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 : 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 : New TDS Rules Under Section 194T: Impact on Taxpayers & Businesses – Effective from 1st April 2025 Introduction The Finance ...
Income Tax : Explore the economic impact of AI, automation, and recession on India. Understand how income tax laws may evolve to address unempl...
Income Tax : Ensure tax compliance before March 31, 2025. Key tasks include filing returns, verifying TDS, updating accounts, and making necess...
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 Pune dismisses revenue appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s decision that a tax reassessment based on a cancelled PAN was invalid....
Income Tax : Advocate Amardeep Soni & Advocate Harsha Soni Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) A Case Study of ITAT BANGALORE...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court rules on TDS applicability under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act in the case of Abbey Business Services Ind...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules that Section 50C adjustments cannot be made under Section 143(1) without referring valuation disputes to the DVO,...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune rules no addition under Section 69 if investment source is disclosed in the balance sheet. Partial relief granted for un...
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...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk CRIU/VRU case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA port...
The language used in section 10(23C)(iiiad)speaks about existence of solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit if the annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. However, if the aforesaid chart/income is analysed, we find that a huge abnormal profit has been created/earned by the assessee and the amounts are definitely beyond the prescribed limit.
However, in the case of a non-competition agreement or covenant, the advantage is a restricted one, in point of time. It does not necessarily – and not in the facts of this case, confer any exclusive right to carry-on the primary business activity.
In the present case, both, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have found that the transactions in question are neither in the nature of loans or deposits. Under the circumstances, the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act would not be applicable. Consequently, the question of contravention of such provisions attracting penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Act would also not arise. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference.
Mere possession of money, bullion, jewelery or such valuable article or thing per-se would not be sufficient to enable the competent officer to form a belief that the same had not been or would not be disclosed for the purpose of the Act. What is required is some concrete material to enable a reasonable person to form such a belief.
Conduct of ACIT10(1) Mumbai as well as CIT10 Mumbai is highly deplorable. Once the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner was transferred by the CIT10 Mumbai from ACIT10(1) Mumbai to DCIT Circle1(2) Pune by order dated 22.11.2011 it was totally improper on the part of ACIT10(1) Mumbai to request the CIT¬10, Mumbai to pass a corrigendum order with a view to circumvent the jurisdictional issue.
No doubt in a normal situation, so far as matters capable of two views being taken will be outside the ambit of section 154. However, right now, we are dealing with interpretation of section 10(10C) and so far as this interpretation is concerned, law laid down by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is that an interpretation in favour of the assessee is to be adopted.
Appellant had sought higher deduction of tax at source by annexing TDS certificates and not reflecting the income as shown in the TDS certificates in its return of income. The Tribunal on consideration of all facts had come to the conclusion that remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer would not serve any purpose, as the appellant had consciously claimed credit of tax deduction on the basis of the TDS certificates and even enclosed the same along with the return of income, but failed to show it, as a part of the income.
Though the order of the AO was erroneous, the same was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as no part of the capital gain became taxable because of loss of exemption u/s.11(1A) of the Act. Since the order sought to be revised u/s.263 of the Act was erroneous but not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, jurisdiction u/s.263 could not have been invoked by the CIT. We hold accordingly and quash the order u/s.263 of the Act. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed with the above directions and computation.
AO and the CIT(A) did not make any effort to verify the confirmations, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors in question and they also ignored the fact that the transaction of cash credits received and its repayment were made through bank and we also hold that the authorities below did not bring any incriminating material or evidence against the assessee trust to establish that the amount shown in the balance sheet as cash credits amounting to Rs.1,70,000 actually belonged or was owned by the assessee trust itself.
We are dealing with cases where though the amount was not deposited by the due date under the Welfare Acts, it was definitely deposited before furnishing the returns. We see no reason to make any distinction between the employees’ contribution or the employers’ contribution.
