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 : The Income-tax Bill, 2025 has been tabled in Parliament on 13th February 2025, marking a significant step toward simplifying the l...
Income Tax : Overview of key income tax changes for non-residents, charitable trusts, and individuals, including SEP rules, fund management, an...
Income Tax : Budget 2025 focuses on economic growth, tax reforms, and infrastructure. Key changes include new tax rates, financial sector refor...
Income Tax : Explore tax benefits available for parents under the Income Tax Act, including education, health insurance, and deductions for med...
Income Tax : Understand tax rules for debt mutual funds based on purchase date. Learn about slab rates, LTCG tax, indexation, and rebate eligib...
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 : Join our webinar on Faceless Tax Assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn concepts, challenges, and solutions from expert...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore sets aside CIT(A) order in Section 54 exemption case due to lack of documents. The case is remanded for fresh revie...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune restores Mauli Nagari's tax case to CIT(A)-NFAC due to non-compliance issues. Read about penalties, unexplained cash dep...
Income Tax : ITAT Lucknow held that delay of 4 days erroneously calculated as delay of 551 days by CIT(A). Accordingly, directed CIT(A) to cons...
Income Tax : Explore the ITAT Jaipur decision in Mujmmeel Vs ACIT, examining Section 263 order invoking unexplained investments and its implica...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh rules against penalty on estimated income in AKM Resorts vs ACIT, reinforcing that additions based on estimation d...
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...
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...
Income Tax : Bhaikaka University, Gujarat, is approved for scientific research under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective f...
Income Tax : Notification No. 14/2025 updates Form 49C submission rules for liaison offices under the Income-Tax Act. Filing deadline set to 8 ...
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Income Tax department from passing any order in the case related to payment of brand licensing fee and royalty by auto major Maruti Suzuki India to parent Suzuki Motor Corporation. A three judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia directed the department to maintain status quo till October 1, , next date of hearing of the matter on transfer pricing — the technique where parent companies sell goods and services to subsidiary.
The assessee, a hotel, incurred expenditure on acquiring licenses and permissions from various government bodies. This was classified as “goodwill” in the books and depreciation was claimed on the ground that it was an “intangible asset” u/s 32(1)(ii). The AO allowed the claim. The CIT passed an order u/s 263 in which he took the view that the AO had not applied his mind to the issue and that the order was “erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. The CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh order. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal: (i) The CIT had not recorded any finding to show how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Merely because the AO had not examined whether the approvals / registrations etc. amounted to intangible assets and had not applied his mind to the examination and verification of the allowability of depreciation on intangible assets did not mean that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was not the case of the CIT that depreciation was not allowable on such items ofintangible assets; (ii) An authority exercising revisional power cannot direct the lower authority to complete the assessment in particular manner. UOI vs. Tata Engineering AIR 1998 SC 287 followed; (iii) On merits, approvals/registrations etc amount to “intangible assets” and entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1) (ii).
Please note that the due date of filing of I-T returns for corporate taxpayers is 30th September, 2010 for AY 2010-11. In case you have not already E-filed your I-T return, please do so immediately without waiting till the last minute. The following are the important points to be noted: 2. Amendment to Rule 12 – Making Digital Signature Mandatory for Companies- Vide notification dated 9th July 2010 amending Rule 12, the CBDT has made it mandatory all Companies filing ITR-6 to digitally sign the I-T return for AY 2010-11.
The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicles, entered into dealership agreements with their dealers. The agreement provided for servicing and warranty including free service. The dealers margin covered pre-delivery inspection and three after sales services. The issue, therefore, was whether such pre-delivery inspection and after- sale-service charges are to be included in the assessable value of the goods for determining the duty liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944 („the Act?).
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had recently amended the Rules relating to the manner of furnishing the return of income for companies for Assessment Year 2010-11 and onwards. Under the revised Rules, all companies (including foreign compani
By majority opinion, the Tribunal found that the assessee cannot claim any credit for the TDS on the income which is not offered for taxation. The Tribunal further found that the benefit for the TDS is to be allowed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act u/s. 199.
CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals – section 28(iiid) covers only the “profit” (difference between sale consideration and face value of the DEPB credit) and that the “face value” is assessable u/s 28(iiib) is not correct. The entire amount received on transfer of the DEPB credit is “profits” and falls under s. 28(iiid). There was no basis or justification for the Tribunal to hold that the face value of the DEPB credit can be reduced from the sale consideration. It is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into “face value” and “excess of face value”. The approach of the Tribunal is misconceived and unsustainable. As the assessee had an export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and did not fulfill the conditions set out in the third proviso to s. 80HHC (3), it was not entitled to a deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB.
Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) concluded that gains derived from the transfer of shares by a Mauritius company to its wholly owned subsidiary in India would not be taxable in India under the Indian Income Tax Act (ITA), nor would such gains be subject to the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) (Praxair Pacific Limited (A.A.R. No. 855/2009)). The AAR further clarified that benefits under the India-Mauritius tax treaty would be available to the Mauritius Company.
P&H High Court in a ruling in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT held that Assessee gets title to the properly on the issuance cf an allotment letter and the payment cf instalments is only a consequential action upon which the delivery of possession flows and in calculation of holding period the period from the date of allotment and upto the date of possession will also be counted.
Delhi High Court Ruling: Transfer Pricing – Sec 92 – An important ruling by the Hon’ble High Court wherein it has been held that the methodology to be adopted by the Revenue Authorities for making an adjustment should be equitable and fair, and has ruled on the payment for the use of intangible assets and attributing arm’s length consideration for activities carried out by the licensee, etc. [Maruti Suzuki India Limited – W.P. 6876/2008]
