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 : Understand the concept of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, its classifications, roles, responsibilities, and available tax be...
Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : Stay on top of important compliance deadlines including GST, ESI, PF, SEBI, and Income Tax filings, with detailed due dates and fo...
Income Tax : Confused about the TDS rate on rent under Section 194-IB for FY 2024-25? Learn when to apply 5% or 2% based on the Union Budget 20...
Income Tax : Plan your finances before March 31 with this year-end tax checklist. Learn about old vs. new tax regimes, investments, deductions,...
Income Tax : Learn about advance tax, who needs to pay it, due dates, payment methods, penalties, and exceptions. Understand advance tax instal...
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 : ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of Jayaram Rangan, holding that consultancy fees received as a Managing Director should be taxed as pr...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court clarifies reassessment under Section 147 of the IT Act in CIT-5 vs. Jet Airways, ruling in favor of the assessee...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses IT department's appeal in CIT vs. Infinity Infotech, ruling reassessment cannot expand beyond recorded reaso...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses IT appeal against Subhlabh Steels due to ongoing insolvency under IBC, citing SC ruling in Monnet Ispat. Rea...
Income Tax : Karnataka HC remands Lalitamba Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita’s case to AO, questioning denial of Section 80P deduction on i...
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 Indian government is set to introduce the new Income Tax Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on February 13, 2025. This comprehensive...
Representations from field formations have been received intimating that owing to the delays in PAN Migration, PAN de-duplication and restoration, certain cases remain to be processed. However, AST does not permit these cases to be processed. Therefore, with the Board’s approval, the facility of Online TMS is extended for the cases time barring on 31-3-2013.
The original demand of Rs. 225.86 crores comprised of two components as per the petitioner. The two components were Rs. 114 crores towards the alleged principal tax liability and Rs. 110 crores towards the purported interest liability. We shall first consider the Rs. 110 crores interest liability. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said figure of Rs. 110 crores can be broken up into three components.
Assessee had produced relevant evidence before the CIT (Appeals) establishing that all the persons, who had deposited the share application, were not fictitious persons. Most of them were identifiable; they made the payment by cheques and most of them were assessed to Income-tax. The Tribunal has given further relief to the assessee and has not accepted the argument of the department that the explanation furnished by the assessee for the addition under Section 69 on account of unexplained investment was not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.
Arrangement by which the respondent-assessee sent tickets to the stockists who in turn sold the same to their agents did not indicate that the sale took place at the point of dispatch of tickets to the stockists. We also notice that the unsold tickets are to be returned to the organizing agent of the respondent-assessee at least one day before the actual date of the draw and any tickets received thereafter would not be accepted and treated as sold by the stockists. This makes it clear that those tickets which are returned by the stockists cannot be treated as having been sold. The corollary to this is that mere dispatch of tickets to the stockists would not entail a sale. It is only those dispatches of tickets which are not returnable in the manner indicated above which would be recorded as sales. Thus, till the date of the draw or just prior to the date of the draw it cannot be ascertained as to whether the dispatched tickets were actually sold or not. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and consequently, decide this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Apex Court has observed in Ajantha Industries (supra) is that while transferring the case on the ground of co-ordinated investigation, some reason has to be given by the commissioner which reveals why it is necessary to transfer the case for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation. In our view unfortunately Commissioner of Income Tax apart from stating that case has been transferred for co-ordinating investigation has not given any other reason. Impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside.
I filed Income Tax return of my client in July 2012 for assessment year 2012-13 which was very well before the due date of 31 July 2012. I filed another return of my client in March 2013, which was approximately 9 months late. But see the irony! The Return filed in month of March got processed and return Filed in the Month of July is still not processed.
Circular No. 2/2013-Income Tax SECTION 92C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, READ WITH RULE 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 – TRANSFER PRICING – COMPUTATION OF ARM’S LENGTH PRICE – APPLICATION OF PROFIT SPLIT METHOD CIRCULAR NO. 2/2013 [F. NO. 500/139/2012], DATED 26-3-2013 It has been brought to the notice of CBDT that clarification is needed for selection of profit split method (PSM) as most appropriate method. The issue has been examined in CBDT. It is hereby clarified that while selecting PSM as the most appropriate method, the following points may be kept in mind :
Circular No. 3/2013-Income Tax It has been brought to the notice of CBDT that there is divergence of views amongst the field officers and taxpayers regarding the functional profile of development centres engaged in contract R&D services for the purposes of transfer pricing audit.
Interest on FD and from bank on surplus funds – Even as admitted by the assessee during hearing, the same is only on surplus funds for the time being and, therefore, cannot be said to be derived from the assessee’s business. The same stands rightly excluded. Sales tax refund and excise duty draw back -As such, section 10B(1) read with section 10B(4) does not admit of receipt, the immediate source of which is not the economic activity itself, but a fiscal incentive, as being profit derived therefrom. Thus, the assessee’s claim in respect of aforesaid items was to be rejected.
Though the Assessing Officer invoked penalty under Section 27(1)(c) of the Act and stated that the assessee failed to furnish complete details from bank statement, on going through the materials placed before this Court, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has subsequently found that the said deposit was made for the period commencing from 01.04.2004 to 29.03.2005.
