The doctrine of mutuality bestows a special status to qualify for exemption from tax liability. It is a settled proposition of law that exemptions are to be put to strict interpretation. Asssessee having failed to fulfil the stipulations and to prove the existence of mutuality, the question of extending exemption from tax liability to assesse, that too at the cost of public exchequer, did not arise. Once it was conclusively determined that the assessee company had not operated as a mutual concern, there would be no question of extending exemption from tax liability.
Since assessee had not disclosed any black money or asset in the income tax proceedings going against him rather he had denied the same, therefore, while respondents may proceed pursuant to the impugned notices dated December 20, 2017 to assessee under Section 10(1) of the Black Money Act calling upon them to produce the details sought for in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 under the Black Money Act however, no coercive measures might be taken against assessee if the occasion so arose.
Actions to be taken by the deductor on receipt of the certificate: Please validate the PAN of the deductee submitting the certificate. The Certificate should be valid for the PAN, Section and Rate which has been mentioned in the statement filed. Check that the certificate is valid for the relevant Financial Year.
Receiving Gift indeed brings a cheerful smile on the face of the receiver, but if receiver gets to know that he has to pay tax thereon, the smiling face may turn sad. Although Gift Tax Act has been abolished, however there are certain provisions in the Income Tax Act, which make the gift taxable in […]
Addition under section 68 for not proving the source of income of partners who have made the deposit with the firm in their capital account could not be made as partners had shown the agricultural income in their personal returns of the past years which had been accepted by the department as such and the partners were all identifiable and separately assessed to tax thus, the source of investment having been explained and therefore, the addition could not have to be considered in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the firm.
When it was presumed that investment in hundi was bogus in such a situation there was no money available for the investment made by the assessee as such amount surrendered was not available, therefore, this proved that donation was made out of business receipts, which was an allowable expenditure.
Since the activities carried on by the liaison office of the non-resident in India was to only carry on such activity of a ‘preparatory or auxiliary’ character, therefore, the same was not a PE in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA and the deeming provisions in Sections 5 and 9 of the 1961 Act could have no bearing.
In simple terms, a dividend is the distribution of the profit of the company among its shareholders. The dividend income referred to in section 115-O of the Income Tax Act is exempt under section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provisions of said section 10(34) are taken up and explained in the present […]
Even though assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases during the assessment proceedings, he filed affidavits and statements of the dealers in penalty proceedings and appellate authority had not only accepted the explanation offered by assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by assessee thus the quantum addition under section 68 would also have to be deleted.
Form 15CA and Form 15CB to be filed in relation to remittances to non-residents under section 195(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). This new rule is effective from July 1, 2009 and shall apply to all remittances being made after July 1, 2009. The process that will have to be followed, before any remittance can be made, is as under—
