The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the due date of filing of returns of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 for all categories of cases in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to 30th November 2010. The decision was taken by the CBDT in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of […]
Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Finance 23-September-2010 The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the due date of filing of returns of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 for all categories of cases in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to 30th November 2010. The decision was taken by the […]
On consideration of the reports of disturbance of general life caused due to the law and order problem in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereby extends the due date of filing of returns of income for the assessment year 2010-11 for all category of cases in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to 30th November, 2010.
I am directed to invite attention to the Board’s circular No.4/2004-Cus dated 16.01.2004 which debars conversion of free shipping bills to Advance License/DFRC/DEPB shipping bills and allows conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to
In this case the ITAT has held that the agreements entered into by the assessee, viewed together in their entirety, pertain to a single transaction of purchase of assets. Accordingly, the amount paid for non-compete fees was considered to be for acquisition of a business and capital in nature. The ITAT has also observed that each case would need to be decided in the background of its peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus, if the facts in another case are different (e.g. in the case of a continuing business) it may be possible to distinguish the ruling of the ITAT.
An important proposition reiterated by this ruling is that conversion of UTI units into Tax free bonds would not be treated as transfer for the purpose of section 45 of the ITA. This principle laid down by the Tribunal is important as similar logic could apply to „conversion? of other forms of instruments, e.g. conversion of preference shares to equity shares for which there is no specific exemption under the law.
The draft Direct Taxes Code along with a Discussion Paper was released on 12 August 2009 for public comments to simplify direct tax legislation in India. Subsequently, comments were solicited from the public and examined by the Government. A Revised Discussion Paper was issued to respond to the major concerns and comments of stakeholders were released on 15 June 2010.
Prudential Assurance Company Limited (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Company’), a sub-account duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) filed a writ petition (Writ petition no.866 of 2010 ) with the Bombay High Court against the show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Commissioner). The Commissioner was seeking to revise an assessment order determined on the basis of a ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (‘the AAR’) in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund (AAR No. 678/2006). The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner and held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) after applying the AAR ruling in petitioner’s own case, cannot be regarded erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the tax department. Further, the High Court also observed that as per section 245S of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the ruling in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund cannot displace the binding character of the advance ruling rendered between the Petitioner and the tax department.
Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for taxability of income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E thereof. It provides for such income to be chargeable under the residuary head
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal , in the case of DDIT v. Nederlandsche Overzee Baggermaatschappiji BV. has analysed whether the lease of a dredger would be considered a bare boat charter or a wet lease. After analysis of the facts of the case, it held that the lease was a bare boat lease, and that a dry lease of equipment does not result in a permanent establishment.
