I.  Headlines Today: 

1. CL - Time-limit for filing financial statements in XBRL mode extended up to 15-1-2013 (Click for detail) 
   

2. P Chidarmbaram: Clarity on retrospective taxation of indirect transfers soon  (Click for detail) 
   

3. CAG of india briefs UN Secretary General on Conduct of UN Audit  (Click for detail) 
   

4. Govt. to slap fine on entities not depositing TDS on time  (Click for detail) 
   

5. RBI - Guidelines for issue of debit cards by banks  (Click for detail) 
   

6. RBI - Issuance of rupee denominated co-branded pre-paid cards  (Click for detail) 
   

II.  Useful Contrubitions:

1.  [Contribution by CA Puneet Goyal and contributor is available at email-id: capuneetgoyal.delhi@gmail.com ]

An Analysis - "Reverse Charge Mechanism in respect of Manpower Supply Services or Security Services"

(Click here for detail)

 III.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.  CIT Vs. Youth Construction Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 497/2010, Date of Decision: 08.11.2012, High Court of Delhi

Whether learned ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1.65 crores made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

In present case, where there is enough material in the possession of the Assessing Officer which warrants explanation from the assessee regarding the nature and source of the share application monies. There is precious little which has been done by the assessee in discharging its burden under the section. The Tribunal has failed to keep in view the broader picture and has taken a rather simplistic view of the matter, ignoring the factual aspects and surrounding circumstances present in the case. It should have dealt with the case in a wholesome manner dealing with the entire evidence relied upon and having regard to the report of the investigation wing, the manner in which entries were made in the bank accounts of the three companies, the statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal and denial thereof by A.K.Kaul, as also the other surrounding circumstances of the case. We find that the appeal before the Tribunal has not been disposed of in all its aspects. We accordingly answer the substantial questions of law against the assessee, but in the circumstances remit the appeal to the file of the Tribunal for being disposed of afresh and in accordance with law. No costs.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   ITO Vs. Kerala State Co-op. Bank Ltd., IT Appeal No. 546 (Coch.) of 2010, Dated: 12.10.2012, ITAT – Cochin

Renting of commercials property by bank is not business activity and consequently not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2) in respect of rental income.

Business of the taxpayer is banking and the business connection between the tenant and taxpayer has nothing to do with banking operation carried on by the taxpayer. Further, the Kerala High Court in Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 568 has also taken a similar view. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the taxpayer is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of rental income. By respectfully following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Totgar’s Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. (supra) and the Kerala High Court in the case of Kottayam Co-operative Land Mortgage Ltd. (supra) we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) and restore that of the assessing officer.

(Please click here for judgment)   
 

 Golden Rules:

"People who are good from heart would always be rough in speaking out their feelings 
because they can't pretend but they do good when time comes"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team - Voice of CA