission of Annual Audited Financial Results for Financial Year 2011-12 (Click for detail)

7. Notification CL : Amendments in Schedule XIV of Companies Act, 1956  (Click for detail)

8. RBI/2011-2012/396 - Bank Rate  (Click for detail)
    

II.  An Article on New Tax Regime:

• [Contribution by  CA. Arun K. Varshney, author is available at email-id:akvco@yahoo.com ] 

• The Complete New Tax Regime

(Please click here)

• New Tax Regime - Taxation Model

(Please click here)

II.  Useful Case laws:

1.   CIT-7 Vs. M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ITA NO.  3155 OF 2009, DATED: 28.03.2012, BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Whether when the assessee has significant interest in the business of the subsidiary and utilizes even borrowed money for furthering its business any disallowance can be made u/s 36(1)(iii).

There is a finding of fact by the CIT (A) and Tribunal that borrowed funds were not used by the assessee for the purposes of investment in the shares of its wholly owned subsidiary Reliance Infocomm Ltd. or for making advances to Reliance Industries Ltd.  Where the assessee, has significant interest in the business of the subsidiary and utilizes even borrowed money for furthering its business connection, there is no reason or justification to make a disallowance in respect of the deduction which is otherwise available u/s 36(1)(iii).  the latter finding is independent of whether borrowed funds were or were not utilized, for in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court held, the fact that borrowed funds were utilized for making investments or, as the case may be, for making advances would not disentitle the assessee to the deduction so long as business expediency exists.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. MRS HAJRA I MEMON, ITA NO. 3848/MUM/2010, DATED: 18.01.2012, ITAT–MUMBAI

Whether conversion of tenancy rights into ownership right falls under the realm of ‘transfer’ as envisaged in section 2(47) of the Act.

The assessee was accepted as a tenant by the co-owners and as per the well settled law on this issue the tenancy cannot be equated with the ownership. The ownership is the bundle of rights but rights of the tenants are limited. Admittedly, the assessee’s tenancy was converted into ownership and that can be the subject matter of the capital gain as it is a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of section 2(47) r.w.s. 45 of the I.T. Act.

(Please click here for judgment)

3.  [ Contribution by  CA Puneet Goyal, and contributor is available at email-id:capuneetgoyal.delhi@gmail.com ]

ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT IN CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

(Please click here for detail)

Key of Success :

"Chanakya says speak sweetly so that, 
if ever we have to eat our words back,
they don't taste bad" 
  

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"