The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a private person in Jaipur(Rajasthan) for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.Seven Lakhs from the complainant who was facing a CBI trial case. It was alleged that the accused private person had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant on behalf of an officer who was involved in investigation of the CBI trap case, the complainant was facing.
Circular No. CIR/MIRSD/6/2011, 1. SEBI (Underwriters) Regulations, 1993 {hereinafter referred to as “the said Regulations”}, have been amended vide Notification No. LAD-NRO/GN/2011-12/03/12650 dated April 19, 2011 {hereinafter referred to as “the said amendment”), a copy of which is available on SEBI website www.sebi.qov.in 2. With the said amendment, the requirement of taking prior approval by the underwriters from SEBI for change in status or constitution has been dispensed with. However, the underwriters are required to take prior approval from SEBI for change in control.3. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, all underwriters shall report the following change(s) to SEBI on a half-yearly basis within 15 days of expiry of the half-year, commencing from the half-year ended September 30, 2011.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a Divisional Engineer of Indian Railway Service-1995 batch posted at Bhusawal Division (Maharashtra) for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) from the complainant.
Indian Additives Limited Vs The ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Fact that a particular MAM used by the taxpayer cannot be rejected without providing any cogent reasons. Further, the Tribunal has mentioned that if there exist significant amount of purchases from Associates enterprises , the same cannot be included while computing the gross margins under the Resale Price Method [RPM].
The government has decided to levy tax on the interest obtained on Post Office savings schemes from the current financial year. The Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT )) has brought out a notification in this regard recently, which stipulates that any interest earned beyond Rs 3,500 (in case of individual accounts) and Rs 7,000 (in case of joint accounts) will be taxable from the running fiscal.
ITO, Mumbai Vs GSB Capital Markets Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether where the assessee has considered the amount receivable from debtor as bad debts in the books of account, no disallowance can be made for want of fulfilment of conditions of section 36(2) – Whether where the amount is given to the sister concern by the assessee interest-free out of own funds and for business purposes, no disallowance can be made for interest expenses u/s 40A(2)(a) – Whether the losses of mutual funds are rightly adjusted against the speculation profit on shares in view of explanation to section 73 – Whether where the amount is taken by the assessee under a business transaction, no addition can be made u/s 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
ACIT vs M/s Seaways Shipping Ltd. (ITAT) (ITAT Hyderabad) – Non deduction of TDS by the assessee was resulted in disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a) (ia), that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee has failed to deduct TDS which resulted in disallowance of expenditure; the mistake committed by the assessee was compensated by disallowing the expenditure. Further, the Revenue cannot penalise the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai -In the instant case, the original order was passed on 22.3.2004 u/s 143(3) of the I T Act and since the reassessment notice was issued for the purpose of adding the arrears of depreciation debited to P&L account and the revaluation reserves credited to P&L account to be reduced while computing book profits and since the order of the CIT relates to non-disallowance of expenditure in respect of exempt income under clause (f) to Explanation(1) of sec 115JB; therefore, in view of the decisions cited above, the period of limitation provided for in 263(2) would commence from the date of original assessment which, in the instant case is 22.3.2004. Since the order of the CIT u/s 263 is dated 30.3.2009, therefore, the same is barred by limitation.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- if adjustments had to be made to the closing stock, in the same token value of purchase/sale of goods and inventory had to be further adjusted to include the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. and even opening stock has to be recomputed in terms of section 145A of the Act, in which event there is no change in the end result and no case was made out by the Assessing Officer to make an addition. Even u/s. 43B of the Act so long as taxes were paid before the due date of filing of return of income addition cannot be made.
Convergys India Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, we note that gain is not on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange relating to assessee’s export activities. The same is with respect to the external commercial borrowings. This cannot be termed as derived from the export activity of the assessee. The assessee’s reliance in this regard on section 10A(4) does not come to its rescue, as the said sub-section only provides the formula for computing profits derived from the export activity. First, the income or gain has to be derived from export activity, only then the computation formula can be applied.
