Notification No. 33/2010/ F.No.142/12/2010-SO(TPL), New Delhi, the 11th May, 2010. Income-tax S.O. 1056(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income tax Rules, 1962, namely:-

income tax forms, Income Tax Return, Income Tax Return form for A.Y. 2010-11, ITR 1 in Excel Format, ITR 2 in Excel Format, ITR 3 in Excel Format, ITR 4 in Excel Format, ITR 5 in Excel Format, ITR 6 in Excel Format, ITR 7 in Excel Format, ITR 8 in Excel Format, ITR for A.Y. 2010-11, ITR in Excel Format for A.Y. 2010-11, ITR V in Excel Format, [More...] IT acknowledgement in Excel Format, Income Tax Return form for F.Y. 2009-10, ITR 1 in Word Format, ITR 2 in Word Format, ITR 3 in Word Format, ITR 4 in Word Format, ITR 5 in Word Format, ITR 6 in Word Format, ITR 7 in Word Format, ITR 8 in Word Format, ITR for F.Y. 2009-10, ITR in Word Format for F.Y. 2010-11, ITR V in Word Format, IT acknowledgement in Word Format, Saral II in word Format, Saral II in Excel Format

The Finance Ministry has come out with ‘Saral-II’, the new income tax returns form, that seeks to make tax filing easy on the assessee and gather information on TDS paid on salary and interest. The Saral-II, a two-page form, was mentioned by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee in his Budget speech for 2010-11.

CBDT notifies New Income Tax Return Form SARAL II (ITR 1) for Assessment Year 2010-11 for Individuals having income from Salary/Pension/Income from One House Property (Excluding loss brought forward from previous years) / Income from Other Sources (Excluding winning from Lottery and Income from Race Horses). CBDT also notifies Income Tax Return Verification Form ITR-V for Assessment Year 2010-11 for SARAL II (ITR-1) ITR-2, ITR-3, ITR-4, ITR-5, ITR-6 & ITR-8 transmitted electronically without digital signature.

In all the returns filed in ITR-1 and ITR-2 for the A. Y. 2008-09, where the aggregate TDS claim does not exceed Rs four lakh and where the refund computed does not exceed Rs.25,000; the TDS claim of the tax payer concerned should be accepted at the time of processing of return.

In CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court was considering a case of reopening u/s 147 within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. The Court held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind.

The next two items are penal charges of Rs.5,11,688/ – and Rs. 10,970/-. These amounts have already been held to be business income while discussing the issues of section 80IB. Accordingly, we direct the AO to treat these two amounts as part of business income for computation under section 80HHC.

The assets did not fall under any of the above exceptional three conditions. The said block of assets was used for the purpose of business during the year. Under the circumstances the assets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration , we are, therefore, of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for deprecation. We accordingly allow the claim of the assessee.

The applicant is a US-based manufacturer engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods and is also an R&D-based service provider. It entered a cost al ocation agreement with its India-based group company. The applicant raises invoices on the Indian group company for services rendered based on the formula given in the agreement. The question before the Authority for Advance Ruling was: “Whether payments made for availing services listed out in the agreement are taxable in India and if taxable whether it is liable to TDS under Section 195 of the Act?”

The assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 in which it claimed that the subsidy received by it from the government was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in view of P.J. Chemicals Ltd 210 ITR 830 (SC). The Petition was allowed by the CIT. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in Sahney Steel and Press Works 228 ITR 253 that the subsidy received by that assessee was a revenue receipt. Pursuant to this judgement, the CIT passed a rectification order u/s 154 by which he held that the subsidy was a revenue receipt. The assessee challenged the said order by a writ petition before the Madras High Court which was dismissed. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal: