1. THE FINANCE ACT, 2014: approved by the President  (Click for detail)
   

2. NEW COMPANIES ACT to come into effect from Apr 1  (Click for detail)
   

3. CUSTOMS Cir. No. 6: Import of Gold by 'eligible passengers'  (Click for detail)
   

4. FIIs mark biggest buy of Indian shares; pump $1 billion in 15 days  (Click for detail)
   

5. THINGS to note while paying life insurance premiums for tax saving  (Click for detail)
   

   
   

1.  M/s Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 17 of 2002, Date of Order: 04/03/2014, High Court of Bombay

The appeal will be dismissed/ heard ex-parte or and/or impose costs if counsel are not present without sufficient/ justifiable/ reasonable cause or if they are not prepared.

The Hon’ble Court has held that if the Appellant or his Advocate is absent, the appeal will be dismissed for non prosecution and thereafter, no application for restoration of the Appeal will be considered unless the Appellant makes out a sufficient cause for absence. And in the event, the Counsel of the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, invariably a costs will be imposed to the Counsels and appeal will proceed in his absence.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.    Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited, W.P. No. 5086/2013, Date of Decision: 21/02/2014, High Court of Delhi

Section S. 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Whether the Tribunal has power to extend stay of demand beyond 365 days where the assessee is not at fault.

Held_No

In the instant case, the department raised the contention that the Tribunal does have power to grant stay of demand pending consideration of the appeal as per provisions of Section 254(2A). On the other hand, assessee contended that the said section is not clear and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had examined paramateria provisions i.e. Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, introduced w.e.f. 11th May, 2002 and had approved the ratio and view taken by the larger Bench in IPCL vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodra 2004 (169) E.L.T. 267 (Tri. – LB). Stay orders can be extended if the delay is not attributable to the assessee and the assessee is not to be blamed.

The High Court has held that in view of the third proviso to Section 254(2A), w.e.f 01/010/2008, the Tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay. In case default and delay is due to lapse on the part of the Revenue, the tribunal is at liberty to conclude hearing and decide the appeal, if there is likelihood that the third proviso to Section 254 (2A) would come into operation. Further, the assessee can file a writ petition in the High Court pleading and asking for stay. The Section 254(2A) does not prohibit/bar the High Court from issuing appropriate directions, including granting stay of recovery.

(Please click here for judgment)