• Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.


Contact details of departmental representatives is available.

Main Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - admin

S. 250/ 254: If a decision is challenged by the assessee both on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits, the appellate authority has to decide both issues. He cannot decline to decide one of the issues on the basis that the decision on the other issue renders it academic. This approach leads to multiplication of proceedings and leads to delay

I.T.A. No.6098/Mum/2016

Income Tax Officer-12(3)(4), M/s. Mohanraj Trading & Exchange

following CIT vs Ramdas Pharmacy [1970] 77 ITR 276 (Mad)

Discussion / PWC Auditors of Satyam arrested by Police
January 24, 2009, 08:51:47 PM
From moneycontrol.com

Sources in the Hyderabad police said the CB-CID police have arrested Satyam's two Pricewaterhouse auditors S Gopal Krishnan and Srinivas Talluri last night. Pricewaterhouse had not responded to the arrest, at the time of filing the report.

Earlier on Friday, the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate of the Nampally Court rejected the petition of market regulator Securities Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to interrogate the Raju brothers — Ramalinga Raju and Rama Raju — in connection with the Rs 7,000 crore Satyam corporate scam that rocked the country recently.

Sebi had filed a petition with the court to record the statement of the Raju brothers. The court rejected the Sebi petition "on technical grounds" and not on merits of the case.

Maintainability and jurisdiction could be the reasons for the petition being rejected and it is said the Sebi may need to approach the appropriate higher court to get the petition reviewed.

The magistrate also asked the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to rework its petition to include suitable sections to interrogate the under-judicial-custody Raju so that it can be allowed to go ahead.

The magistrate also extended the judicial custody of the Raju brothers and ex-Satyam CFO Srinivas Vadlamani till January 31. The bail petition of Ramalinga Raju and Vadlamani will take place on January 27, while the order on Rama Raju's bail petition was postponed to January 28.

In a related development, the CB-CID confirmed the arrest of Gopal Krishnam Raju, the general manager of SRSR Advisory Services, a firm promoted the Raju family.

The police also conducted search operations at the office of Maytas Infra in Greenlands, Somajiguda area in Hyderabad.

Discussion / Vodafone SLP dismissed by SC
January 23, 2009, 04:29:36 PM
SC asks Vodafone to respond to I-T notice
Press Trust of India
Friday, January 23, 2009 (New Delhi)

In a major setback to Vodafone, the Supreme Court today refused to intervene in the tax claim case of about $2 bn and asked the telecom firm to present its version before the I-T authorities and respond to the showcause notice.

A bench headed by Justice S B Sinha refused to hear the Vodafone plea that had challenged the Bombay High Court judgment, which on December 3 last year had dismissed a petition by Vodafone International Holdings BV, contesting a showcause notice by the I-T Department.

Vodafone, the Netherlands-based company, had bought a 67 per cent stake in Hutchison Essar from Hutchison Telecom International (HTIL) in February 2007 for $11.2 billion.

The I-T Department had asked the telecom major to pay $1.7 billion as capital gains tax for its acquisition of stake in Hutchison Essar (now Vodafone Essar) through a showcause notice on September 19, 2007.

According to Vodafone, it had purchased the entire share capital of non-resident company CGP Investments (Holdings) from HTI (BVI) Holdings, a foreign company having no presence in India. The entire consideration for the share capital purchase was paid outside India without deducting tax at source, it added.

Vodafone had moved the Bombay High Court alleging that the I-T Department had no jurisdiction over a deal between two parties incorporated overseas.

The text of the judgement of the Bombay High Court is available here