We find immense pleasure to inform that we have arranged tickets exclusively for our Voice of CA Members for six theatrical productions (from 21st to 29th July 2012) written & directed by one of our innovative professional CA Atul Koushik. If you are interested then click below link for the schedule.

(Click here for detail of the event)

 

CA {Member Name}  

 

I.  Useful Case laws :

1.    CIT Vs Shonkh Technology Ltd., ITA 1325/2009, 525/2010, 1697/2010, Dated of decision: 10/07/2012, High court of Delhi (Section 148)

Issue of notice u/s 148 was valid or not?

A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO in the present case shows that there was no rational or intelligible nexus between the reasons recorded by him and the belief entertained about the escapement of income of the assessee company. There was nothing in the said reasons to show existence of any positive income arising to the assessee company which was assessable in his hands and the belief entertained by the AO was based merely on assumption and surmises.

The reasons recorded by him do not show the process of reasoning which could lead to reason to believe that any income of the assessee company chargeable to tax for the year under consideration had escaped assessment. If all these facts of the present case are considered in the light of principles laid down in the various judicial pronouncements discussed above, we are of the view that the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 were not satisfied and this being so, the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO u/s 148 read with Section 147 was bade in law. In that view of the matter, we hold that the assessment completed by the AO u/s 147/143 (3) in pursuance of such invalid initiation is also bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly and allow the additional ground raised by the assessee.

(Please click her for judgment)

 

2.   CIT Vs M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 160/161 of 2012, Dated : 05/07/2012, High court of Karnataka

Whether Tribunal was correct in holdings that it is entitled to extend the stay beyond a period of 365 days which is contrary to section 254 of Act.

HELD by the High Court allowing the appeal:

The third proviso to section 254(2A) as amended by the FA 2008 w.e.f. 1.10.2008 provides that if the appeal is not decided within the period of 365 days, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of such period even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal which is a creature of the statute has to abide by these statutory provisions in letter and spirit. The third proviso to the Finance Act 2008 makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of putting the outer limits is only for curtailing the period an order of stay can operate and to ensure that it has no effect after the period of 365 days from the date of initial order. An interpretation to enable or confer power on the Tribunal to extend a stay order beyond 365 days would be contrary to such statutory provision. 

(Please click her for judgment)

 

II.  Whats New:   

• RBI-Priority Sector Lending – Targets and Classification  (Click for detail)

• Exchange Rates 19-07-2012 Effective from 20th July, 2012  (Click for detail)

• SEBI : Circular No. IMD/FII&C/18/2012 - Amendment to definition of QFI  (Click for detail)

• RBI unlikey to ease monetary policy soon  (Click for detail)

• ICAI : Empanelment of Members to act as Observers at the Examination Centres for CA Examinations November / December 2012  (Click for detail)
     

 

Key of Success :

"God is not the sole author of our destiny.
We are the co-authors of our destiny.
If we do the best, he will do the rest. 
Else, he will take REST" 

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"  

   

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