Get all latest income tax news, act, article, notification, circulars, instructions, slab on Taxguru.in. Check out excel calculators budget 2017 ITR, black money, tax saving tips, deductions, tax audit on income tax.
Income Tax : Compare GST and Income Tax search and seizure processes, highlighting key differences in scope, authority, and taxpayer rights. Le...
Income Tax : Krishna, as in March the end of the financial year approaches, many people start thinking about how to save more tax. After all, a...
Income Tax : Understand eTDS return corrections, the six-year revision limit, and challenges in claiming TDS credit. Learn how tax adjustments ...
Income Tax : Explore our analysis on including Company Secretaries as Accountants under the Income-Tax Bill 2025. Benefits include improved com...
Income Tax : While tax avoidance is legal and involves strategic tax planning, tax evasion is illegal and constitutes fraudulent activities to ...
Income Tax : The Institute of Cost Accountants of India seeks inclusion of Cost Accountants in the definition of "Accountant" under Section 515...
Income Tax : Explore the Finance Bill 2025 highlights, including revised tax rates, TDS/TCS amendments, ULIP taxation, and updated rules for sa...
Income Tax : ICMAI addresses the non-inclusion of 'Cost Accountant' in the Income Tax Bill 2025. The Council is engaging with policymakers to e...
Income Tax : Lok Sabha issues corrigenda for the Income-tax Bill, 2025, correcting references, formatting, and legal citations. Read the key am...
Income Tax : KSCAA's representation to CBDT highlights challenges in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, focusing on delayed appeals and suggesti...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court directs tax authorities to review show-cause notices uploaded before 16 January 2024 and develop remedial measure...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court upholds AO's addition for unverified bogus purchases in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex. Decision based on Section 69C and ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes penalty on Babu Ram u/s 271(1)(c) as barred by limitation. Penalty order dated April 1, 2022, violated extended...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) needs to be condoned firstly by excluding COVID-19 pandemic outbrea...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on ...
Income Tax : Details of the Lok Sabha Select Committee's sittings on March 6-7, 2025, to examine the Income-Tax Bill, 2025, with oral evidence ...
Income Tax : CBDT updates income tax rules and forms for business and securitization trusts. Notification 17/2025 amends Rules 12CA & 12CC, imp...
Income Tax : Key updates on income tax deduction from salaries under Section 192 for FY 2024-25, including amendments, surcharge rates, and new...
Income Tax : CBDT extends the due date for filing Form 56F under Section 10AA(8) and 10A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to March 31, 2025, for...
Income Tax : The Central Government notifies Punjab RERA for tax exemption under Section 10(46A) of the Income-tax Act, effective from the 2024...
Tribunal observed that no penalty can be imposed merely because account books of assessee were rejected and that profit was estimated on the basis of fair gross profit ratio. With respect to retention of the portion of the sales tax, the Tribunal stated that no evidence was brought by the Revenue to suggest that assessee had retained a portion of sales tax with it. Assessee filed its explanation which could not be termed as not bona fide. In absence of any corroborative evidence to prove the charge that the portion of sales tax bill was retained by the assessee, penalty could not be imposed.
Referring to R.M. Chidambaram Pillai (supra); Kum. A.B. Shanti (supra); Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (supra), Tribunal held that there is no separate identity for the partnership firm and that the partner is entitled to use the funds of the firm and that the assessee acted bonafide and that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. We do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and the Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs.
In the present case, we notice that that petitioners belonged to the same family or group. They were subjected to common search operation. Their assessments were therefore, under proposal for transfer. A show cause notice was issued to all of them in which the Commissioner called upon them to explain why the cases should not be centralised at Ahmedabad for effective and coordinated investigation. After considering their objections and permitting the oral submissions by the authorised representative, the Commissioner passed the order transferring the cases on the ground that cases were required to be centralised. Since Bhavnagar did not have Central Range Office, they could be transferred at Ahmedabad. Their request that cases be consolidated at Bhavnagar or Mumbai was considered but not accepted. They were instead offered alternative places for transfer of cases within the jurisdiction of Surat, Baroda or Rajkot Office. They did not accept the offer. It was thereupon that the Commissioner proceeded to finalise his proposed transfer of cases from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad.
The assessee has not come out with the case that in the opening stock, the excise duty was not included. The explanation furnished by the assessee is that since in the subsequent assessment year, the turnover was less than one crore of rupees and as such, the goods were not liable to excise duty, therefore, in the closing stock of the relevant assessment year, the excise duty has not been added, is not legally tenable.
We already have delivered a judgment on 3rd April, 2013 in ITAT No. 20 of 2013, G.A. No. 190 of 2013 (CIT, Kolkata-XI Vs. Crescent Export Syndicates) holding that the views expressed in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (ITA.477/Viz./2008 dated 20.3.2012) were not acceptable.
The Senior Counsel argued at length, whether such non compete right constitute is a right in rem or otherwise, is a matter to be decided by an appropriate higher judicial forum. In the instant proceedings, we cannot import the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smifs (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that goodwill was an intangible asset and eligible for depreciation.
The Income Tax department has decided to name and shame chronic tax defaulters by publicising their names and addresses. It is in the process of finalising the procedures of compiling the names and cases pertaining to habitual tax dodgers and subsequently uploading them on its website. “The department would upload the names of such defaulters […]
Notification No. 30/2013 – Income Tax Central Government hereby notifies that where the variation between the arm’s length price determined under section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one per cent of the latter for wholesale traders and three per cent of the latter in all other cases
It is true that as per the agreement dated 13.9.1991, the assessee company was obliged to make payment for godown space which the assessee committed to hire from M/s. Coastal Roadways Ltd irrespective of whether such godowns utilised by the assessee or not. However, it is a matter of considerable importance that M/s. Coastal Roadways Ltd. never owned or possessed such godowns though so falsely claimed in the agreement dated 13.9.1991. More importantly during the entire period between 1.9.1991 to 31.3.1992, M/s. Coastal Roadways ltd. had not even hired the godown from any other source.
In the present case, the payment to the actual beneficiary is made by the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata and not by the Dy FA and CAO of Metro Railways Kolkata. No doubt, the tax deduction obligations are on the person who makes payment to the beneficiary, and it was an undisputed position that the payment for land acquisition was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this matter, Hon’ble Court also observed that the tax deduction obligation are on the person who “had money in his possession and was responsible for making the payment of that income to the assessee (i.e. actual beneficiary of compensation in this case).” It is important to bear in mind the fact that the assessee is this case was the person receiving the compensation in his own right and not in any fiduciary capacity. Therefore, even going by this principle, the tax deduction liability is on the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata who makes the payment to the person receiving compensation.
