Agenda of Discussion:- Key Economic Trends, Amendments made by Finance Bill, 2018 under the Income tax Act, 1961., Amendments made by Finance Bill, 2018 under Indirect tax laws.
It has been decided that in case of ‘Start Up’ companies which fall within the definition given in Notification of DIPP, Min. of Commerce & Industry, in G.S.R. 501(E) dated 23.05.2017, if additions have been made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act after modifying/rejecting the valuation so furnished under Rule 11UA(2), no coercive measure to recover the outstanding demand would be taken.
At any point of time in any particular financial year, the Central Government may, on the recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax Council, provisionally settle any sum of integrated goods and services tax collected in that particular financial year which has not been settled so far.
The Income Tax Department has issued about one lakh notices to people who have invested in crypto currencies like Bitcoin and have not declared it in their income tax return, CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) chairman, Mr Sushil Chandra said at an ASSOCHAM event held in New Delhi today.
On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is an agent of the Government of Maharashtra, without appreciating the facts that there is no evidence/documents substantiating that the Principal-Agent-Relationship exists between the assessee and the government of Maharashtra.
This article covers the aspect of corporatization of businesses, merits of corporate structure and demerits of non corporate structure.
Kamla Devi Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) was not a procedural error which could have been corrected in the wake of deeming provisions of section 292BB. Thus, assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 was quashed. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed […]
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 139(1) Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80 Return of income–Requirement to file return electronically–Return filed manually–Claim for set-off and carry forward of losses Conclusion: Simply because the assessee could not file the return electronically within the provisions of section 139(1), the benefit of set-off and carry forward of losses could not be denied for the reason that the assessee did file return of income manually within the due date specified under section 139(1).
Where assessee sold certain property and utilized a part of the consideration towards purchase of new house, however, failed to deposit unutilized consideration in specified accounts before due date under section 139(1), AO was justified in restricting deduction under section 54F proportionately.
A tax like Goods and Services Tax was highly publicised and termed as popular. We had yet not seen a celebration of New Tax regime, but that has followed with great hue and cry. These celebrations mean nothing.
