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 : 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 : ITAT Cochin remands Thrissur Co-op Society’s demonetization cash deposit case to CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after ex-...
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...
There is no distinction in principle between a slot charter and a voyage charter of a part of a ship. They are both in a sense charterers of a space in a ship. The phrase “operation of ships” in Article 9 must be understood in the context of the phrase “the business of operation of ships” in s. 44B. As income from slot hire agreements falls within s. 44B it must be held to be within the ambit of Article 9(1).
It is now a settled proposition of law that the Appellate Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act, had no power to take back the benefit conferred by the Assessing Officer or enhance the assessment. Once the matter has been restored by the Tribunal, the income cannot be enhanced from what was determined at the time of original assessment proceedings, which was the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal. This proposition of law has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v/s CIT, [1966] 62 ITR 232 (SC), and had now been reiterated in Mcorp Global (P) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, in view of this proposition of law, the enhancement of assessment by making 100% disallowance in respect of free food allowance cannot be sustained and the same is restricted to 50%, as was made by the Assessing Officer in the original round of proceedings. Consequently, this ground is allowed to this extent only.
A look into the original assessment order clearly show that but for the deduction allowed to the assessee as claimed by it in its return, there was no discussion as to how Section 36(1)(viia) was applied and whether the limits were corrected worked out. Admittedly, no question was asked to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings also with regard to the claim made by it under Section 36(1)(viia),
Assessee put forth his claim for exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act with respect to three different incomes, namely, (1) interest from SSNNL bonds, (2) interest from GIPCL bonds, and (3) capital gain from sale of shares by GPEC. Such claim was supported by the notes forming part of the return of income. It is not as if the Assessing Officer did not notice these claims.
Even if the assessee as well as the authorities below agree that the internal comparables are sufficient for the TP study in the present case, that does not justify the legal compulsion of examining the external comparables as well. An agreement, arrived at on the basis of incorrect premises between the contending parties, does not determine the legality or otherwise of the course of action opted by them. The course of action must be determined strictly on the basis of the words of the statute and not by the consensus of the contending parties.
By looking at the aims and objectives of the assessee’s-society it was apparent that one of the objectives was construction of suitable memorials in the memory of war heroes but the other objects to be taken up the assessee-society by way of setting up educational institutions, arranging seminars, holding meetings/conferences and to organize lecture exhibition etc.,
No material whatsoever was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the payment of Rs. 1,20,00,000 was for the assessee not to engage in any business. Even so, the Assessing Officer opined that the compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000 was not a capital receipt liable to capital gains, but was a business receipt falling under “business income” and that rather, the “compensation” was for not carrying out any activity in relation to the business of the Company, which was taxable under section 28(va).
In the present case, it is an admitted position where the appellant had not furnished the return within time allotted to him under sub sections (1) and (2) and therefore, his case clearly falls within the provision of section 139 (4). Section 139 (5) merely stipulates that it is applicable to any person who has furnished the return under sub sections (1) or (2). In the present case, therefore, if the appellant had filed the return in time, and thereafter had filed a rectified return, he could be permitted to do so under the said provision. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the Legislature in its wisdom had intended to give the benefits of filing a revised return only to those persons who fall within the four corners of section 139 sub sections (1) and (2) of the said Act. If the legislature had intended to also give the same benefits to an assessee who had not furnished the return within time, it would have said so in sub clause (5). The very fact that sub clause 4 is not referred to in sub clause (5) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature.
Admittedly, vehicles have been taken under a finance lease arrangement and not under operational lease, Article 2.2 of the agreement entered into by assessee with LPIN provides for arrangement for the registration & insurance of the vehicles and inter alia, stipulates that vehicles shall be insured and registered in the name of the client, i.e., the assessee as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Given the definition of ‘lease or tenancy’ and the definition of ‘rent’ as appearing in Section 194 I Explanation, unless the payment is with reference to the use of any specified land or a building, payment made for availing of the services as in the nature landing or parking, as available in the present case before us, cannot be construed as ‘rent’.
