The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, it has been decided with the approval of competent authority that the Committee to examine ways to strengthen laws to curb generation of black-money in India, its illegal transfer and abroad and its recovery shall be co-chaired by Member (investigation), CBDT.
Two officials of the Provident Fund Commissioner’s office were arrested for taking bribes to settle a case, a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) official said Tuesday. ‘A complaint was registered based on a written complaint that Enforcement Officer A.L. Dighe demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000 on behalf of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner N.S. Margaj for getting the closure report of the case of Om Sai Enterprises pending with Margaj,’ said an official of the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch said.
L. N. Gadodia & Sons & ANR. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Supreme Court of India)- When two establishments are run by the same family under a common management with common work force and with financial integrity, they are expected to be treated as branches of one establishment for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act, the Supreme Court ruled last week.
M/s. Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.M. Johnny & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- Though civil law recognises the principle of ‘vicarious liability’ of directors of companies, the concept is not acknowledged in criminal law, the Supreme Court stated while allowing the appeal case, M/s Thermax Ltd Vs K M Johnny.
Land acquired by Government or its instrumentalities for a specific public purpose cannot be changed and transferred to private individuals or corporate bodies, the Supreme Court has held. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya said though Government enjoys power of “eminent domain” to compulsorily acquire any land for public purpose, yet,it cannot legitimise any fraudulent act of the authorities.
The Common issue involved in these writ petitions was with regard to denial of Input Tax Credit by the Assessing Authority on the ground that the dealers from whom the petitioners have purchased goods, have not deposited full tax in the State Treasury. The purchasers-petitioners have not been held entitled for deduction of Input Tax Credit in terms of the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
In Re Delta Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (AAR)- In the present case there is no transformation that brings about a fundamental change in the character and use of the goods. The name remains the same (i.e. accumulator, although an assembly of batteries is called a battery bank), the character and usage remain the same (i.e. provide direct current to an appliance though of differing magnitude etc.)
Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (Madras High Court)- Section 80-IA and in particular sub-cl. (iv) of the said section which provides for the benefit even in respect of electricity generation plant established by the assessee and the income derived from such enterprise of the assessee, it will have to be held that the assessee fully complied with the requirements prescribed under section 80-IA in order to avail the benefits provided therein. Therefore, the contention based on the interpretation of the expression ‘derived from’ can have no application to the case where the provisions of section 80-IA get attracted.
In Re Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte. Limited Vs. ADIT (International Taxation), Chennai (AAR)- Whether the different periods of the contracts are to be aggregated to reckon the threshold of 183 days under Article 5.3 of the DTAA in a fiscal year in a case where the projects are not carried out for the same principal. We notice that Naftogaz India had given two orders: one order in FY 2009-10 and another in FY 2010-11.
Italian Thai Development Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi)- The taxpayer has been computing its estimated revenue as per AS-7 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since AY 2003-04 on wards and the AO has not objected to this method in the prior years. Therefore, as per the principle of consistency, the same cannot be rejected in the year under consideration. The observations in the auditor’s report do not have a bearing on correctness of books of accounts and cannot form the basis for rejection of books of accounts.
