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 key updates in the New Income Tax Bill, 2025, effective April 2026. Covers tax year, compliance, deductions, international t...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Bill 2025 aims to simplify tax laws by replacing the 1961 Act. It includes 23 chapters, 16 schedules, and 536 secti...
Income Tax : Perquisites and Profits in Lieu of Salary are important components of taxable income under the Income Tax Act of 1961. These refer...
Income Tax : Budget 2025-26 focuses on growth, tax relief, and investment. GDP projected at 6.3-6.8%, new tax slabs ease burden on middle class...
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 : Analysis of income tax return filings in India over five years, including trends, zero-tax cases, and government initiatives to en...
Income Tax : Government addresses Supreme Court judgment on tax exemptions for clergy and its implications on Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) u...
Income Tax : Corporate tax collections rose post rate cuts from AY 2020-21, except during COVID. Budget 2025 proposes presumptive tax for elect...
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 : Therefore, the procedure that is required to be completed for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be co...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune deletes additions against Ganraj Homes LLP based on extrapolated on-money allegations, citing lack of corroborative evid...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 towards unaccounted gold and silver jewellery set aside relying on CBDT instructi...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court held that recovery of tax arrears by income tax department from property that was already auctioned by Kerala Ge...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that license fees paid to M/s. Remfry & Sagar for use goodwill vested in the company is allowable as deducti...
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...
From the above circular, it would be clear that the amendment bringing self generated intangible assets such as trademark to capital gains tax only with effect from Assessments Year 2002-03 onwards. In this case, we are concerned with Assessment Year 1999-2000 and therefore, the amendment would not have any effect.
If cost of asset not doubted in earlier years, it can’t be held as sham if sold to parent co. at nil profit Transfer of shares held as investments by subsidiary to overseas parent co. at cost of acquisition is not a sham nor colourable device
The assessee has been rendering income from the business and the failure on the part of the taxing authorities to have discovered undisclosed income on the basis of search carried out cannot be finalized for the purpose of satisfying the search operation by estimating a meager higher amount as rate of return of NP which NP rate is variable on the basis of claim of expenditure allowable u/ss.30 to 37 of the I.T. Act.
We find that when a person was allowed to act as sub broker, he was initially allowed to issue even a contract note to his clients. Moreover, such sub broker could receive payments from clients and make payments to clients from his accounts. This position was changed vide Circular No. 9 (SEBI/MRD/MIRSD/DPS-1/CIR-31/2004) dated 26th August, 2004 as noted by the AO. But by this change assessee could still act as a remisier and the only restriction is that now he cannot issue the contract note for any transaction which has to be issued by the main broker. Even the payments were to be received and made by the main broker. However, assessee still remained entitled to his commission which was to be shared by the main broker with such remisier. Therefore, the assessee even after the change of regulation could have still acted and could have shared the commission with the main broker i.e. Sharekhan or he could have changed his broker or even he could have himself become a member of the stock exchange because he had a large client basis. Simply because assessee preferred to sell his business along with tangible assets would not mean that the agreement would become that of an agency. It still remained an agreement between a principal to principal. Therefore, in our opinion, it is a clear case of sale of assets and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and accordingly we confirm his order.
There was no fresh tangible material before the Assessing Officer to reach a reasonable belief that the income liable to tax has escaped assessment. The order passed originally on 29th March 2005 under Section 143(3) of the said Act was passed after the respondent had made adhoc claim for expenditure at 30% of the professional receipts in the revised return of income which was later withdrawn. In fact the reasons for reopening the assessment for the year 2002-03 itself records that the the claim of 30% adhoc expenses was withdrawn when the respondent assessee was asked to substantiate the claim.
Claim for deduction under Section 80IB cannot be denied in this year based on the findings given by the Assessing Officer or by the virtue of surrender of claim before the Assessing Officer. It is a duty casts upon the Assessing Officer or to the appellate court to see that if a deduction or a claim for exemption is statutory allowable, then the same has to be allowed, if the assessee fulfils the prescribed conditions required under the statute.
In the instant case, the property in question is residential house, which has not been let out or used for the purpose other than residential. Therefore, even though the assessee did not stay in the house so long, this house is exclusively for residential purpose. Therefore, the conditions as enumerated in the third proviso to rule 3 are satisfied.
In this case, the right to receive the brokerage and commission always remained outside India and what was received by the assessee in his Indian bank account is a subsequent remittance of funds from foreign accounts to Indian accounts. As far as the assessee is concerned, the right to receive the income did not arise in India.
1. That part of the enhancement of lease rent, which is attributable to Mehta Charitable Trust surrendering its right to purchase khair wood in favour of the assessee company constitutes revenue expenditure. 2. That part of the enhancement of lease rent, which is attributable to improvement and modernization of plant and machinery carried out by the Trust in the year 1989-90, constitutes revenue expenditure. 3. The enhancement in lease rent, if any, which is attributable to normal appreciation, if any, in line with the lease rentals prevailing in the market constitutes revenue expenditure.
Yet another issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the capital gain tax, in this case, would be leviable at the normal rate of 20% or at the rate of 10%. Admittedly, capital gain tax at the rate of 10% was payable only in case of ‘listed securities’. Since, these shares had been transferred to the applicants in the public offer, by 5.1.2006 before they were actually listed on the stock exchanges on 6.1.2006, they were not ‘listed securities’ at the time of sale by the appellant and consequently, the transaction would not be eligible for payment of capital gain tax at the lower rate of 10%.
