I.  Today's Topline News:   

1. Finance Minister: Back-dated I-T law will not override tax treaties  (Click for detail)

2. GAAR may Lose Bite to Soothe Investors  (Click for detail)

3. Governance concerns weakened business sentiment in India: IMF  (Click for detail)

4. ST Circular No. 157 - Services provided by APMCs against market fee not liable to service tax (Click for detail)

5. Advertisement for the Post of Additional Director in Technical Directorate  (Click for detail)
   

II.  Useful Case laws:

1.   Steel Authority Of India Ltd Vs. CIT, ITA No. 37,38,41/2010, 29/2011, Date of Decision: 30/03/2012, Delhi High Court

Issue:

• Whether waiver of loan from Government of India from Steel Development Fund would reduce the cost of the assets by the amount waived in view of section 43(1).

Held:

• Explanation 10 to section 43(1) does not cover the case of waiver of the loan. It covers only the grant of a subsidy or reimbursement by whatever name called. Though the assessee’s case may not fall under Explanation 10, the waiver of the loan amounted to the meeting of a portion of the cost of the assets under the main provision of section 43(1) because of the treatment given by the assessee in its books of account in reducing the cost/WDV of the assets by the amount of the loans waived and therefore the assessee in its books of accounts reduced the cost of the assets by the amount waived.

(Please click here for Judgment)

2.  L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.  CIT, WRIT TAX No. 367 of 2012, Date of Order: 22/03/2012, Allahabad High Court

Facts of the case:

• The AO raised a demand u/s 201 on the ground that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 194-I instead of u/s 194C. The assessee filed a stay application before the CIT (A) who observed that the there was “enough strength in the plea of the assessee for stay of demand” but directed that 30% of the demand be paid. The assessee file a Writ Petition on the ground that as the CIT (A) had formed a prima facie opinion in favour of the assessee, he ought to have stayed the entire demand and not directed deposit of 30% thereof. HELD by the High Court:

Held:

• Held that merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. From the perusal of materials brought on record, we are of the view that the Commissioner having himself expressed  opinion in the order that there is enough strength in the plea of the assessee for stay of the demand, there was no occasion to direct for deposit of 30 percent. The assessee is entitled to stay on furnishing adequate security (Dunlop India 154 ITR 172 (SC) & Pennar Industries followed).

(Please click here for Judgment)

Key of Success :

"A life without an aim is like a envelop without an address
a life with aim but no plan to achieve it, 
is like an envelop with address, not posted"

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"