Preeti Mohan Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) The petitioner before this Court is a practicing advocate and she has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the ITO to allow her to file income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through e-filing facility without insisting for production […]
On reading the provisions of section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the phraseology tax in arrears as envisaged in section 221 of the Act would not take within its realm the interest component.
section 2(11) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies as only two class of assets i.e., tangible and intangible assets and within these two classes of assets, assets having same rate of depreciation are prescribed and they fall within the same block.
A co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, which is not having a banking license from the RBI to carry on the business of banking, cannot be deemed to be a co-operative bank coming within the ambit of section 80P(4) of the Act.
Where assessee’s broker share transaction was bone fide in all respect, merely because share broker was tainted violating SEBI regulations, would not make assessee’s share transactions bogus.
Question of rectification of mistake cannot be entertained until and unless the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is found to be maintainable. The miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee are beyond the period of 6 months from 1-6-2016 and therefore the same are barred by limitation.
It is an important aspect to be examined whether Recipient- Assessee has directly paid tax or has no liability of tax at all. Since this aspect was not examined by Assessing Authority, therefore, in our view, Tribunal has rightly remanded matter to Assessing Authority to examine this aspect.
Rule 8D is triggered only in a case where the AO is not satisfied with the deduction made by the Assessee. The reasons to believe assume and are predicated on the belief that the AO should not have accepted the Petitioner’s deduction as explained and justified, albeit should have applied Rule 8D. Thus, the view and opinion formed by the AO, while passing the original assessment orders is doubted as erroneous. This is obviously a case of change of opinion.
The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the return of income was filed electronically within the due date and filing of ITR-V was a formality and delay in filing ITR-V cannot deprive the assessee from claiming carry forward loss duly determined for the relevant assessment yeare.
After the recent worldwide implementation of OECD’s recommendations to prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), another forum (The Platform for Collaboration on Tax) has released a discussion draft on The Taxation of Offshore Indirect Transfers – A toolkit (hereafter, referred as the toolkit) for public comments on 1 August, 2017.
