1. CBDT Inst. No. 16: Revises Procedure For Dealing With Revenue Audit Objections  (Click for detail)

2. FEMA Circular: RBI notifies definition of ‘group company’ in context of FDI  (Click for detail)

3. Guidelines for Appointment of Statutory Auditors in Public Sector Banks  (Click for detail)

4. Draft Bank Branch Auditors' Panel for the year 2013-14  (Click for detail)

5. RBI: Indian companies directly invested $1.22 bn overseas in October  (Click for detail)

6. SBI raises lending rates by 0.20%; Home, auto and consumer loans to get costlier  (Click for detail)

7. Taxability of expatriate benefits: Some key issues  (Click for detail)

1.  Sankeshwar Printers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), ITA No. 5001 of 2011, Date of Order: 28.08.2013, High Court of Karnataka

Where legal question was raised even first time before Tribunal, Tribunal was required to consider same in accordance with law

Held Yes

Legal question can be raised at the stage of the appeal and such a question need not be raised as a ground. When the legal question is raised, the Tribunal has to consider the same in accordance with law. In the instant case the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the question of law raised by the appellant. Therefore, this Court has to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in order to consider this question and we are not interfering with the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Assessing Officer. It is for the Tribunal to consider only the question of law raised by the appellant in accordance with law and on merits. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

(Please click here for Judgment)

2.   Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raza Hussain Contractor, ITA No. 189 of 2009, Date of Order: 03.10.2012, High Court of Allahabad

Where original order passed by Tribunal did not show that any ground relating to jurisdiction of ITO was raised by assessee, whether Tribunal committed error in recalling its order for not considering such ground.

Held Yes

That there is no indication in the order dated 30.5.2008 that any ground, other than the grounds considered by the Tribunal, was pressed. The reference to ground nos. 7, 8 and 9 or ground no.2, which is substance of ground nos. 7, 8 and 9, the applicant virtually wanted the rehearing of the appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal committed gross error of law in recalling its order and also stating that recall is only to the limited extent.

On the aforesaid discussions, we find that the Tribunal erred in law in recalling its order on the pretext of rectifying the mistake, and permitting itself to rehear the matter as if it was exercising the power of appeal over its own judgment.

(Please click here for Judgment)