The Joint Director of Income-tax Systems has issued a letter dated 29.10.2014 stating that 5,09,898 taxpayers who had submitted an e-return in the earlier AYs with returned income of Rs. 10 lakhs and more have not filed a return for AY 2014-15. It has been stated that as a measure of revenue augmentation, a notice must be sent to the non-filers to furnish their returns for AY 2014-15

The Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance) has issued a letter dated 14.10.2014 stating that the department shall be observing the theme of “Combating Corruption — Technology as an enabler”. It is stated that the Observance of the Vigilance Awareness Week every year is a step towards promoting integrity whereby all the stake holders arc enthused to fight the malaise of corruption. In line with the CVC’s suggestion, the Chief Commissioners have been advised to consider undertaking various activities during the Vigilance Awareness Week such as display of banners, posters, organizing debates, lectures, etc and also to take a “pledge” that corruption will be avoided

Vide Order No. 182 dated 10.10.2014, the CBDT has transferred and posted several officers in the grade of Assistant / Deputy Commissioners of Income-tax with immediate effect and until further orders.

Vide Order No. 179 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014, the CBDT has ordered the transfers and postings of several officers in the grade of Additional/ Joint Commissioners of Income-tax with immediate effect. Vide Notification No. 12 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014, the CBDT has directed that several Joint Commissioners of Income Tax shall be placed in the Selection Grade (NFSG) in the Pay Band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000 + Grade Pay of Rs. 8,700/- with effect from 01.01.2014.

The Hindu has made available a copy of the judgement of John Michael Cunha J. in the case of State vs. Selvi. J. Jayalalitha (pdf). The judgement exposes the intricate arrangements that were made to launder the huge amount of cash credits that were received by J. Jayalalitha from alleged corrupt means. The judgement also raises disturbing questions as to the role of the auditors of the front companies in seeking to camouflage the true nature of the transactions. A few passages from the judgement are noteworthy