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 New Tax Bill 2025, replacing the Income Tax Act of 1961. Learn about its simplified structure, global alignment, and c...
Income Tax : Explore the feasibility of flat tax in India. Analyze its impact on equity, revenue, and socio-economic challenges compared to pro...
Income Tax : Explore how new tax rebate under Section 87A allows individuals to avoid tax on incomes up to Rs 12 lakh. Learn through illustrati...
Income Tax : The introduction of Section 194O in the Income Tax Act, 1961 for e-commerce transactions, has created certain overlaps with Sectio...
Income Tax : Finance Bill 2025 limits tax loss carry-forward under Section 72A to 8 years from the original assessment year. Learn about its im...
Income Tax : CPC (TDS) reminds deductors to file TDS Statement 26Q for Q2 FY 2024-25. Late/non-filing may attract fees and affect TDS credit fo...
Income Tax : Union Cabinet has approved the new Income Tax Bill 2025, aiming to simplify and modernize India's tax system by replacing the 1961...
Income Tax : CBI registers case against 9, including Deputy Commissioner, 2 Inspectors, and 5 CAs, for sabotaging Faceless Tax Scheme; searches...
Income Tax : India's tax arrears stand at ₹47 lakh crore as of Dec 2024. CBDT & CBIC are taking steps, including asset identification, litiga...
Income Tax : India decriminalizes minor direct tax offenses to ease compliance. New measures include litigation management, compounding guideli...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that adjustment of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is not permissible adjustment under section 143(1) of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Agra held that confirming penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act before finalization of quantum assessment is unjus...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 68 or 69A of the Income Tax Act for cash deposit during demonetization period unjustifi...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that suo moto disallowance with bona fide yet mistaken belief that amount is liable to be offered for taxati...
Income Tax : Supreme Court examines "first offence" definition under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in the Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria case....
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 ...
Income Tax : CBDT amends Income-Tax Rules, 1962, updating regulations for Infrastructure Debt Funds, including investment criteria, bond issuan...
Income Tax : CBDT authorizes data sharing with DFPD to identify PMGKAY beneficiaries. MoU to govern data confidentiality, transfer mode, and ti...
The partnership is governed under the provisions the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Section-4 defines partnership as “Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all”. Section-5 provides that the relation of the partnership may be reduced in writing through a contract between them while Section-7 provides that where there is no written contract, the partnership be treated as partnership at will.
We find that with regard to the investment of Rs. 5907.18 lakhs in foreign subsidiaries, no disallowance can be made under section 14A because dividend income from foreign subsidiaries is taxable in India. Regarding balance investment of Rs. 38 crores approximately in Indian subsidiaries, we find that interest-free own funds of the assessee is many times more than this investment because interest free funds available with the assessee as on March 31, 2005 as per the balance-sheet as on that date is of Rs. 929.57 crores. There is no finding given by the Assessing Officer regarding any direct nexus between interest bearing borrowed funds and investment in Indian subsidiaries. Hence, in our considered opinion, no disallowance under section 14A can be made out of interest expenditure in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue’s appeal are rejected.
Tribunal relying on its decision in case of Radhe Developers v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) held that respondent assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the housing project development though the assessee may not be the owner of the land.
In the present case, admittedly there is no past demand which has remained unpaid. Therefore only when the Assessee files a return of income quantifying his total income for the assessment years in question can it be said that there has arisen tax liability for the relevant AYs. The due date for filing return of income or the fact that advance tax was due on a particular date will not make the liability of the Assessee an “existing tax liability” on those dates. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. R.V. Raibagy & Co. & others ITR Case Nos. 4 to 10 of 2003 dated 29.3.2005 has also taken the view that adjustment of seized cash against tax due u/s.140A of the Act, on income declared in a return of income filed should be allowed.
Director of assessee company Mr. Varun Sarup Agarwal issued a cheque on 1.2.2007 on behalf of the assessee company for payment of rent and assessee company opened its account after issuance of this cheque. The amount of Rs. 2 lakh was deposited in the bank account of Mr. Varun Sarup Agarwal with a bona fide intention to prevent dishonoring of the cheque issued to the landlord of the assessee company and the remaining amount was returned back to the assessee company’s bank account. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is doubtful whether the amount received by director with an intention to deposit it to the bank account with a bona fide belief that this would save the prestige of the company can be characterized as a loan or a deposit within the meaning of Section 269T of the Act. Although Section 269T of the Act does not expressly confer any exemption from transaction between connected parties or sister concern but a perusal of the decided cases on this point shows that there is a cleavage of judicial opinion.
It is observed that the claim of the assessee about wrong classification of double taxation credit was rejected by the AO because the assessee did not file a revised return. This view was canvassed by the AO on the basis of the afore-referred judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra) However, it is pertinent to note that para -4 of this judgment provides that operation of this judgment is restricted to the AO and it does not, in any way, affect the powers of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to examine and allow assessee’s claim about the eligible amount of double taxation credit as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the present case the CIT (Appeals) had found as a fact that from the assessment year 1997-98 it was the assessee’s wife Mrs. Pallavi Sood who was the owner of M/s Trans World International. It was on that basis that she had filed the return of income and the finding of the CIT (Appeals) was also accepted by the Revenue. The finding of fact has not been challenged before us as perverse. It seems to us that the Revenue, having accepted the finding in the assessee’s wife’s case, cannot take a different view in the assessment of the husband. That would amount to taking contradictory or inconsistent stands without any just cause. We do not, therefore, see any infirmity or error of law in the decision of the Tribunal.
Obviously therefore, the Assessing Officer of the searched person during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, could not have arrived at the satisfaction that the income was that of the present assessee and not the persons originally searched.
In the circumstances, we find no reason or justification to entertain the request for setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007, particularly after the lapse of time that is prescribed in the statutory remedy available under Section 254(2). The petition has been filed almost five and a half years after the order of the Tribunal with no reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay. As we have noted already, there is no merit in the alternate submission that the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007 left open all the grounds of appeal. Plainly that was not so.
It is undisputed that the transaction involve two domestic companies, who are individual and independent subsidiaries of their own and independent holding companies. This is also not in dispute that neither of the holding companies could be called the AE of the other contracting party. This is also not in dispute that, there is any transaction, involving a non resident company.
