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 : Plan your finances before March 31 with this year-end tax checklist. Learn about old vs. new tax regimes, investments, deductions,...
Income Tax : Delhi HC ruled WGF Financial Services can't claim bad debt deduction under Sec. 36(1)(vii) as furnishing guarantees wasn't its reg...
Income Tax : Switzerland halts the unilateral application of the MFN clause under its tax treaty with India from 2025, following the Indian Sup...
Income Tax : Explore 151 FAQs on Finance Bill 2025, covering tax provisions, IFSC benefits, TDS/TCS, transfer pricing, and more for informed fi...
Income Tax : Compare GST and Income Tax search and seizure processes, highlighting key differences in scope, authority, and taxpayer rights. Le...
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 : ITAT Mumbai rules on Nickunj Eximp case: Disputes over bogus purchases, demonetization cash deposits, and assessment procedures....
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court quashed a tax reassessment notice issued to Indus Towers Ltd. for AY 2009-10, citing procedural lapses and mi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai condones a 314-day delay in Atlantic Bio Medical Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal, citing a bona fide mistake in tax filing and a ri...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court rules that a jurisdictional assessing officer cannot override the faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that that mens rea is not an essential condition for imposing penalties under civil acts. Penalty u/s. 270A of...
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...
Section 192 deals with the deduction of tax at source. It is computed on the estimated income of the assessee under the head ‘salary’ and the liability is at the time of payment of salary, if there is a perquisite, there is responsibility to deduct tax of the employer under section 192(1), 192(1A) and 192(1B). Perquisite is actually not a payment of salary but a benefit not in terms of money.
The assessee had wrongly taken the benefit of Section 80IA on the gross total income by reducing the loss of Unit-II from Unit-I and thereby declaring the return at Nil and carried forward the loss of Rs. 23,94,827/-, which was not permissible.
Given the fact that the Settlement Commission order was made on 11.6.2002 and as on the date of insertion to Explanation 1(iv) with effect from 1.6.2002 the applications were pending before the Settlement Commission, we have no hesitation in rejecting the assessees’ contention that the Explanation should not be given retrospective effect.
Notification No. 45/2012-Income Tax It is hereby notified for general information that the organization National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [said Act], read with rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from assessment year 2011-12 onwards in the category of “Scientific Research Association”, engaged in research in science subject to the following conditions, namely:-
CIT(A) followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in part and not in toto. He was of the view that interest and salary to the partners be allowed but not interest to third parties and the depreciation was to be allowed as claimed in the original return because the claim made in the revised return could not be substantiated. However, he has brought nothing on record as to how and in what manner the claim in the revised return was not substantiated particularly when the then learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 30th March, 2007 accepted the filing of revised return and the said order on the issue of acceptance of revised return
Section 271(1)(c) empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalties wherever the assessee does not furnish accurate particulars, in the form of returns, such as concealing the sources of income, or withholding true and full information. This duty was spelt out by the Supreme Court as one cast on the assessee to disclose all facts, including every potential income.
As for the excess area constructed, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), it is for the BBMP to look into the violations if any in the construction of the housing project. That however does not authorize the Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has not got approval for the housing project OR that the conditions laid down in section 80IB (10) stated violated.
What is to be seen in the instant case, is whether the claim for deduction of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, made by the assessee was bona-fide and whether all the material facts relevant thereto have been furnished and once it is so established, the assessee cannot be held liable for concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Having regard to the facts noted above as well as explanation adduced by the assessee in respect of the payments and the suspicious approach of the DGIT(E) towards the evidence adduced by the assessee without noticing the crucial facts such as payment by cheques etc., it seems that the DGIT(E) was not justified in law in readily inferring that assessee manipulated and fabricated its books of account and vouchers and also debited personal, bogus and exaggerated expenses.
As explained by assessee, the income could not be offered as assessee sought approval under section 10(23G) as early as of 24-8-2005 which was followed with reminder letter addressed to the CCIT on 17-1-2006. Since the application was made in form No. 56E, it is natural that the Board will either accept or reject the application in a reasonable period of time. As on 1-11-2006 assessee has not been communicated by the result of the application, even though it was following it up.
