Sunday, March 28, 2010

INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR) HIGHLIGHTS ISSUE DATED 29-3-2010 Volume 322 : Part 1

INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR) HIGHLIGHTS

ISSUE DATED 29-3-2010

Volume 322 : Part 1

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

>> Premium paid to bank to ensure delivery of foreign exchange on stipulated dates at predetermined rates not admissible as interest on capital borrowed for purposes of business : Asst. CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. p. 20

>> Making incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of "particulars" for attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) : CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. p. 158

HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS

>> Personnel deputed to foreign country for fulfilment of contract for design and testing of software in foreign country entitled to deduction u/s 80HHE : CIT v. Information Architects (Bom) p. 1

>> Roll over premium to mitigate risk due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate deductible u/s 36(1)(iii) : Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Guj) p. 11

>> Canteen for workers inside factory premises constitutes factory building entitled to higher rate of depreciation : CIT v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (Bom) p. 29

>> Advertisement for appointment of dealer not akin to advertisement for recruitment of personnel not covered by s 37(3B)(ii) : CIT v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (Bom) p. 29

>> Amount received as compensation is capital receipt : S. Zoraster and Co. v. CIT (Raj) 35

>> Valuation of property determined for AY 1971-72 and attaining finality : Same valuation applicable for subsequent years : CIT v. Rawal Rajeshwarsingh of Samod (Raj) p. 39

>> Deeming provision that where any part of company's business consists of purchase and sale of shares, company deemed to carry on speculation business applies whether loss or profit arises from such transaction : CIT v. Lokmat Newspapers P. Ltd. (Bom) p. 43

>> In the case of companies under liquidation, s 104 has no application : CIT v. Golecha Properties P. Ltd. (Raj) p. 51

>> Loss of earlier assessment year to be set off against profit of assessment year 1993-94 to determine claim of deduction u/s 80-I : Daya Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (Patna) p. 55

>> Amount received on sale of levy free sugar is capital receipt not assessable : CIT v. Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (Mad) p. 59

>> Rent received by assessee engaged in development and sale of property assessable as income from property : CIT v. Haryana Urban Development Authority (P&H) p. 61

>> Beneficial owner of buses entitled to depreciation : CIT v. Smt. A. Sivakami (Mad) p. 64

>> AO to proceed whether revision was justified depending upon pending decision of Settlement Commission : CIT v. Vysya Bank (Karn) p. 69

>> Tribunal deleting additions on ground exact material in support of assessment not brought on record : Finding of fact : CIT v. Dr. A. P. Bahal (Raj) p. 71

>> Wrong claim for deduction does not amount to concealment of income : CIT v. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. (P&H) p. 73

>> Petitioner guarantor for loan taken by director of sister company for that company, recovery from petitioner valid : Molly Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. UOI (Bom) p. 76

>> No deliberate default where assessee on realising mistake committed by counsel accepting decision of AO : CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises (P&H) p. 80

>> Assessee deducted tax at source and deposited with Government and tax deduction certificates sent to persons on next day : Penalty cannot be imposed : CIT v. Ashapura Garments P. Ltd. (Bom) p. 83

>> Assessee not maintaining accounts : Penalty cannot be levied u/s 271B : CIT v. S. K. Gupta and Co. (All) p. 86

>> Tribunal finding additions to income were adjusted against value of closing stock and explanation of assessee was not false : Cancellation of penalty justified : CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. (All) p. 88

>> Notice for reassessment not valid where no material to show such escapement : Shankarlal Nagji and Co. v. ITO (Guj) p. 90

>> Deletion of additions did not represent undisclosed income : Justified : CIT v. Digvijay Chemicals (All) p. 95

>> Tribunal not considering reasons forming basis of order of Commissioner : Matter remanded : CIT v. KNR Patel (JV) (Bom) p. 97

>> Amount received under voluntary retirement scheme in excess of five lakhs of rupees entitled to relief u/s 89 : CIT v. T. K. Paliwal (Raj) p. 101, CIT v. S. N. Sharma (Raj) p. 105 and CIT v. Rabindranath Lal (Raj) p. 119

>> Commissioner directing payment of 50 per cent. of demand till disposal of appeal by CIT (Appeals) : Release of attachment subject to compliance with direction of Commissioner : Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India (Raj) p. 108

>> Rent : Apportionment between business income and income from house property : Finding of fact : CIT v. Mysore Intercontinental Hotels P. Ltd. (Karn) p. 116

>> Single donation of more than five per cent. for construction of one room in a hostel managed by particular community not a ground to deny renewal of approval of institution : Shri Sardarmal Sancheti Charitable Trust v. Union of India (Raj) p. 167

>> Department accepting nursing home run by two individuals not an AOP : No new materials discernible nursing home cannot be treated as an AOP : Dr. Narendra Prasad v. CIT (Patna) p. 171

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

>> Non-resident not liable to tax in India for marketing licensed software products through independent, non-exclusive, third party resellers : Dassault Systems K. K., In re p. 125

STATUTES

From our Reporter at the Supreme Court :

>> Appeal to High Court : Whether order for earlier year taken on appeal p. 1

>> Appeal to High Court : Dismissal on grounds of delay : Matter remitted to consider question of law p. 1

>> Bad debt : Whether writing off in books of assessee sufficient p. 2

>> Block assessment : Cross examination of witness p. 2

>> Block assessment : Income disclosed in regular assessment p. 2

>> Block assessment : Last panchnama for purpose of reckoning limitation p. 3

>> Block assessment : Mistake in computation of undisclosed income p. 3

>> Block assessment : Evidence relatable to search whether available for addition and penalty whether justified p. 3

>> Block assessment : Whether barred by time reckoning from date of last panchnama p. 4

>> Block assessment : Mere revocation of prohibitory order whether relevant for reckoning limitation p. 4

>> Book profits : Scope of interference by Assessing Officer p. 4

>> Book profits : Annual value of property : Whether rent paid by sub-lessee includible p. 4

>> Deduction : Whether allowable on income from dividend p. 4

>> Business : Single or multiple businesses p. 5

>> Business : When business set up p. 5

>> Business expenditure : Increased liability to interest on external commercial borrowings p. 5

>> Business expenditure : Liability owing to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate p. 5

>> Business expenditure : Travelling expenses of directors : Corporate club membership fees p. 6

>> Business expenditure : Whether salary, stamp duty, transfer fees and safe custody charges directly related to earning of dividend for the purpose of section 80M p. 6

>> Business expenditure : Commission payment p. 6

>> Business expenditure : Commission whether deductible p. 7

>> Business expenditure : Disallowance under section 14A on estimate p. 7

>> Business income : Interest from surplus funds temporarily invested in loans and advances p. 7

>> Business loss : Whether loss was trading loss p. 7

>> Capital gains : Eligibility for deduction under section 54EC on gains from sale of factory shed p. 8

>> Capital gains : Exemption whether allowable where proceeds invested in two flats p. 8

>> Capital gains : Purchase of two residential units p. 8

>> Cash credits : Persons to whom summons issued delaying proceedings, whether ground to make addition in hands of assessee p. 8

Friday, March 26, 2010

KNOW ALL ABOUT PPF (PUBLIC PROVIDENT FUND) FAQ

People who are interested in liquidity or small-term gains would not be very keen about PPF because the duration for the investment is 15 years. However, the effective period works out to 16 years i.e., the year of opening the account and adding 15 years to it. The contribution made in the 16th financial year will not earn any interest but one can take advantage of the tax rebate.

It is that time of the year that most of us would have already made our decisions as to where we will make our investments or would at least have had the chance of looking at different investment instruments.
At one point in time or the other we would have come across 'Public Provident Fund' as an effective investing instrument. But how much do we know about Public Provident Fund or, PPF?

What is the Public Provident Fund (PPF)?
The PPF is a long-term, government backed small savings scheme of the Central Government started with the objective of providing old age income security to the workers in the unorganized sector and self employed individuals.

What is the interest rate offered through PPF?
Currently, the interest rate offered through PPF is around 8%, which is compounded annually. Interest is calculated on the lowest balance between the fifth day and last day of the calendar month and is credited to the account on 31st March every year. So to derive the maximum, the deposits should be made between 1st and 5th day of the month.

What is duration of the investment?
People who are interested in liquidity or small-term gains would not be very keen about PPF because the duration for the investment is 15 years. However, the effective period works out to 16 years i.e., the year of opening the account and adding 15 years to it. The contribution made in the 16th financial year will not earn any interest but one can take advantage of the tax rebate.
The account holder has an option to extend the PPF account for any period in a block of 5 years after the minimum duration elapses. The account holder can retain the account after maturity for any period without making any further deposits. The balance in the account will continue to earn interest at normal rate as admissible on PPF account till the account is closed.

What is the minimum and maximum amount of deposit?
The minimum deposit that you can make into a PPF account in one whole financial year is Rs. 500. The maximum is Rs. 70, 000.

Who can open a PPF account and where?
A PPF account can be opened by an individual (salaried or non-salaried). An individual can open only one PPF account to which he contributes. A PPF account can also be opened in the name of your spouse or children.
It can be opened with a minimum deposit of Rs. 100 at any branch of the State Bank of India (SBI) or branches of it's associated banks like the State Bank of Mysore or Hyderabad. The account can also be opened at the branches of a few nationalized banks, like the Bank of India, Central Bank of India and Bank of Baroda, and at any head post office or general post office.

What are the tax benefits from PPF?
The amount you invest is eligible for deduction under the Rs. 1, 00,000 limit of Section 80C. On maturity, the entire amount including the interest is non-taxable.

Is it possible to withdraw the amount deposited at any time during the tenure?
Yes. You can take a loan on the PPF from the third year of opening your account to the sixth year. So, if the account is opened during the financial year 2009-10, the first loan can be taken during financial year 2011-12 (the financial year is from April 1 to March 31).
The loan amount will be up to a maximum of 25% of the balance in your account at the end of the first financial year. You can make withdrawals during any one year from the sixth year.
You are allowed to withdraw 50% of the balance at the end of the fourth year, preceding the year in which the amount is withdrawn or the end of the preceding year whichever is lower. For e.g., if the account was opened in 2000-01, and the first withdrawal was made during 2006-07, the amount you can withdraw is limited to 50% of the balance as on March 31, 2003, or March 31, 2006, whichever is lower.

SC: In favor of Revenue : Interest earned by co-operative credit society ... not eligible for deduction u/s. section 80P

Interest earned by co-operative credit society on surplus funds invested in short-term deposits with banks and in govt. securities not eligible for deduction u/s. section 80P

The words "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business" in section 80P(2)(a) emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the Society.

CASE LAW DETAILS
Decided by:, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, In The case of: The Totgars' Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. v. Income tax officer, Appeal No.:, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1622 OF 2010, Decided on: FEBRUARY 8, 2010

RELEVANT PARAGRAPH

At the outset, an important circumstance needs to be highlighted. In the present case, the interest held not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not the interest received from the members for providing credit facilities to them. What is sought to be taxed under Section 56 of the Act is the interest income arising on the surplus invested in short-term deposits and securities which surplus was not required for business purposes. Assessee(s) markets the produce of its members whose sale proceeds at times were retained by it. In this case, we are concerned with the tax treatment of such amount. Since the fund created by such retention was not required immediately for business purposes, it was invested in specified securities.

The question, before us, is – whether interest on such deposits/securities , which strictly speaking accrues to the members' account, could be taxed as business income under Section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of "Income from other sources", hence, such interest income would be taxable under Section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer. In this connection, we may analyze Section 80P of the Act. This section comes in Chapter VI-A, which, in turn, deals with "Deductions in respect of certain Incomes". The Headnote to Section 80P indicates that the said section deals with deductions in respect of income of Cooperative Societies. Section 80P(1), inter alia, states that where the gross total income of a cooperative Society includes any income from one or more specified activities, then such income shall be deducted from the gross total income in computing the total taxable income of the assessee-Society. An income, which is attributable to any of the specified activities in Section 80P(2) of the Act, would be eligible for deduction. The word "income" has been defined under Section 2(24)(i) of the Act to include profits and gains. This sub-section is an inclusive provision. The Parliament has included specifically "business profits" into the definition of the word "income". Therefore, we are required to give a precise meaning to the words "profits and gains of business" mentioned in Section 80P(2) of the Act. In the present case, as stated above, assessee-Society regularly invests funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore, cannot fall within the meaning of the expression "profits and gains of business". Such interest income cannot be said also to be attributable to the activities of the society, namely, carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members or marketing of the agricultural produce of its members. When the assessee-Society provides credit facilities to its members, it earns interest income. As stated above, in this case, interest held as ineligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not in respect of interest received from members. In this case, we are only concerned with interest which accrues on funds not required immediately by the assessee(s) for its business purposes and which have been only invested in specified securities as "investment" . Further, as stated above, assessee(s) markets the agricultural produce of its members. It retains the sale proceeds in many cases. It is this "retained amount" which was payable to its members, from whom produce was bought, which was invested in short-term deposits/securities . Such an amount, which was retained by the assessee-Society, was a liability and it was shown in the balance-sheet on the liability-side. Therefore, to that extent, such interest income cannot be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or in Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was right in taxing the interest income, indicated above, under Section 56 of the Act. An alternative submission was advanced by the assessee(s) stating that, if interest income in question is held to be covered by Section 56 of the Act, even then, the assessee-Society is entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of such interest income. We find no merit in this submission. Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be placed at par with Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, Section 80HHD(3) and Section 80HHE(5) of the Act. Each of the said sections has to be interpreted in the context of its subject-matter. For example, Section 80HHC of the Act, at the relevant time, dealt with deduction in respect of profits retained for export business. The scope of Section 80HHC is, therefore, different from the scope of Section 80P of the Act, which deals with deduction in respect of income of cooperative Societies. Even Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC was added to restrict the deduction in respect of profits retained for export business. The words used in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, therefore, cannot be compared with the words used in Section 80P of the Act which grants deduction in respect of "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business". A number of judgements were cited on behalf of the assessee(s) in support of its contention that the source was irrelevant while construing the provisions of Section 80P of the Act. We find no merit because all the judgements cited were cases relating to Cooperative Banks and assessee-Society is not carrying on Banking business. We are confining this judgement to the facts of the present case. To say that the source of income is not relevant for deciding the applicability of Section 80P of the Act would not be correct because we need to give weightage to the words "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business" attributable to one of the activities specified in Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. An important point needs to be mentioned. The words "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business" emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the Society. In this particular case, the evidence shows that the assessee- Society earns interest on funds which are not required for business purposes at the given point of time. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, such interest income falls in the category of "Other Income" which has been rightly taxed by the Department under Section 56 of the Act.
--

Income deemed to accrue or arise in India to non residents: Budget 2010

Commensurate with generally accepted international tax practices, the Indian tax laws provide for taxation of interest, royalties and fees for technical services of non-residents in India, provided the source of such income is situated in India.

The question / dispute has been arising that where the Non-resident has rendered services from outside India whether the source of income shall be considered to be lying in India for the purpose of Section – 9. This dispute was settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. DIT [2007] 288 ITR 408. The Hon'ble Supreme court has held that to tax the income from fees for technical services, the services must be utilized in India as well as must be rendered in India.

The Department considered this decision and came up with a retrospective amendment (w.e.f. 1/06/1976) vide Finance Act, 2007 by introducing an explanation to section – 9. As per the said explanation it was clarified that the income from Interest, Royalty and Fees for technical services shall be chargeable to tax in India irrespective of the fact that the non-resident has no residence or place of business or business connection in India.

However even after the introduction of said explanation the question of taxability when services have been rendered outside India remained unanswered. Therefore the dispute remained unresolved. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Jindal Thermal Company Ltd. 182 Taxmann 252 recently held that the services provided off shore or outside India cannot be taxed in India.

The department again considered the decision of High court vide Finance Bill 2010 proposes to change the explanation to section – 9 in view to bring the income from services rendered outside India under the tax net. In view of the proposed change only requirement for taxing income from such services shall be the utilization of services in India and not place of rendering the services.

The change is proposed w.r.e.f 1^stJune 1976.

This amendment has far reaching impact and it can affect the taxability of several items, which hitherto were not chargeable to tax in India.

ITR'S TRIBUNAL TAX REPORTS (ITR (Trib)) HIGHLIGHTS ISSUE DATED 29-3-2010 Volume 2 : Part 4

ITR'S TRIBUNAL TAX REPORTS (ITR (Trib)) HIGHLIGHTS

ISSUE DATED 29-3-2010

Volume 2 : Part 4
Reports

Fines paid to SEBI for unfair trading practice and unbusiness like conduct cannot be disallowed : Goldcrest Capital Markets Ltd. v. ITO (Mumbai) p. 355

Amount paid as salary to employees disallowed on ground of decrease in profits not justified : Goldcrest Capital Markets Ltd. v. ITO (Mumbai) p. 355

Amount spent on acquiring non-competition rights entitled to depreciation : ITO v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd. (Chennai) p. 367

AO estimating value as on 1-4-1981 at 10 times cost of acquisition for agricultural land fair and reasonable : Arun Sunny v. Dy. CIT (Cochin) p. 380

Assessee has no right to produce additional evidence before Tribunal unless leave granted by Tribunal for valid reasons : Arun Sunny v. Dy. CIT (Cochin) p. 380

Interest income arising out of contractual obligation taxable : Lanco Kondapalli Power P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Hyd.) p. 392

Assessee following method of "cost or market price whichever is lower" consistently, deletion of addition justified : Dy. CIT v. Majestic Holdings and Finvest P. Ltd (Mumbai) p. 407

Interest on temporary surplus funds deposited in bank for business purposes assessable as business income : Voltas International Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) p. 410

Interest income on margin money assessable as business income : Voltas International Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) p. 410

Interest earned on FD in bank, income-tax refunds and inter-corporate deposits assessable as income from other sources : Voltas International Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) p. 410

Net interest income alone to be excluded u/s. 80HHB : Voltas International Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Mumbai) p. 410

Interest on refund assessable in year of receipt : Dy. CIT v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (Chennai) p. 417

Assessment made on satisfaction of queries, not a case of lack of enquiry : Order not to be revised : Gupta International v. ITO (Delhi) p. 428

Where assessment barred by limitation, CIT cannot direct AO to pass fresh assessment order : V. Narayanan v. Dy/Asst. CIT (Chennai) p. 446

NEWS-BRIEFS

TDS to distinguish "works" against "sales" contract

In a landmark ruling recently, the Bombay High Court has said that sale contracts will not be subject to tax deducted at source (TDS), thereby giving relief to manufacturing companies, and also clarifying the issue by distinguishing between works contracts and sale contracts. In an oral judgment, delivered on March 12, the court held that while "works contract" were subject to TDS under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, "sales contract" were not. Section 194C deals with TDS on payments to contractors and sub-contractors, while section 40a(ia) disallows those expenses which are liable to TDS but on which no TDS has been deducted.

The court upheld the arguments of the pharmaceutical companies that contract manufacturing agreements entered into by them with other manufacturers amounted to a sales contract, which was not liable to TDS under section 194C. The High Court ruling will give clarity to companies whose appeals are pending at various levels like Income-tax Tribunals, courts or even with Commissioners of Income-tax (Appeals). The Bombay High Court judgment also clears doubts that had risen concerning deduction of TDS on sale contracts after a Karnataka High Court ruling that asked technology firms to deduct tax on all payments made to non-residents on software purchases.

The ruling also makes it clear that companies that outsource their manufacturing to other manufacturers, acting as contractors, will not be liable to deduct TDS on payments to the latter, and will also be allowed to treat these payments as deductible expenses, even though no TDS has been deducted.

The Revenue Department has been holding that manufacturing agreements entered into by companies with contractors make the former liable to deduct tax at source while making payments to the contractors under section 194C of the Income-tax Act and also disallowed the same as expense under section 40a(ia) as these amounted to "works contracts."

Under a "sales contract", the object of the sale is the transfer of property from one entity to the other, while a "works contract" involves the change of form and not transfer of property.

Therefore the court ruled that while a "works contract" attracts TDS and disallowance provisions, a "sales contract" does not. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated March 16, 2010]

F Employer's contribution towards overseas social security treated non-taxable

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has recently held that the mandatory contribution by the employer towards the social security in the home county of the employee (foreign national), wherein no benefit/right gets vested in the year of contribution should not be considered as a taxable perquisite in hands of such employee.

The ruling came in the wake of a case wherein an employee, a Japanese national, was working as a general manager with an Indian company. The employee's residential status under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the financial year 2003-04 was that of a "resident but not ordinarily resident". In the return of income filed for the said financial year, the employee did not offer to tax the employer's contribution towards social security, health insurance, etc., in his home country, i.e., Japan.

The employee contended that the issue in hand is fully covered in the favour of the employee in earlier decisions of the Tribunal wherein contribution towards social security made by the employer in the home country of the foreign national was held to be not taxable as a perquisite. Therefore, in the instant case, the amount contributed by the employer should not be treated as a taxable perquisite in the hands of the employee.

The Assessing Officer (AO) added the employer's contribution towards social security, health insurance, etc. in Japan to the taxable income of the employee in India. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, on the basis of Tribunal earlier decisions on the similar matter deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tax Department contented that it should be granted time to go through the decisions relied on by the employee and for that matter the case should be adjourned.

The Delhi Tribunal held that the said contribution did not give any right/benefit to the employee in the year of contribution and such benefit was dependent upon happening of an event in the future which is beyond the control of the employee, i.e., death, permanent disability, etc. Therefore, no income can be said to be earned/accrued to the employee in the year of payment. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated March 17, 2010]

Petition RTI to know why tax refund delayed ?

Life just got better for millions who have ran from pillar to post for years to secure their tax refunds from the Income-tax (I-T) Department.

In a landmark ruling, the Central Information Commissioner has passed an order which says information on refunds is covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

An assessee had filed an RTI petition with the (I-T) Department in Chennai, asking for information as to why was there a delay in the payment of his IT refunds for 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09, amounting to Rs. 3,32,457.

The Department, however, refused to provide as the information sought is covered under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, wherein the information sought is not in larger public interest and is purely personal in nature.

The Central Information Commissioner, while passing the order on another appeal to the Income-tax Department said : "To deny the appellant information sought by him under clause (e) or clause (j) of section 8(1) is nothing but misappreciation of law."

While directing the Income-tax Department to disclose information for the inordinate delay, he also ordered the issue of refunds within three months. The CIC also rapped the Department for failing to appear in a hearing arranged by the Commission where the appellant was present. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated March 15, 2010]

Top security arm to look into cyber attacks affecting I-T Department, banks

The Government's top cyber security arm has initiated a probe into complaints of Income-tax Department, banks and other financial bodies who have reported a spurt in cyber attacks and fake mails which was affecting their operations.

The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) CERT-In, a technical and cyber security department under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, is the nodal agency to analyse and respond to cyber attacks and intrusions into country's information and technology networks.

These agencies have asked the CERT-In to arm them with pro-active measures so that they can prevent phishing attacks as huge monetary transactions are involved and also recover any lost data.

"The CERT-In is working on incident reports sent by the I-T Department and various banks who have complained about phishing attacks on their servers and in one case even the facsimile of a banking institution was stolen and used for fraudulent purposes," a source said.

While banks have reported about "fraudulent entities" interacting with their customers to share passwords, account details and PIN numbers to the CERT-In, the Income-tax Department and its directorates have reported fake mails sent to taxpayers and have also asked for securing passwords used by income tax officials, especially handling refunds. [Source : www.economictimes.com dated March 15, 2010]

--
Me on net :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/
http://itronline.blogspot.com/

Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."