"21 April 2014" Archive

Section 40(a)(ia): Whether applicable to sum payable at the year end or on all sums during year

Section 40(a)(ia) of the act was introduced in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance (No 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 with the view to augment the revenue through the mechanism of tax deduction at source. This provision was bought so as to disallow the expenses on which TDS is not deducted but the […]...

Posted Under: Income Tax |

Addition for Subscription to share Capital by Kolkata based companies

M/s Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law but it canno...

Adieu to the Companies Act, 1956 : A tribute!

Finally, the long awaited moment has come for you to retire and your son, the Companies Act, 2013 to take charge of the affairs. Finally, the new Act will take your place in entirety as karta of the Corporate Gamut of the country. Everyone will get busy understanding his nature, his importance, his provisions and consequences of disobeyin...

Posted Under: Income Tax |

Taxation of shares’ income confusing you?

Confused about taxation of any income arising in respect of shares, be it capital gains on sale of such shares or dividends received? There is general perception that any income received in respect of shares is exempt from tax, be it capital gains or dividends. ...

Posted Under: Income Tax |

Addition for loan received after deposit of Cash in Bank Account of loaner

Ghisulal S. Jain(HUF) Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

It is a fact that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source of the amount found credited in the accounts of loan creditors as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarik Dwarikadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. (supra)....

ITAT Confirms Addition of 1% Commission on Hawala / Bogus Turnover

M/s. Saroj Anil Steel P. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4) (ITAT Mumbai)

The Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has failed to determine the correctly the hawala Income. The appellant has issued Bills i.e. Sales Bills to the commercial world i.e. the needy persons. Who has paid the appellant the Hawala Commission....

Search Posts by Date

March 2024