Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Vishwanath Khanna Vs. UOI & Others (Delhi High Court) – The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle (20)(1), New Delhi passed order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act dated 02.06.1995 declaring that cash found during search as unexplained and hence, cash seized of Rs. 49,86,500/- was retained and not released. Subsequently, vide another order under Section 132(5) dated 19.06.2005, various disputed additions were made and tax and penalty @200% were raised. Therefore, entire silver seized valuing Rs. 4,44,66,395/- was retained and not released. We may mention at this state that the Income Tax Department disputed the status of M/s Foto Traders, as according to it, it was an unregistered partnership firm. Therefore, the Department intended to tax income in the hands of this firm. The concerned Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) in the name of M/s Foto Traders after making huge additions of 10,49,53,527/- on protective basis.
Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – The Tribunal in the instant case has referred the matter back to the AO categorically recording that there was no sufficient material placed before it to demonstrate as to what were the services rendered by the DSAs from which it could be ascertained as to how allowability to pay such brokerage had arisen and could be worked out. According to the Tribunal, mere Agreement was not sufficient for this purpose, as it does not reveal on what basis the brokerage is payable and is looked into what and how the assessee would be liable to pay such brokerage. Section 254(1) of the Act which confers power upon the Tribunal to decide the appeal clearly states that after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties, it may pass such an order thereon as thinks fit. After stating the principle on which commission paid by the assessee to DSAs would be treated as expenditure relating to particular areas, for want of sufficient evidence to arrive at a definite finding in this behalf, the Tribunal, in its discretion, remitted the case back to the AO giving clear guidelines how to examine the issue on the basis of records to be produced and what course of action, the AO was supposed to take. Honorable High Court do not find any infirmity in this approach of the Tribunal and dismisses the appeal in limine.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastern Medikit Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Where the CIT while exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act, sets aside the order of the AO on merits as well and gives his categorical finding on the issue involved, naturally the Tribunal will be within its right to examine as to whether the decision on the said issue was proper or not and for this purpose, the Tribunal itself would be entitled to examine the issue on merits. It was, in these circumstances, the aforesaid two cases were decided. However, where the issue was not examined by the AO and on this ground CIT revised the order without giving his own findings, but directing the AO to do the necessary exercise, it was not proper for the Tribunal to decide the same, converting itself to a Court of first instance and deciding the factual aspect on which neither AO nor CIT(A) had returned any findings.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mukesh Luthra (Delhi High Court) – Since the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the additions made by the AO, the Honourable High Court has remitted back the matter to the Tribunal to decide as to whether M/s Globe Meditech was a dummy concern of the assessee herein and the order of the CIT (A) dealing with the addition holding that the assessee herein was not the benamidar is correct or not. The question of law is answered in the aforesaid terms, without any order as to cost.
No 17/143/2011-CL.V, Dated: 06.06.2011 The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is considering to issue Companies (Dematerialization of Certificates) Rules, 2011 so that all public Companies and their subsidiaries which have raised money by issue of shares, debentures, by accepting public deposits, stock, bond or any other financial instruments from public, other than from directors of the company, shall be required to issue and keep such share certificates, debenture certificates and certificates issued for receipt of deposits, stock, bond or any other financial instruments in dematerialized form only, in the manner prescribed in the Depositories Act, 1996 and regulation made there under.
The Ministry has issued General Circulars No. 27/2011 and 28/2011 dated 20.05.2011 whereby it was clarified that a shareholder or a director of the company may participate in meetings under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 through electronic mode. In order to have better understanding of the circular, it is further clarified as under: — (i) It is not mandatory for companies to provide its directors, the facility to attend meetings through video conferencing.
Net direct tax collections during the first two months of the current fiscal (April & May 2011) stood at Rs.12,954 crore, down from Rs.24,878 crore in the same period last fiscal, a decline of 47.93 percent. Gross direct tax collections were, however, up by 37.34 percent at Rs.50,405 crore as against Rs.36,702 crore.
Indore Mahavidyalaya versus National Council for Teachers Education(Delhi HC)- While the learned Single Judge noticed that the office of the respondent falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, yet he declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that on three previous occasions – including when the grievance arose vis-à-vis a previous order of the Appellate Committee, the writ petitioner approached the most convenient forum, i.e. the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was not appropriate to entertain this writ petition in Delhi. Apart from the fact that the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases is not compulsive, discretion is also exercised having regard to the fact-circumstance in each case. In the present case, the learned Single Judge clearly adopted the forum inconvenien approach in declining to exercise jurisdiction (Ref. Kusum Ingots & Alloys v.Union of India 2004 (6) SCC 254).
Despite regulatory hurdles, India continues to be among the preferred destinations for FDI due to the country’s high economic growth, with both Mumbai and Delhi being touted as among the cities likely to produce the next Microsoft or Google, a survey said. According to the ‘9th Annual European Attractiveness Survey’ by Ernst & Young, India will rank fifth among the most attractive destinations for European firms within the next three years, mainly on account of India’s perceived specialisation as a hub for low cost outsourcing business.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs has proposed the name of former Finance Secretary Ashok Chawla as the next Chairman of the anti-trust watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI). The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has sent Chawla’s name for ACC (Appointments Committee of Cabinet) approval, a top source in the ministry told PTI.
