I.  Whats New:

1. Circular No. 33: General XBRL Filing Errors & quality of XBRL filing  (Click for detail) 
   

2. CBDT opposes Shome Committee proposal to defer GAAR by 3 years  (Click for detail) 
   

3. Nearly 2 lakh companies found irregular in furnishing financial statements: MCA  (Click for detail)

4. Vodafone, Income Tax department set for another round in Supreme Court  (Click for detail)

5. Commencement of Registration for the Work Shop on Domestic Transfer Pricing at Mumbai  (Click for detail)

6. Single Transferable System of Voting – An Apprisal  (Click for detail) 
   

7. Voluntary Guidelines for Companies for providing general information on their websites about the company to promote good corporate governance and to enhance investors’ awareness  (Click for detail) 
   

   II.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.   CIT Vs. Micro Labs Ltd., I.T. Appeal Nos. 2303, 2784, 3060 & 3148 OF 2005 and 749 OF 2006, Dated: 26-08-2011, High Court of Karnataka

Notice not complying with Mandatory period of time specified U/s. 158BC is invalid

A notice under section 158BC cannot be equated with that of notice under section 148. A notice under section 158BC provides for a procedure to be adopted for block assessment under which, the Assessing Officer shall serve a notice requiring the assessee to furnish his return within such time not being less than 15 days but not more than 45 days as specified in the notice. Therefore, the time to be granted to the assessee in terms of section 158BC is a minimum of 15 days and a maximum of 45 days. If the said period of time is not granted, the notice is invalid rendering the entire proceedings as without jurisdiction.

Admittedly in this case, the notice under section 158BC calls upon the assessee to submit its return of income within a period of 15 days’. Within a period of 15 days is less than 15 days. Therefore, the mandatory period of time as stipulated under section 158BC has not been complied with. The notice therefore is invalid. An invalid notice cannot confer any jurisdiction on the authority. Hence, the entire proceedings are bad in law. The notice is ab initio void.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Concerto Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 3268 & 4354/Del/2010, Dated: 18.05.2012, ITAT- Delhi

Order passed by DRP without any reference of Assessee’s objection is a non speaking order

On perusal of records, it was found that the assessee has filed detailed objections on selection of two comparables. But the D.R.P. has not made any reference in the impugned order about the objections of the assessee. Thus, the order of the D.R.P. cannot be termed as a speaking order. The said order deserves to be set aside to file of DRP for fresh adjudication.

(Please click here for judgment) 

 

  Golden Rules:

"Everyone may not be good, 
but there is always something good in everyone.
Never judge anyone shortly because 
every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA