I.  Whats New:

1. Modified Service Tax Return Form for the quarter April-June is now available  (Click for detail)

2. Draft Bank Branch Auditors' Panel for the year 2012-13, to know your category  (Click for detail) 

3. Government may exempt foreign institutional investors from filing I-T returns  (Click for detail) 
   

4. Undisclosed income of Rs 10 cr detected by I-T  (Click for detail) 
   

5. International Study Tour to Hong Kong: An Initiative of Committee for Capacity Building of CA Firms and Small And Medium Practitioners (CCBCAF&SMP), ICAI (13th to 19th January, 2013)  (Click for detail)

   II.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.  DCIT Vs. M/s India Advantage Securities Ltd., ITA No.: 6711/Mum/2011, Date of Pronouncement: 14.09.2012, ITAT- Mumbai

Issue:

Whether stock-in-trade could be taken into account while computing the disallowance under Rule 8D for the purpose of section 14A?

Held:

It has to be held that disallowance of interest in relation to the dividend received from trading shares cannot be made ( Yatish Trading Co Vs ACIT, 129 ITD 237 followed).

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Sri Dilip G. Sopal Barshi Vs. ITO, ITA No. 421/PN/2011, Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2012, ITAT - Pune

If no acquisition cost, no Capital Gain arises.

Assessee’s Agricultural land in question was acquired under the relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and assessee was paid compensation by concerned Land Acquisition Collector under the relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act in the year 1986. In case the land owner is aggrieved by the amount of compensation he might have preferred a reference before the concerned Appellate authority under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, `894.

There is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has filed any reference for enhancement of the compensation before concerned Appellate authority against the award in question. Subsequent to acquisition proceedings assessee was granted right of lifting water from said well which is independent right given by State Government for the rent of Rs. 1/- per year. There is also nothing on record to suggest that right of lifting of water was acquired by assessee by incurring any cost. Such right is not covered by provisions of section 55(2) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Srinivas Shetty (supra) no capital gain could be worked out since provisions of section 45(1) r.w.s. 48(1) are not applicable in respect of payment made to assessee in lieu of surrender the right to lift the water from well filled for widening of road. Accordingly capital gains as worked out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year under consideration is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.

(Please click here for judgment) 
 

  Golden Rules:

"Solve the problem or Leave the problem. 
But do not live with the problem"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA