Statutes -Monday-June-2009-06-15

Simply find your latest Statutes Off Line and On Line concern Corporate Laws, Direct Tax Laws, Nbfcs, Securities Laws, Service Tax, Case Laws, Direct Tax Laws and other judicial rules – Fema,From Sc/Hc with

Online PR News – 16-June-2009 – – CORPORATE LAWS

Competition Appellate Tribunal (Form and Fee for filing an appeal and fee for filing compensation applications) Rules, 2009 - Notification No. G.S.R. 387(E), dated 4-6-2009


Senior Citizens Savings Scheme, 2004 - Acceptance of Form 15-G from the Nominees - Circular Ref. No. DGBA.CDD.H-10566/15.15.001/2008-09, dated 5-6-2009


Accounting for taxes on income - Accounting Standard 22 - Treatment of deferred tax assets (DTA) and deferred tax liabilities (DTL) for computation of capital - Circular No. DNBS.PD/CC.NO. 142/03.05.002, dated 9-6-2009


Guidelines for Investment by Mutual Funds in Indian Depository Receipts (IDRs) and copies of gazette notifications dated April 8, 2009 and June 5, 2009 - Circular No. IMD/CIR No. 1/165935/2009, dated 9-6-2009


Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Power not to recover duty of excise not levied or short-levied as a result of general practice - Notification No. 13/2009-Central Excise (N.T.)/G.S.R. 392(E), dated 5-6-2009


Find More Details For -

Allowability of expenditure on brokerage paid in connection with renting out of property - There is no provision for deduction on account of brokerage paid in connection with renting out of the property; merely because the brokerage may have been paid out of the rental income, it cannot be said that a charge has been created in the property much less an involuntary charge; thus, the brokerage payable for renting out the premises neither can be deducted from the rent under section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 nor the same is allowable as a deduction under section 24 of the Act - Tube Rose Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No. 4530/Del/2004]

Leviability of capital gains tax on assignment of trade-marks, designs and brand-names acquired by a company from its holding company - Whether there is consideration or no consideration, no transfer of a capital asset by a company to its subsidiary company, if it falls within the provisions of section 47(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall be considered as transfer and the provisions of section 45 would not apply - Trent Brands Ltd. v. ITO [ITA Nos. 2147/Del/2003 & 3185/Del/2008]

Allowability of deduction under section 80-IA of IT Act, 1961 claimed by a company whose main business activity is other than power generation - There is no clause in section 80-IA which contemplates that in order to claim deduction under section 80-IA, an assessee should carry activity of power generation as its main business - Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [ITA No. 4342/Del/2006]

Income from house property - Provisions of section 23(1)(a) apply both to owner-occupied property as also to property which is let out and measure of valuation to decide annual value is standard rent or fair rent - Income-tax Officer v. Pushya Properties (P.) Ltd. - [2009] 30 SOT 219 (MUM.) [IT APPEAL NOS. 6179 (MUM.) OF 2005, 5248, 5249 AND 5939 (MUM.) OF 2006, 5639, 5640 AND 5935 (MUM.) OF 2007 AND 2906 (MUM.) OF 2008, C.O. NO. 288 (MUM.) OF 2007]

Impact of Supreme Court’s judgment in Dharmendra Textile Processors’ case on scheme of section 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 - Even post Dharmendra Textile Processors’ judgment by the Supreme Court, merely because an addition is made to the income declared by the assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed; Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processor’s case does not bring about any radical change in the scheme of section 271(1)(c) though it does nullify the earlier Division Bench judgment of Supreme court in the case of Dilip Shroff to the extent it held that the onus was on the tax authorities to establish mens rea before a penalty can be imposed; raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; the deeming fiction of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) can only be pressed into service in connection with “facts material to the computation of income” and not in connection with
the computation of income per se; merely because an assessee does not challenge a particular addition or disallowance in appeal does not mean that the claim for such exclusion from income or deduction lacked bona fides - Kanbay Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 300/PN/07]


FERA v. FEMA - Once appeals filed before FERA Board were transferred to Tribunal by section 49(5)(b) of FEMA, they were required to be handled and decided under FERA, not only with regard to substantive rights but also with regard to procedural rights - Travels & Rental (P.) Ltd. v. Director, Enforcement Directorate - [2009] 92 SCL 211 (ATFFE - NEW DELHI) [APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2005]

visit our website