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 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 : Learn about Section 40(b) limits on partner remuneration and the introduction of Section 194T for TDS on remuneration, effective A...
Income Tax : Budget 2025 has brought significant simplification in the tax treatment of house properties, particularly for self-occupied proper...
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 : Supreme Court examines "first offence" definition under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in the Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria case....
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai ruled that brokers facilitating land deals are not liable under Section 269SS as they act on behalf of clients and do...
Income Tax : Telangana HC upholds tax addition under Section 69A, ruling that the assessee’s land was not under cultivation, rejecting agricu...
Income Tax : Supreme Court confirms that Section 153C notices issued without a valid satisfaction note are invalid, aligning with the Delhi Hig...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court rules on Section 153C notices for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 in Dev Technofab Limited Vs DCIT, citing lack of incrimi...
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 assessee is solely responsible for executing the contract with the persons to whom he has given forklift vehicles on hire and it was only for fulfilment of this contract that he has also engaged the forklift vehicles from the outside parties. In case of hiring from outside parties the responsibility and the risk involved for performing the contract work lay with the assessee only and no such risk and responsibility seems to have been transferred to outside parties vis-à-vis his principals.
Assessee owned only 38 guntas of land when he started the construction, he acquired an extent of 1,440 sq. ft. of land adjoining the said land, thus making the total land in which the project was put up, to 44,470 sq.ft. more than 43,480 sq.ft. which is prescribed under the law. The modified housing project was approved in the year 2001 after the aforesaid provision was inserted. On 20.5.2003 occupancy certificate is issued. Therefore, the construction is within the 4 years period stipulated.
In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the AO found the payment of remuneration to director excessive having regard to either (a) fair market value of the services or facilities; or (b) the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee; or (c) the benefits derived by or accruing to the assessee on receipt of such services or facilities. The AO while making the disallowance observed that disallowance was made keeping in view quantum and nature of business of the assessee. But how quantum or nature of business affected payment of salary to its director, has not been elaborated.
After taking into consideration the Instruction No. 5 of 2008, it is found that by virtue of the said Instruction, the revenue was prohibited from pre
In the present case, the assessee can be said to have discharged its onus under section 68 of the Act in proving the genuineness of the share capital in respect of the impugned 22 shareholders in the light of proposition laid down by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in the cases cited above. The appellant has given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the aforementioned share applicants. It is also observed that all the share applicants are corporate assessees, incorporated under Indian Companies Act.
During the year under consideration the appellant received dividend income on surplus funds invested with various mutual funds through Citibank who acted as investment adviser with no cost to the appellant company. The dividends were directly credited to the bank account of the appellant electronically by ECS. No interest was paid by the appellant during the year. As such, the appellant did not incur any expenditure on earning dividend income and section 14A and the I.T. Act, 1961 did not apply.
In the instant case, the claim of the CIT is that the assessee is the owner of house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalroe and therefore, the said decision is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In our considered view, if the house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalore are owned by the assessee’s wife then the same cannot be considered as owned by the assessee for disallowing exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
Without any motive it is quite unnatural that any individual would extend the monetary benefit to any person in this day to day world. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajeev Tandon v. ACIT (supra) has observed that in such circumstances the taxation authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances.
Assessee here, in our opinion, did fall within the concept of rendering a formal education and could not be equated with a coaching institute. We are, therefore, of the opinion that assessee could not have been denied the eligible exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for a reason that it was not doing charitable activity as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act.
It has further been the contention of the revenue that the amendments vide Finance Act 2010, inserting mutually exclusionary clauses in s. 44BB and s.44DA are clarificatory, and hence are retrospective in operation, w.e.f. AY 2004-05. We find that this contention is not at all correct as the said provision of the Act cannot be said to be clarificatory and hence retrospective in operation. In this regard in the case of CGG Veritas Services SA (supra) comes to the rescue of the assessee. Furthermore, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2010, excluding the application of Section 44BB in cases where Section 44DA applies, is prospective and applies from assessment year 2011-12.
