Notification No. 36/2011 – Income Tax Exemption u/s 139(1) to Specified Person from the requirement of furnishing a return of income for Assessment year 2011-12. An Individual whose total income for the relevant assessment year does not exceed five lakh rupees and consists of only income chargeable to income-tax under the following head,—(A) ‘Salaries’; (B) ‘Income from other sources’, by way of interest from a savings account in a bank, not exceeding ten thousand rupees.
Individuals having total income up to Rs. 5,00,000 for FY 2010-11, after allowable deductions, consisting of salary from a single employer and interest income from deposits in a saving bank account up to Rs. 10,000 are not required to file their income tax return. Such individuals must report their Permanent Account Number (PAN) and the entire income from bank interest to their employer, pay the entire tax by way of deduction of tax at source, and obtain a certificate of tax deduction in Form No.16.
Notification No. 35/2011 – Income Tax CBDT has vide Notification No. 35/2011 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of explanation to section 48 of the Act, CBDT has notified 785 as the cost inflation index, in respect of computation of gains arising on the transfer of long term capital asset. The said inflation index is applicable for financial year 2011-12.
Speaking on the occasion the Minister said 4.72 crore accounts up to 2008-09 are likely to be updated online by 15.7.2011 to ensure more transparency. He said that the Provident Fund Organisation has been directed to update all accounts by December 2011 and expressed the hope that this will be done as per schedule as this will be one of the major achievements since nearly 14 crore accounts were pending for updation on 1.4.2011 i.e. the beginning of the new financial year. He expressed his happiness that EPFO will now put the account balances of members on website so that any member can check his balances up to the year his account are updated. Considering this as a big achievement he added that most of the members grievances will be resolved once they are able to access their accounts through website.
Dalal Broacha Stock Broking Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai – Special Bench)- Provisions of section 36(1)(ii) will apply in case of all employees including share holder employees irrespective of the fact whether any extra services have been rendered or not. The issue whether payment of bonus or commission to an employee will be covered by the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) or section 37(1) is also settled by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Subodh Chandra Poppatlal vs. CIT (24 ITR 586) in which the Hon’ble High Court while dealing with similar provisions of the old Act held that when an expenditure fell under section 10(2)(x) [which corresponds to section 36(1)(ii)], in the sense that it is an expenditure in the nature of bonus or commission paid to an employee for services rendered then its validity can only be determined by the tests laid down in section 10(2)(x) and not by the tests laid down in section 10(2)(xv) which corresponds to section 37(1).
The Finance Act, 2011 has introduced with effect from April 1, 2011, Point of Taxation Rules in which, these rules will determine the point in time when the services shall be deemed to be provided. The general rule will be that the time of provision of service will be the earliest of the following dates: i. Date on which service is provided or to be provided ii. Date of invoice iii. Date of payment
CIT vs. Indian Hotels Co Ltd (Supreme Court) – The department filed a SLP challenging the order of the Bombay High Court declining to condone delay of 656 days in filing the appeal. The delay was explained as having been caused by several facts such as non traceability of case records, procedural formalities involved in the Department and the papers are to be processed through different officers in rank for their comments, approval etc. and then the preparation of the draft of appeal memo, paper book and the administrative difficulties such as shortage of staff.
Bela Juneja v CIT (Delhi High Court) – Additions under s 69 was justified since finding of facts has been arrived by lower authorities that assessee had made unexplained investment and there was huge difference between agreed price for purchase of property and price registered in sale deed and no perversity has been shown in such findings. Coming to the material available on record, enough evidence was found by the lower authorities pertaining to assessee from the premises in which she was living that the above payment in respect of property was made by her. The same has neither been accounted for nor assessee has given any satisfactory reply about the investment in question.
The Economics Offences Wing (EOW) of Chandigarh police Wednesday evening booked two city-based chartered accountants in a land-related fraud case, said the police. According to the police, they have booked the accused for cheating and criminal conspiracy.
In a relief to the garment industry, the government today said no excise duty will be imposed on uniforms and items like towels if they merely bear logo of the institution or company they are made for. .Such products would not merit treatment as branded products merely because the name of the school, institution or company or their logo is either printed, embroidered or etched on them,’the revenue department said.
