I. Permission to Vote by Post for ICAI Election:

Chartered Accountants (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006 permits the members to vote by post, who are:

• suffering from any permanent infirmity, or

• member in service, whose permanent address has changed and unable to exercise his/ her vote at allotted booth

• residing outside India provided that the overseas address is registered with ICAI

The members falling in above category, are advised to send the application in prescribed format (Click here for application form) on or before 5th October, 2012 and also requested to intimate the same to your friends. 

(Please click here) for  the Announcement - Permission to Vote by Post

II. Presentation on XBRL:

[Contribution by CA Vivek baid and contributor is is available at cavivekbaid@gmail.com ]

(Please click here for the presentation) 

III. Certificate of Tax Residence:

CBDT vide Notification No. 39/2012 [F.NO.142/13/2012-SO(TPL)]/SO 2188(E),Dated 17-9-2012, inserted Rule 21AB in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the purposes of claiming any relief under an agreement referred to in section 90 and 90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In case of non-residents, sub rule (1) of Rule 21AB specifies the particulars to be contained in the certificate of tax residence.

In case of residents, sub rule (3) and (4), Form 10 FA and Form 10FB have been prescribed.

Form 10FA – Application for Certificate of residence

Form 10FB – Format Certificate of residence

Please click here for the copy of Notification No. 39/2012.

Please click here for Form 10FA

Please click here for Form 10FB

 IV. FEMA FDI Update:

[Contribution by CA Mukesh Bansal, and contributor is is available atmukesh.bansal@mkak.in  ]

FDI Amendment in pricing guidelines

(Please click here)

   V.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.  Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, CIVIL APPEAL No. 6924 of 2012, Dated 25-09-2012, Supreme Court of India

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on the ground of  a “bona fide/ inadvertent/ human error”.

Notwithstanding the fact that the assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it, it is possible that even the assessee could make a “silly” mistake. The fact that the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable u/s 40A(7) indicates that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income.

The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assesseeconcealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. All that happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that theassessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Consequently, given the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on theassessee is not justified.

(Please click here for judgment)

2. Smt. Maharukh Murad Oomrigar Vs. ITO, ITA No. 3144 of 2010, Dated, 08-06-2012, ITAT- Mumbai

Surrender of tenancy right is assessable as capital gain

Assessee has transferred the tenancy right which is very much part of the capital asset as envisaged in sub-section (2)(a) of section 55.  Sub-section (2)(a) of section 55 stipulates that cost of acquisition in relation to asset, inter alia, tenancy rights not falling under sub-clause (1)(iv) of sub-section (1) of section 49 shall be taken to be nil. Hence, as per the amended provisions of section; 55, cost of acquisition of tenancy rights shall be taken at nil and, therefore, there will be no effect even if the actual cost of acquisition of tenancy rights is nil. The assessee has received the consideration of Rs. 1.40 crores against surrender of tenancy right which is clear from clause (1) of agreement dated 29-10-2005.

In view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, consideration received by the assessee against surrender of tenancy right is assessable as capital gain and, therefore, there is no substance or merit in the ground/plea raised by the assessee and the same is rejected.

(Please click here for judgment) 

  Golden Rules:

"Life will never provide warranties and guarantees.
It can only provide possibilities and opportunities. 
Its upto us to convert them into success"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA