I.  Useful Contrubitions:

1. [Contribution by CA Sanjeev Singhal, and contributor is available at sanjeev.singhal@skaca.in ] 

a.  An Article: "Service Tax Rules -Mostly used in Practice"

(Click here for detail)

2.  [Contribution by Respected CA Bimal Jain Ji and contributor is available at bimaljain@hotmail.com ]

a.  An article - "Amendment in Service Tax Registration Form (ST-1) consequent to restoration of accounting codes"

(Click here for detail)

b.   An article - "Composition Scheme for on-going works contract prior and post 1st July, 2012"

(Click here for detail)  

 II.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.   DCIT Vs. M/s. Rishabh Oil Industries, I.T.A. NO. 4168/Mum/2011, Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2012, ITAT- Mumbai

Whether CIT(A) erred in granting relief in respect of addition u/s 41(1) on account of sundry creditors for which no confirmations were filed during the course of assessment proceedings.

It is evident from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee was unable to produce confirmations and reconciliations at the time of assessment proceedings and since the details was produced before the CIT(A), the CIT(A), called for the remand report. During the remand proceedings, the assessee was able to reconcile the same. The CIT(A), on the basis of the remand report, where the AO accepted on facts with the observation that “the statements filed in respect of the above parties in the paper book has been verified and found to be in order”, which were in fact, the confirmations on ten parties, amounting to Rs. 30,49,113 and reconciliations of amounts standing in the names of Apar & Sarvodya aggregating to Rs. 20,25,535, deleted the additions made by the AO at Rs. 50,64,748, u/s 41(1) of the Act. We are in agreement with the observations made by the CIT (A), that since the details and reconciliations had been provided to the AO and the AO finds them to be in order, the question of sustaining the addition does not arise.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   General Williams Masonic Polyclinic & Dispensary Management Association Vs. DIT(E), ITA No. 2697/Del./2012,  Date of pronouncement 07-09-2012, ITAT- Delhi

Whether learned DIT(E) rejecting grant of approval u/s 80-G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by referring to object of general public utility and not considering the applicability object of medical relief is illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, uncalled for and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

Society has been created for providing medical relief to the needy and poor. The ld. AR contended before us that 1st proviso to amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f., 01.04.2009 was not applicable in their case, the object of the society being to provide medical relief. In this connection the ld. AR referred to the aforesaid circular dated 19th December, 2008 and decision dated 6th April, 2009 of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Kaushalya Medical Foundation in ITA no.423/Mum./2004. There is nothing to suggest that the ld. DIT(E) allowed any opportunity to the assessee before denying the approval nor any show cause notice, invoking the aforesaid 1st proviso to amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f., 01.04.2009,seems to have been issued.

In these circumstances, we find sufficient merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and accordingly, consider it fair and appropriate to vacate the findings of ld. DIT(E) and restore the matter to his file for readjudication in accordance with law, keeping in view the aforesaid CBDT circular and various decisions, including those referred to above, after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

(Please click here for judgment) 
 

 Golden Rules:

"We can always lose something for someone 
but should not lose someone for something, 
because life can return something 
but not someone"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA