ITAT reiterate that the assessee is seeking to claim exemption from income tax on gains arisen from sale of land on the ground that the land was an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes by the assessee and the onus is on the assessee to prove that its case strictly falls under exemption provisions as are contained in the 1961 Act. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT states that under this issue the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The payer is under obligation to deduct the tax at source and on account of failure of payer to deduct the tax at source, the penalty interest u/s 234B cannot be imposed on the payee.
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance under 14A can be exceed the actual expenditure incurred in this regard?
The issue under consideration is whether late fee u/s 234E can be levied prior to 1.6.2015 i.e. prior to enactment of section 234E?
In this article, I am going to have a discussion on Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Which deals with disallowance of certain business expenditure in case of TDS default is made by the Payer at the time of making payments to a non-resident or foreign company.
It should be understand first that GST is tax leviable on supply of Good and Services both. It is consumption / destination based tax which against the previous principle of origin based taxation. Tax is charged on Value Added System (VAT) but business to business supply get credit of tax, with framework of law, and at the end tax goes in the hands of the state where consumption is made.
The Madras High Court issued the notice to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of GST for various issues related to Input Tax Credit, its transitional provisions and concern time limit.
Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the framing of an assessment against a non-existent amalgamating entity is sustainable in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of advances from customers treating the same as unexplained liability (Section 68) is justified in law?
Recently, I was approached by a multi-national company for an opinion regarding tax-treatment of the expenses reimbursed by the company on the re-location of an employee from his present location to the place of employment with the company. Of late, a number of multi-national companies and other big Indian companies have, by way of incentive, have started to make reimbursement of expenses incurred by an employee on re-location of his residence, etc.
