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 : Bombay High Court rules on tax evasion by Buniyad Chemicals, addressing unexplained credits, money laundering, and regulatory acti...
Income Tax : Understand the New Income Tax Bill 2025, key policy changes, structural revisions, and interpretation methods. Learn how these upd...
Income Tax : Article explores effectiveness and influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) on FDI flows with particular emphasis within ...
Income Tax : Learn about deductions allowed under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for income from other sources, including family pensi...
Income Tax : This blog explores the implications of this tax policy, the distinction between games of skill and chance, the applicability of Ta...
Income Tax : CBDT invites stakeholder suggestions on simplifying Income Tax Rules and Forms under the Income Tax Bill, 2025. Submit feedback vi...
Income Tax : India's direct tax collections for FY 2024-25 show a 13.13% net growth, with gross collections up by 16.15% and significant gains ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues clarification on Circular 01/2025, stating it applies only to the Principal Purpose Test in certain DTAAs and does not...
Income Tax : Corporate tax collections increased post-rate cuts. No specific tax incentives for MNCs, but new measures aim to support electroni...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Bill 2025 aims to simplify tax laws with no major policy changes. It enhances clarity, reduces ambiguities, and ali...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses ITO's appeal against Sun Gold Capital Ltd due to low tax effect under CBDT Circular 09/2024. Key issues i...
Income Tax : Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's ruling in Rakesh Saxena Vs PCIT. The tribunal upheld the revision order, treating VRS benefits as tax...
Income Tax : Madras High Court quashes assessment order citing lack of proper notice and violation of natural justice for a non-resident taxpay...
Income Tax : Bombay HC quashed Trent Ltd.’s tax refund adjustment under Section 245 of the IT Act, citing a violation of natural justice. Rev...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune dismisses revenue appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s decision that a tax reassessment based on a cancelled PAN was invalid....
Income Tax : Guidelines for Assessing Officers on handling high-risk e-Verification cases under the e-Verification Scheme 2021, including steps...
Income Tax : CBDT allows data sharing with Delhi's IT Dept. for social welfare scheme identification under Income Tax Act Section 138. Read the...
Income Tax : CBDT issues FAQs on revised guidelines for compounding offences under Income Tax Act, 1961. Covers filing procedures, fees, compet...
Income Tax : Finance Ministry specifies Power Finance Corporation Ltd.'s ten-year zero coupon bond with Rs. 49,546 discount, for Income-tax Act...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk transaction case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA p...
A plain reading of the said provisions would reveal that what is required for the purpose of seeking approval thereunder is that the University or other educational institution should exist ‘solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit’. It is nowhere the case and/or finding of the learned CCIT that on account of the said defect in the admission procedure, the Trust ceased to exist solely for educational purposes and/or it existed for the purposes of profit.
We do not find any merit in such argument. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana, recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer has reported that the voluminous nature of entries cannot be verified. Once the Assessing Officer himself has failed to verify the entries, there is no reason to disallow the distribution expenses. It is a rule of thumb which was applied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana to allow expenses to the tune of 40%, which has been found to be unjustified by the Tribunal.
Notification No. 14/2013 – Income Tax Whereas the annexed Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income signed in Addis Ababa on the 25th May, 2011 shall come into force on the 15th day of October, 2012
Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue.
The agricultural land situated in areas lying within a distance not exceeding 8 kms. from the local limits of Municipalities or Cantonment Boards are covered by the amended definition of ‘capital asset’, if such areas are, having regard to the extent of and scope for their urbanization and other relevant considerations, is notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Central Government in its Notification No. 11186 dated 28-12-1999 clearly clarifies that agricultural land situated in rural areas, areas outside the municipality or cantonment board etc.,
We see no reason to take a different view from that adopted by the Bombay High Court. However, Mr Sabharwal, appearing on behalf of the revenue, raised a pointed question as to whether, in fact, the provision for payment of bonus in this case was actually an ascertained liability.
Admittedly, the facts of the year under consideration and assessment year 2004-05 are identical. In AY 2004-05, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on certain assets while in the year under consideration, he disallowed the depreciation on all the assets. In our opinion, when the facts are identical, the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking a view inconsistent with the view taken by the Department in AY 2004-05.
If the provisions of clause (d) of notification dated 23.5.1995 are perused, it can be seen that the income must not have been chargeable to tax on the basis of any order passed by the jurisdictional High Court and it should become taxable as a consequence of any retrospective amendment of law or on a decision of the Supreme Court. Insofar as the case in question is concerned, it can be seen that the petitioner was assessed with the status as a Firm and that subsequently, following the judgment of this Court in Narayanan & Co.’s case (supra), assessment was re-opened and the tax was re-assessed treating the petitioner as an Association Of Persons. Therefore, situation as contemplated in paragraph 2 clause (d) was not available to the petitioner to claim the benefit thereof.
In the absence of any material to show that said amount was sent by the assessee’s mother and brothers from Singapore, the claim of the assessee does not merit any consideration. Thus the amount of Rs. 78 lakhs treated as unexplained investment under section 69 and assessable as undisclosed income for the block period stands confirmed.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the reopening of the assessments was prompted by the opinion which the respondent formed while framing the assessment for assessment year 2007-08 that the licence fee payment was not an allowable deduction, cannot be accepted because, as we have observed earlier though the genesis of the issue can be traced to the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08, the reasons recorded show that the assessing officer took proceedings under Section 147 on the ground that the licence agreement was not filed by the petitioner in the original assessment proceedings. When there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish the primary facts, it is futile to examine the question whether the re-assessment was prompted by a change of opinion based on the view which the assessing officer took in subsequent assessment proceedings.
