Notification No. 2-Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 read with clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA 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,
The income tax department has won its appeals against tea exporting companies when the Supreme Court resolved the prevailing conflict of views among the High Courts on the question as to at what stage Section 80HHC, deduction in income tax, should be allowed i.e. before the 60 : 40 apportionment under the 1962 IT Rule 8(1) or from 40 per cent profits on sales taxable as business income.
The Finance Act, 2007 changed the taxation of securities issued by an employer to its employees from April 1, 2007 (assessment year 2008-2009), by levying fringe benefit tax (FBT) on the employer in respect of securities, defined in section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, including Employees’ Stock Options (ESOP), and sweat equity shares, which may be allotted or transferred directly or indirectly to the employees (former or current) free of cost or at concessional rate for consideration other than cash for providing know-how, intellectual property rights or value additions.
IN this batch of writ petitions, the prayer is that the provisions of Section 245D(2A), Section 245D(2D), Section 245D(4A) and Section 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be declared unconstitutional. The provisions under challenge relate to settlement applications made by the Petitioners to the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Act prior to 1st June, 2007.
In Appendix 37A, for VKGUY product code No 9.1, 9.4 and 9.12, the Note given in Table 9 of Appendix 37A, relating to sourcing/registration by KVIC/KVIB, shall not apply, for exports w.e.f 1.4.2006. The said note is deemed to be modified to this extent.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) and also read with Para 1.3 and Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, the Central Government hereby makes the following addition with immediate effect at the end of Paragraph 2 of Notification No. 33(RE-2007)/2004-2009, dated 08.10.2007 (pertaining to prohibition on export of wheat and wheat products).
THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.
In the Bank of India case, the Authority for Advance Ruling pointed out that the section levying MAT should be considered a self-contained code. It should prevail over the other provisions of the I-T Act. The Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) has been in vogue intermittently for nearly 20 years. It has undergone several changes in structure. But the basic principle remains the same. The idea is that every company with ability to pay should contribute to the exchequer even though it may not show taxable income because of tax concessions and incentives utilised.
If the assessing officer is going to make good an omission on the part of the assessee, he must be expressly authorised by law to do so lest he is hauled over coals for cosying up to the assessee. The recent Supreme Court verdict in Goetz (India) Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323), tersely dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the assessing officer (AO) not allowing a deduction which it was admittedly entitled to under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but which it had not claimed by even filing the revised return, is unexceptionable though it has come in for criticism from some quarters.
The IT Department acquired a property at Gandhi Nagar in Chennai when the agreement for sale relating to the property was submitted for getting the ‘No Objection’ certificate. This was done on the ground that the apparent consideration was less than the market value. The department made an assessment and found that the difference between the market value and the registered value was more than 15 per cent.
