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 : Explore the concept of agricultural income under Income Tax Act 1961, including definitions, exemptions, and conditions for income...
Income Tax : IT Dept scrutinizes political donations ₹5L+ for tax fraud. Learn about Section 80GGC/80GGB, penalties, and steps to ensure comp...
Income Tax : Why does tax evasion still thrive despite all the efforts to stop it? And more importantly, what can be done to fix it? This blog ...
Income Tax : Through tax laws on Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) like cryptocurrencies and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), India has initiated the pr...
Income Tax : Explore evolution of tax laws from ancient times to the modern era, highlighting key changes, global trends, and challenges shapin...
Income Tax : Comprehensive list of 30 banks available at the e-Filing Portal's e-Pay Tax service. Find out the new and migrated banks, along wi...
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 : ITAT Pune remands the appeal of Mula Parisar Serva Seva Sangh regarding TDS refund claim for 2018-19, citing past precedents....
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai sets aside CIT(E)’s rejection of 80G registration for SKNNSM Society, citing inadequate time for response. Case sen...
Income Tax : ITAT directed AO to verify Factory Premises rental income and compute taxability under section 57, allowing proportionate expense...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court directs NFAC to expedite pending appeals, expressing concern over prolonged delays in taxpayer cases, including a...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT rules Section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act does not apply to transactions between holding and subsidiary companies, quashi...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk transaction case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA p...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk CRIU/VRU case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA port...
Income Tax : Learn about suspected benami, undisclosed foreign assets, and TDS compliance cases assigned under Risk Management Strategy via the...
Income Tax : The IT Dept. has flagged high-risk non-filers for AY 2019-22 on the Insight Portal under RMS Cycle 5. Assessing Officers can revie...
Income Tax : Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board receives tax exemption on cess, fees, and interest income under Sectio...
DCIT Vs. R. R.Builders (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute that the partners of the assessee firm are also partners of the firm M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai. We further find that the amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- each was withdrawn by Shri Rafique Shakur Shekhani and Shri Sayed Rasul Shaikh partners of the firm on 15.4.2005 from their partnership firm M/s M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai as per copy of cash book filed and the same amount was deposited by both the partners with the assessee firm on the same date.
ACIT Vs. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in A.R.J. Security Printers’ case [2003] 264 ITR 276 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi ), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts.
Investment within 6 months is the investment for that financial year in which transfer has taken place. Hence, subsequent investment is to be considered as part of the investment of financial year in which transfer has taken place. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing deduction to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1.00 crore u/s 54EC of the Act. We therefore, uphold the order of the AO.
Though vide Instruction no. 1/2006 dated 24-03-2006, it was clarified that trading units can be set up in the SEZ. However, the modification was made on 24-05-2006 in which it was made clear that the deduction u/s 10AA will be available in respect of the trading in the nature of re-export of imported good. Thus the assessees were promised that they will be eligible for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in respect of the profit earning on trading of re-export of imported goods. The revenue has not been able to show us that such instruction was not withdrawn or the Board has issued instruction that instructin dated 24-05-206 from the Ministry of Commerce will not be applicable for the purpose of allowing exemption u/s 10AA of the Act. Hence, in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction.
Para 2 of the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 24.3.2008 deal with the purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors. Assessee had clearly admitted before Settlement Commission that the claim of purchase from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors were all bogus. Additional income of Rs. 9,05,87,044/- relating to assessment years 1999-2000 to 2003-04 was also offered by the assessee before Settlement Commission. Assessee having admitted that the whole of the purchases from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors was bogus, no reliance could be placed on its claim that there was an advance of Rs. 1,00,92,400/- given by it to M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors. No doubt, assessee had offered Rs. 5,95,43,410/- for assessment year 2004-05 as bogus purchases from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors before Settlement Commission.
Rujuta N. Shah V/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that no proper and due opportunity was not provided to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) inasmuch as, the ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the paper book filed by the assessee, while deciding the appeal ex-parte, therefore, in the interest of justice the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) be set aside to his file to decide the same afresh which was not objected to by the ld. DR.
Shri Dev Ashok Karvat Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In Mr. Chetan R.Parikh V/s ITO in ITA No. 1569/Mum/2010 (AY: 2006- 07) dated 25.05.2011, it has been held by the Tribunal that the units of mutual funds are not generally a trading instrument because of comparatively low fluctuation and number of transactions in units are also not large.
Seeking relief for home buyers, accounting regulator ICAI has asked the Finance Ministry to double the tax exemption limit on loan repayment to Rs 3 lakh. “…it is suggested that the deduction in respect of interest on housing loan in case of self occupied property should be increased from Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh”, ICAI said in a pre-Budget memorandum to Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Salient features of this multilateral convention are – It is based on international standard of transparency and exchange of information. – This instrument is multilateral and a single legal basis for multi-country co-operation as against the DTAAs/TIEAs which are bilateral. It provides for an extensive network and there will be consistent application of provisions leaving limited scope for deviation.
CIT Vs. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC)- In the instant case, it was held that since the agreement between the assessee and the distributor clearly stated that the agreement was on principal-to-principal basis, payments made by the assessee to the distributor were incentives and discounts and were not to be treated as commission liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act.
