Income Tax is a code in itself and for levying taxes certain terms have been defined in a particular manner and they carry special meanings. Word ‘person’ is one among them. So, in our humble opinion, State Government is a person for purposes of collecting tax at sources as per the provisions of Sec 206C of the Act.
On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it can be seen that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to deduction under sec.80IB of the Act since the assessee unit is located in an industrially back-ward State specified in VIII Schedule and is governed by the provisions of sub-sec. (iv) of Sec.80IB of the I.T. Act. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by analyzing the provisions of the Act held that the assessees,
Since the Second Quarter Review (SQR) of Monetary Policy in October 2012, headwinds holding back the global economy have begun to abate gradually, although sluggish conditions prevail. In the US, activity gathered momentum in Q3 of 2012 but this is unlikely to have been sustained in Q4. While a political consensus to avert the ‘fiscal cliff’ has calmed financial markets,
The test of enduring benefit which was perceived as the true and applicable test to judge whether an expenditure fell in capital field has been, over the years, considered as a self-limiting one. The Courts have held that a proper approach has to be adopted and in doing so the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense
The general proposition that while remanding issues for fresh consideration by the assessing officer, the Tribunal should be very cautious in issuing directions, even if it is only for the guidance of the assessing officer. The direction should not give rise to a situation where the assessing authority is likely to feel incommoded by it.
It is a fact that the documents were given to the petitioner only after more than two years. But the reasons stated by the Chief Commissioner would unequivocally indicate that initially the request was made to release the books of account and documents; then the returns were prepared even without the originals.
The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee’s wife.
Whether a complaint filed by one of the directors before the Common Law Board alleging irregularities such as illegal siphoning off of the company’s funds by two other directors constitutes tangible material, on the basis of which reopening U/s 147 is possible?
The absence of any explanation is statutorily considered as amounting to concealment of income. In the absence of any explanation regarding the receipt of the money, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee, an adverse inference is sought to be drawn against the assessee under the first part of clause (A) of the said Explanation.
Kind attention is drawn to the above mentioned subject. For the A.Y. 2012-13 e-filed returns cases till 22nd Jan. 2013, where refund is likely to be > = Rs. 10 lakhs are 28,444 in number, which are currently pending for processing at CPC. These ITRs are categorized as under :
