I.  Today's News:   

• Income Tax Order No. 6: Reconstitution of DRP at specified areas  (Click for detail)

• Finmin: No Service Tax on Foreign Currency Remittances  (Click for detail)

• Company Law Board (Fees on Application and Petitions) (Amendment) Rules, 2012  (Click for detail)

• CL: Notifying certain sections of Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2012  (Click for detail)

• CL: Delegation of powers of Central Government to Regisrar of Companies  (Click for detail)

• CL: Delegation of Powers of Central Government to Regional Director  (Click for detail)

• Invitation to take up assignment of "Verification checkers"  (Click for detail)

• The Result of the CA Final Examination held in May, 2012 and Common Proficiency Test (CPT) held in June, 2012 are likely to be declared on Wednesday, 18th July around 2.00 PM  (Click for detail)

II.  Useful Case laws :

1.   Bedmutha Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, WRIT PETITION No. 10655 of 2011, Dated: 25/06/2012, High Court of Bombay

Notice issued u/s 148 after four year for reopening of assessment/s 147 on the ground that, in earlier assessment allowing depreciation on goodwill and set off of unabsorbed depreciation was erroneous.

Held:

In terms of the proviso to Section 147of the said Act the jurisdiction to reopen assessments already completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act, after the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can only be exercised on the cumulative satisfaction of two conditions precedent as under:

• There must be a reasonable belief on the part of the officer that income has escaped assessment; and

• That there must be a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.

From the facts of above case, do not indicate any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Further neither the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor the order dated 4th November, 2011 indicate that respondent is relying upon any tangible material which was not disclosed by the Petitioner truly and fully at the time when the assessment order was passed. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement to reopen the assessment after more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment i.e. Assessment Year 2004-05 is not satisfied.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha Vs. DCIT, WRIT PETITION No. 10437 of 2011, Dated: 27/06/2012, High court of Bombay

Notice issued u/s 148 for reopening of assessment/s 147 on the ground the assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s 54EC in original assessment order.

It appears that all facts were available on record and according to the respondents was only erroneously granted. This is a clear case of review of an order. The application of law or interpretation of a statue leading to a particular conclusion cannot lead to a conclusion that tax has escaped assessment for this would then certainly amount to review of an order which is not permitted unless so specified in a statue. The order dated 14.11.2011 disposing of the Petitioner’s objection to initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act also proceeds on the view that there has been non application of mind during the original proceedings for assessment. This is unsustainable and as held this court in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Dy. C.I.T. 308 ITR 195 a fresh application of mind by the Assessing officer on the same set of facts amounts to a change of opinion and does not warrant reopening.

(Please click here for judgment)

"Solve simple mistakes early before it leads to big problems
because people always slip from small stones & not from mountain" 

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"