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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : ITAT Pune rules that late filing of Form 67 does not bar foreign tax credit under Section 90. Read about the case of Shashank Sada...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeal due to non-appearance, directing fresh consideration with a proper hearing ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remits the case of Gold Palace Jewellers back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration, citing a 4-year delay and lack of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune confirms CIT's order under Section 263, finding errors in reassessment proceedings for Gourishankar Education Society. A...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of B. Braun Medical India, deleting ₹2 Cr addition u/s 68, citing it as an advance payment, not unexp...
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...
Income Tax : BILL No. 14 OF 2025 THE FINANCE BILL, 2025 (AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA) THE FINANCE BILL, 2025 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES ______ AS IN...
The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revise the assessment order. In view of the above discussion, we hold that when the AO has conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view then while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263, the CIT cannot take a different view.
Indisputably, the documents placed at sl. no. 3 on page no.15-20 of the paper book viz. affidavit of Ms. Anjana Vohra, her confirmation and PAN details were never considered by the AO, having been submitted before the AO after the conclusion of hearing on 23.12.2009. There is no sl. no.4 in the paper book; admittedly sl. nos. in the paper book having been wrongly numbered. Though the ld. CIT(A) referred to the relevant submissions of the assessee in the impugned order and these documents are stated to have been placed before him, he did not record his specific findings in the light of these documents and merely affirmed the order of the AO.
The applicant approached this Authority with the present application seeking an Advance Ruling on a plea that all the agreements relating to this transaction were negotiated and concluded outside India. It takes the stand, that the loan having been guaranteed by EKN, the interest paid under the transaction is not liable to charge to tax in India under the Income-tax Act in view of Article 11.3 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention between India and Sweden. While allowing the application under section 245R(2) of the Act, this Authority framed the following questions for the ruling:
We had occasion to consider the ruling in Dassault, the ruling in P.No.30 of 1999 in re.(AAR/821/2009) of this Authority, the other relevant rulings and the ruling in Millenium, in our recent ruling in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. (AAR/822 of 2009). Therein we have held that there cannot be a user of software over which exists a copyright without a use of the copyright therein. The payment for such use can only be royalty. We have also held that what is paid by a seller on behalf of the customer and what is paid by the customer direct, both partake the character of royalty. In the light of that Ruling, it does not appear to be necessary to further reason out the issue. We adopt the reasons given by us in the Citrix Ruling to find that what is paid by the reseller to the applicant and what is paid for updates and maintenance are royalty and not business income.
The appellate authorities have taken the view, and do not appear unjustified in doing so, that with the basic facts having been divulged and established by the assessee with furnishing of necessary details, it was for the Assessing Officer to establish that the details were false or incorrect and the additions could not have been made merely on generalized observations or on suspicion. In an overall view of the matter, it is found that the finding of facts have been rendered by the appellate authorities on the relevant considerations after due examination of record and do not appear suffering from perversity.
A Parliamentary panel scrutinising the Direct Taxes Code – DTC Bill has suggested raising the income tax exemption limit to 3 lakh rupees from the present 1.8 lakhs. It has also suggested hiking of deduction on savings to 2.5 lakh rupees.
The new software, which allows taxpayers to access details of his ITR on smart phone, is being developed with the help of TCS. The new service will be part of the upgraded online return filing portal which will be launched in the next couple of months. The department already hosts services like viewing of tax credits, Annual Information Return (AIR), Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) status, various tax related forms and Tax Return Preparer Scheme (TRPS).
Income Tax Department filed an appeal u/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. High Court, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Income Tax Department challenged the decision on the ground that para 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and not to appeals filed earlier.
We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that Assessing Officer made the impugned addition and CIT(A) confirmed the same, but inadvertently mentioned about addition of Rs. 90,000/- instead of Rs. 1,50,000. Since addition is on estimate basis and assessee has also given some basis for low withdrawals such as getting facilities from employer, free of cost etc, therefore, assessee deserves part relief. As such, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if the addition made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is restricted to Rs.90,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. So, assessee gets relief of Rs.60,000/-.
The assessee has shown long term capital gains and short term capital gains on buying and selling of shares and mutual funds, but, the revenue treated the same as business income based on the claim of the assessee in AY 2004-05 as trading activity of the said transactions. The only dispute between the assessee and revenue is that whether the assessee’s claim of treating the income arising out of selling and buying of shares out of the capital gains is correct or treating the said income is a trading activity as held by the revenue based on the decision in AY 2004-05 is correct.
