CA Sandeep Kanoi CBDT has vide Notification No. 24/2014 dated 01.04.2014 amended rule 12 of Income Tax Rules 1962. Prior to amendment of Rule 12 and upto A.Y. 2013-14 All Political Parties were allowed to Furnish ITR 7 in any of the following mode :- (i) furnishing the return in a paper form; […]
CA Sandeep Kanoi CBDT has vide notification NOTIFICATION NO. 24/2014, Dated: April 1, 2014 amended the rule 12 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and provided that notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, shall be furnished electronically in form No. 10 w.e.f. Assessment year 2014-15 before expiry of time […]
CA Sandeep Kanoi Up to A.Y. 2013-14 Partnership Firms to whom provisions of section 44AB (i.e. those Under Tax Audit) were required to furnish the return for assessment year 2011-12 and subsequent assessment years electronically under digital signature but the Partnership firms to whom Provisions of section 44AB were not applicable they were allowed to […]
Tax Audit under the Income Tax Act is currently allowed to be conducted only by the Chartered Accountant but Proposed Direct Tax Code 2013 allows Tax Audit not only by Chartered Accountant but also by Company Secretaries and Cost Accountants.
Whether for the purpose of Section 54EC of IT Act, 1961, the period of investment of six months should be reckoned after the date of transfer or from the end of the month in which transfer of capital asset took place?
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of AT&T Communication Services India (P) Ltd vs. CIT held that The question whether the accounts and the related documents and records available with the A.O. present complexity is essentially to be decided by the A.O. and in this area the power of the court to intrude should necessarily be used sparingly.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that The law only requires that the information or material on which the AO records his or her satisfaction is communicated to the asseseee, without mandating the disclosure of any specific document.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that It is expected of from Assessing Officer, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts
In the present case, it is not in doubt that the payment of tax made by resident/ depositor is in excess and the department chooses to refund the excess payment of tax to the depositor. We have held the interest requires to be paid on such refunds. The catechize is from what date interest is payable, since the present case does not fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 244A of the Act.
In the case of CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat SC has held that the respondent-trust is a charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that Section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted to the respondent-trust and thereby, it would be eligible to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
