[aaykarbhavan] Re: {jalgaoncas} Re: {Amresh's CA's} Re:Some Judgments, ITR and ITR Tribunal.IESBA Announcement,

Thanks for comment.Some of the Groups does not like such messages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
C A Shah D J
USA

---

From: Bikash Bogi <bikashbogi@gmail.com>
To: ICAI_CIRC_MEERUT_CA@yahoogroups.com
Cc: AAYKARBHAVANGOOGLE <aaykarbhavan@googlegroups.com>; aaykarbhavan <aaykarbhavan@yahoogroups.com>; "ahmedabadcas@yahoogroups.com" <ahmedabadcas@yahoogroups.com>; ALWAR CA GROUP <ALWAR_CHARTERED_ACCOUNTANTS@yahoogroups.com>; "awakenedcas@yahoogroups.co.in" <awakenedcas@yahoogroups.co.in>; C A Bhupendra Shah Mumbai <GlobalIndianCAs-owner@yahoogroups.com>; C A Dipak Jain <djain128@gmail.com>; C A Krishanlal Bansal <klbansal@gmail.com>; C A Madhusoodan Kakkad. <camnkakkad@gmail.com>; C A Pune Groupd <casofpune-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>; CA News <CANEWS@yahoogroups.com>; "ca expert team@yahoogroups.com" <ca_expert_team@yahoogroups.com>; cacscw india group <cacscwaindia@yahoogroups.com>; "cacscwaindia@yahoogroups.co.in" <cacscwaindia@yahoogroups.co.in>; Chartered Secretaries <chartered_secretary@yahoogroups.com>; "Chartered_accountant@egroups.com" <Chartered_accountant@egroups.com>; chartered accountant <Chartered_accountant@yahoogroups.com>; "chartered_accountants@yahoogroups.com" <chartered_accountants@yahoogroups.com>; Company Secretaries Yahoo.Groups <aicsc@yahoogroups.com>; Company Secretary <company_secretary@googlegroups.com>; Company Secretary <company_secretary@yahoogroups.com>; CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@gmail.com>; CS <cs_companysecretaries@yahoogroups.com>; CS_MYSORE GROUP <csmysore@googlegroups.com>; Finpros Furum <finpros@yahoogroups.com>; ghaziabadca <ghaziabad_ca@yahoogroups.com>; itaxusers <itaxusers@googlegroups.com>; Jaipur CA <Jaipur_CA@yahoogroups.co.in>; JAIPUR CA JAIPUR CA GROUP <jaipurca@yahoogroups.com>; Jalgaon ICAI <jalgaon@icai.org>; Jalgaon C A <jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com>; lawprofessional Moderator <lawprofessional-owner@yahoogroups.com>; lucknow C A Group <lucknow-ca@yahoogroups.com>; lucknow <Lucknowca_reinvented@yahoogroups.com>; New Delhi CA forum <new_delhi_ca@yahoogroups.com>; "nicsi@yahoogroups.co.in" <nicsi@yahoogroups.co.in>; "Panipat_CA@yahoogroups.com" <Panipat_CA@yahoogroups.com>; CA RUNGTA PD <pdrungta@gmail.com>; "Ranchi_Chartered_Accountants@yahoogroups.com" <Ranchi_Chartered_Accountants@yahoogroups.com>; sankaramoorthy sankaralingam <ssmarchana@yahoo.com>; taxfin <taxfinsoft@yahoogroups.com>; "sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in" <sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, 25 August 2012 11:58 AM
Subject: {jalgaoncas} Re: {Amresh's CA's} Re:Some Judgments, ITR and ITR Tribunal.IESBA Announcement,

Dear Sir 

These kind of updates are very helpful. Please keep sharing with this group...

On 23 August 2012 21:30, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:

 It is clear that for invoking the proviso to section 147 beyond the period of four years, there must be failure on the part of the assessee to either make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice under section 147/148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year. In so far as the filing of the return is concerned, that is not in dispute and, therefore, the focus is entirely on whether the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal, on an examination of the material on record, concluded that all the relevant facts were available on record and that it could not be said that at the time when the assessee filed the return, he had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment because the amendment which was introduced retrospectively was not there at all. The Tribunal also observed, and, in our view rightly so, that the law cannot contemplate the performance of an impossible act. It was not expected of the assessee to foresee or forecast a future amendment which was to be brought into effect retrospectively. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the proviso to section 147 could not be invoked merely because there was an amendment in the future which was introduced retrospectively and covered the period in question.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

ITA No.3128/Del./2010 – (Assessment Year: 2001-02)

DCIT Vs.  M/s Orient Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

C.O. No.252/Del./2010 -  (Assessment Year: 2001-02)

M/s Orient Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd.   Vs. DCIT

ORDER

PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M

This appeal of the department and C.O. of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A)-XVIII, New Delhi dated 22.03.2010, relevant to assessment year 2001-02.

2. In the appeal of the Revenue, following grounds have been raised:

"1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs.6,33,028/- u/s 80HHC of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of profit on sale of DEPB.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that as the assessee was having export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores, therefore, it was not eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC on 90% of DEPB profits within the meaning of 3^rd proviso appended to section 80HHC(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (inserted by Taxation laws (Amendment ) Act, 2005 w.e.f. 01.04.1998).

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that as the assessee has not incurred any cost for DEPB entitlement, therefore the total receipt on account of DEPB is the profit on the assessee."

2. In the C.O. of the assessee, following grounds have been raised:

"1. That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is bad in law and consequently the reassessment framed in furtherance of such invalid jurisdiction is not sustainable in law.

2. That there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary at the time of original assessment and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer after four years is bad in law and the reassessment so framed in furtherance of such invalid jurisdiction is bad in law."

3. At he very outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that since in C.O. of the assessee, the issue with regard to assumption of jurisdiction to initiate re-assessment proceedings has been raised, therefore, it would be appropriate to hear and decide the C.O. of the assessee first, rather than hearing, considering and deciding the appeal of the Revenue and to this move of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, Ld.DR did not object. So, we take up C.O. of the assessee first.

4. The facts indicate that original assessment was completed on 29.03.2004 and it was reopened by recording reasons on 26.03.2008. As per assessee, there was no failure to disclose all material facts and since reopening was done on the basis of retrospective amendment made in law, so it cannot be said that there had been any failure to disclose all material facts. Therefore, relying upon the cases reported in CIT vs. Navnitalal Sakarlal, 125 I.T.R. 67 (Guj.), (1) Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. (2) Geo Miller And Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT & Others, 262 I.T.R. 605 (Cal.), CIT vs. SIL Investments Ltd., 339 I.T.R. 166(Del.), it was pleaded for quashment of initiation of re-assessment as Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction and moreover mechanical approval has been given, therefore, relying upon the judgment reported in United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT And Others, 258 I.T.R. 317 at 322(Del.), Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha and Others, 79 I.T.R. 603 and Duli Chand Singhania vs. ACIT, 269 I.T.R. 192, Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. and Another vs. ITO, 308 I.T.R. 22, it was pleaded for quashment of the order of re-assessment on this score alone.

5. Ld.DR submitted that sufficiency of reasons could not be challenged while relying upon Raymond Woollen Mills Co., it was pleaded that since case has been rightly reopened and CIT has approved the proposal for reopening keeping in view the reasons given by the Assessing Officer. It was pleaded for setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and restoring that of the Assessing Officer.

6. Ld.AR of the assessee in order to counter the submissions of the Ld.DR has pleaded that issue on merits is also in favour of the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports. Therefore, neither addition was called for nor re-assessment was justified.

7. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record as well as precedents relied upon by rival sides and find that assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration was reopened after 4 years from the end of the assessment year on the ground that an amendment to section 80HHC of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been made by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1998. The conditions were not there in section 80HHC at the time when assessee filed the returns or even the original assessment was made. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SIL Investment Ltd. (supra) under similar facts and circumstances has opined as under:

"We have heard the counsel for the Revenue and have also examined the orders passed by the authorities below. It is clear that for invoking the proviso to section 147 beyond the period of four years, there must be failure on the part of the assessee to either make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice under section 147/148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year. In so far as the filing of the return is concerned, that is not in dispute and, therefore, the focus is entirely on whether the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The Tribunal, on an examination of the material on record, concluded that all the relevant facts were available on record and that it could not be said that at the time when the assessee filed the return, he had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment because the amendment which was introduced retrospectively was not there at all. The Tribunal also observed, and, in our view rightly so, that the law cannot contemplate the performance of an impossible act. It was not expected of the assessee to foresee or forecast a future amendment which was to be brought into effect retrospectively. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the proviso to section 147 could not be invoked merely because there was an amendment in the future which was introduced retrospectively and covered the period in question. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the law and applied the same to the undisputed facts. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. However, we make it clear that we have only examined the jurisdictional issue qua validity of the section 147 proceedings and have not examined the merits of the matter. The appeals are dismissed."

Since the facts in the case in hand and that decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are similar when issue involved is identical, therefore, following the ratio of the above noted conclusion as drawn by the jurisdictional High Court, we hold that initiation of reassessment proceedings in this case is bad in law. While accepting the C.O. of the assessee, we quash the re-assessment order passed in this case. Since re-assessment is being quashed, therefore, appeal of the Revenue needs not be adjudicated on merits, being academic, hence dismissed.

8. As a result, the C.O. of the assessee gets accepted whereas the appeal filed by the department is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 01.08.2012.

 

---

From: IFAC Communications <communications@ifac.org>
To: IFAC Communications <communications@ifac.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2012 8:59 AM
Subject: IESBA Proposes Changes to Code of Ethics to Address Illegal Acts

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                Contact: Laura Wilker Head of Communications +1 212 471 8707 laurawilker@ifac.org

IESBA proposes changes to Code OF ETHICS to address illegal acts (New York, August 22, 2012) – The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) today released for public exposure new requirements that address a professional accountant's responsibilities regarding the disclosure of suspected illegal acts committed by a client or employer. The proposals describe the circumstances in which a professional accountant is required or expected to breach confidentiality, one of the five fundamental principles in the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the Code), and disclose the act to an appropriate authority. The Exposure Draft (ED), Responding to a Suspected Illegal Act, proposes adding two new sections addressing illegal acts to the Code—one each for professional accountants in public practice and professional accountants in business—and several revisions to other related sections. The new sections clearly delineate the expected course of action for a professional accountant to take if those charged with governance do not respond to the issue appropriately. "Breaching confidentiality is not something to be taken lightly," said Jörgen Holmquist, chair of the IESBA. "However, when the consequences of non-disclosure are potentially harmful to individuals or society, confidentiality must be overridden. Accountants have an important role to play in protecting the public interest and enabling authorities to take appropriate action." How to Comment The IESBA invites all stakeholders to comment on its proposals in the ED, Responding to a Suspected Illegal Act. To submit a comment, visit the IESBA website at www.ethicsboard.org. Comments on the ED are requested by December 15, 2012.   About the IESBA The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) is an independent standard-setting board that develops and issues, in the public interest, high-quality ethical standards and other pronouncements for professional accountants worldwide. Through its activities, the IESBA develops the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, which establishes ethical requirements for professional accountants. The structures and processes that support the operations of the IESBA are facilitated by IFAC. Please visit www.ethicsboard.org for more information.   About IFAC IFAC is the global organization for the accountancy profession, dedicated to serving the public interest by strengthening the profession and contributing to the development of strong international economies. It is comprised of 167 members and associates in 127 countries and jurisdictions, representing approximately 2.5 million accountants in public practice, education, government service, industry, and commerce. #  #  #

 

 

INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)

INCOME TAX REPORTS

Volume 346 Part 4 (Issue dated 27-8-2012)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

HIGH COURTS

Advance tax --Interest--No material on record that assessee committed default in payment of advance tax--Tribunal justified in remitting matter to Assessing Officer for decision afresh--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 234B-- CIT v . Kotak Securities Ltd . (No. 2)
(Bom) . . . 352

Business expenditure --Purchase of software--Is revenue expenditure--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v . Amway India Enterprises (Delhi) . . . 341

----Repairs--Current repairs--Is revenue expenditure--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v . Amway India Enterprises (Delhi) . . . 341

----Software expenses--Expenditure not to create new asset or a new source of income but to upgrade system--Extent of expenditure cannot be a decisive factor in determining its nature--Treatment in books of account not conclusive--Software expenditure is revenue expenditure--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v . Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd . (Delhi) . . . 329

Capital or revenue expenditur e--Software expenses--Allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v . Kotak Securites Ltd . (No. 1) (Bom) . . . 349

Depreciation --First stock exchange membership card--Entitled to depreciation--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v . Kotak Securites Ltd . (No. 1) (Bom) . . . 349

----First stock exchange membership card--Entitled to depreciation--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd . (No. 2) (Bom) . . . 352

Reassessment --Reassessment after four years--Failure by assessee to disclose material facts--Income from other sources--Reopening of assessment to disallow interest on borrowings for purchase of shares--No failure by assessee--Reassessment not permissible--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 57(iii), 147, 148-- Ashank D. Desai v . Asst. CIT
(Guj) . . . 326

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

Non-resident --Royalty--Provision of social media monitoring service for company, brand or product, for subscribing clients--Subscriptions are royalty chargeable to tax in India--Tax deductible at source on payments--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 9(1)(vi), Expln. 2(iv), 195--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore, art. 12-- ThoughtBuzz Pvt. Ltd., In re . . . 345

ITR'S TRIBUNAL TAX REPORTS (ITR (TRIB))

Volume 18 : Part 2 (Issue dated : 27-08-2012)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Best judgment assessment --Rejection of accounts and assessment under section 144--Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) on ground of non-deduction of tax at source--Not justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 40(a)(ia), 144-- ITO v. Sahadev Pradhan (Cuttack) . . . 180

Business income --Income from other sources--Interest on income-tax refund--Is income from other sources, not business income--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 28, 56-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

Capital gains --Computation--Effect of section 50C--Assessee booking flat--Amount paid for booking returned subsequently--Section 50C not applicable--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 45, 50C-- ITO v. Yasin Moosa Godil (Ahmedabad) . . . 253

----Loss--Carry forward and set off--Change of law--Amendment with effect from April 1, 2003 restricting set-off of long-term capital loss only against long-term capital gains and not against short-term capital gains--Applicable only to long-term capital loss incurred in assessment year 2003-04 and subsequent years--Set-off of long-term capital loss brought forward from periods prior to assessment year 2003-04 governed by provisions as they stood prior to amendment--Assessee entitled to set off brought forward long-term capital loss relating to assessment year 2001-02 against short-term capital gains of assessment year 2003-04--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 74 (as amended by Finance Act, 2002)-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

Charitable purpose --Donation for charitable purpose--Approval of institution--If objects charitable no right to deny approval--Registration under section 12A is sufficient proof--Assessee entitled to renewal of exemption certificate--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 12A, 80G(5)(vi)-- Bengal Hosiery Manufacturers’ Association v. Director of Income-tax (Exemption) (Kolkata) . . . 205

----Donation for charitable purposes--Registration of trust under section 80G--Clause in trust deed empowering trustees to invest in business--Other clauses making it clear that all powers subject to limitations and restrictions under Income-tax Act--Clause cannot be read in isolation--Trust granted registration under sections 10(23C) and 12A--Trust entitled to registration under section 80G--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 10(23C), 12A, 80G-- NSHM Academy v. CIT (Kolkata) . . . 244

Company --Book profits--Minimum alternate tax--Interest--Section 115JB not applicable--Net profit already computed under Companies Act--Addition to book profit not proper--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 115JB-- Joint CIT v. Shreyans Industries Ltd. (Chandigarh) . . . 169

----Book profits--Provision for gratuity--To be excluded from calculation of book profits--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 115JB-- Joint CIT v. Shreyans Industries Ltd. (Chandigarh) . . . 169

Depreciation --Goodwill--Amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiary with assessee-company--Subsidiary company earning income by lease of property--Primary asset transferred was land--No proof of transfer of goodwill--Depreciation not allowable on goodwill--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 32-- Deputy CIT v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (Mumbai) . . . 159

Export --Special deduction--Profit on transfer of DEPB licence--Duty of Assessing Officer to grant opportunity of hearing to assessee--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80HHC-- Jacob Export House v. Assistant CIT (Chandigarh) . . . 175

Interpretation of taxing statutes --Strict construction--Construction according to rules of grammar-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

Non-resident --Business loss--Set off--No permanent establishment in India--Assessee choosing to be governed by Income-tax Act and not by Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement--Assessing Officer cannot impose Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement--Assessee entitled to set off loss under “Profits and gains of business or profession†against “Income from other sourcesâ€--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 71, 90(2)-- Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Mumbai) . . . 186

Reassessment --Notice issued after four years--No case of failure to disclose material facts--Reassessment on change of opinion--To be quashed--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 143(3), 147, 148-- Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Mumbai) . . . 186

Refund --Interest--Interest on excess refund--Provision inserted with effect from June 1, 2003--Explanation that interest leviable for assessment years prior to that date if proceedings completed thereafter--Assessee liable to pay interest--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 234D-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Income-tax Act, 1961 :

S. 10(23C) --Charitable purposes--Donation for charitable purposes--Registration of trust under section 80G--Clause in trust deed empowering trustees to invest in business--Other clauses making it clear that all powers subject to limitations and restrictions under Income-tax Act--Clause cannot be read in isolation--Trust granted registration under sections 10(23C) and 12A--Trust entitled to registration under section 80G-- NSHM Academy v. CIT (Kolkata) . . . 244

S. 12A --Charitable purpose--Donation for charitable purpose--Approval of institution--If objects charitable no right to deny approval--Registration under section 12A is sufficient proof--Assessee entitled to renewal of exemption certificate-- Bengal Hosiery Manufacturers’ Association v. Director of Income-tax (Exemption) (Kolkata) . . . 205

----Charitable purposes--Donation for charitable purposes--Registration of trust under section 80G--Clause in trust deed empowering trustees to invest in business--Other clauses making it clear that all powers subject to limitations and restrictions under Income-tax Act--Clause cannot be read in isolation--Trust granted registration under sections 10(23C) and 12A--Trust entitled to registration under section 80G-- NSHM Academy v. CIT (Kolkata) . . . 244

S. 28 --Business income--Income from other sources--Interest on income-tax refund--Is income from other sources, not business income-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

S. 32 --Depreciation--Goodwill--Amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiary with assessee-company--Subsidiary company earning income by lease of property--Primary asset transferred was land--No proof of transfer of goodwill--Depreciation not allowable on goodwill-- Deputy CIT v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (Mumbai) . . . 159

S. 40(a)(ia) --Best judgment assessment--Rejection of accounts and assessment under section 144--Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) on ground of non-deduction of tax at source--Not justified-- ITO v. Sahadev Pradhan (Cuttack) . . . 180

S. 45 --Capital gains--Computation--Effect of section 50C--Assessee booking flat--Amount paid for booking returned subsequently--Section 50C not applicable-- ITO v. Yasin Moosa Godil (Ahmedabad) . . . 253

S. 50C --Capital gains--Computation--Effect of section 50C--Assessee booking flat--Amount paid for booking returned subsequently--Section 50C not applicable-- ITO v. Yasin Moosa Godil (Ahmedabad) . . . 253

S. 56 --Business income--Income from other sources--Interest on income-tax refund--Is income from other sources, not business income-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

S. 71 --Non-resident--Business loss--Set off--No permanent establishment in India--Assessee choosing to be governed by Income-tax Act and not by Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement--Assessing Officer cannot impose Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement--Assessee entitled to set off loss under “Profits and gains of business or profession†against “Income from other sourcesâ€-- Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Mumbai) . . . 186

S. 74 (as amended by Finance Act, 2002) --Capital gains--Loss--Carry forward and set off--Change of law--Amendment with effect from April 1, 2003 restricting set-off of long-term capital loss only against long-term capital gains and not against short-term capital gains--Applicable only to long-term capital loss incurred in assessment year 2003-04 and subsequent years--Set-off of long-term capital loss brought forward from periods prior to assessment year 2003-04 governed by provisions as they stood prior to amendment--Assessee entitled to set off brought forward long-term capital loss relating to assessment year 2001-02 against short-term capital gains of assessment year 2003-04-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

S. 80G --Charitable purposes--Donation for charitable purposes--Registration of trust under section 80G--Clause in trust deed empowering trustees to invest in business--Other clauses making it clear that all powers subject to limitations and restrictions under Income-tax Act--Clause cannot be read in isolation--Trust granted registration under sections 10(23C) and 12A--Trust entitled to registration under section 80G-- NSHM Academy v. CIT (Kolkata) . . . 244

S. 80G(5)(vi) --Charitable purpose--Donation for charitable purpose--Approval of institution--If objects charitable no right to deny approval--Registration under section 12A is sufficient proof--Assessee entitled to renewal of exemption certificate-- Bengal Hosiery Manufacturers’ Association v. Director of Income-tax (Exemption) (Kolkata) . . . 205

S. 80HHC --Export--Special deduction--Profit on transfer of DEPB licence--Duty of Assessing Officer to grant opportunity of hearing to assessee--Matter remanded-- Jacob Export House v. Assistant CIT (Chandigarh) . . . 175

S. 90(2) --Non-resident--Business loss--Set off--No permanent establishment in India--Assessee choosing to be governed by Income-tax Act and not by Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement--Assessing Officer cannot impose Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement--Assessee entitled to set off loss under “Profits and gains of business or profession†against “Income from other sourcesâ€-- Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Mumbai) . . . 186

S. 115JB --Company--Book profits--Minimum alternate tax--Interest--Section 115JB not applicable--Net profit already computed under Companies Act--Addition to book profit not proper-- Joint CIT v. Shreyans Industries Ltd. (Chandigarh) . . . 169

----Company--Book profits--Provision for gratuity--To be excluded from calculation of book profits-- Joint CIT v. Shreyans Industries Ltd. (Chandigarh) . . . 169

S. 143(3) --Reassessment--Notice issued after four years--No case of failure to disclose material facts--Reassessment on change of opinion--To be quashed-- Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Mumbai) . . . 186

S. 144 --Best judgment assessment--Rejection of accounts and assessment under section 144--Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) on ground of non-deduction of tax at source--Not justified-- ITO v. Sahadev Pradhan (Cuttack) . . . 180

S. 147 --Reassessment--Notice issued after four years--No case of failure to disclose material facts--Reassessment on change of opinion--To be quashed-- Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Mumbai) . . . 186

S. 148 --Reassessment--Notice issued after four years--No case of failure to disclose material facts--Reassessment on change of opinion--To be quashed-- Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Mumbai) . . . 186

S. 234D --Refund--Interest--Interest on excess refund--Provision inserted with effect from June 1, 2003--Explanation that interest leviable for assessment years prior to that date if proceedings completed thereafter--Assessee liable to pay interest-- Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT [SB] (Mumbai) . . . 213

  Subscribe to this IESBA and get all updates about international accounting developments,

'C A Shah D J

USA

--

Thanks & Regards

 

Bikash Bogi (Partner)  

Mobile :   +91-9930934403

Blog  :   http://bikashbogi.blogspot.com/  

 

SBR & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 

Head Office:

402, 4th Floor I Autumn Grove I  Lokhandwala Township I Kandivli (E) I Mumbai 400101 I Maharashtra

Tel : 022-29661585 I mail: sbr.ca1@gmail.com 

Branch Office:

1020, Ground Floor I Aambaji Market  I Ring Road I  Surat 395002 I Gujarat  

Tel : 0261 - 3016163 I mail: sbr.surat@gmail.com   

            

 

 

--
DISCLAIMER
jalgaoncas is a Google Group for the benefit of CA and other professional. It is especially meant for written discussion & circulate information within group members.The mail may contain such research/advice/opinion/information/fact provided by any member and every contain of the mail or information is always subject to the accuracy and of the description of facts.
The jalgaoncas,its owner do not claim that contains in mail/information obtained after reading as a complete and accurate disclosure of relevant facts.The transaction based on above mail may not complete without confirming proper statue/authority/person.Any action/transaction taken on basis of this mail do not imply the accuracy or value.Further this Group's Owner/Moderator/Member are not liable for any damages or costs suffered due to action/transaction based on information on this Group.
To join send email jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.co.in/group/jalgaoncas