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...
Explanation below section 9(2), as relied on by the ld DR, requiring inclusion of income in the total income of the non-resident whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business-connection in India or the non-resident has rendered services in India, is applicable only in respect of clauses (v) to (vii). Clause (i) of section 9 has not been included by the legislature within the ambit of this Explanation. It shows that unless a non-resident earns income from business operations carried out in India, such income cannot be deemed as accruing or arising in India. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is crystal clear that the assessee rendered “International services” outside India which required the payment in question. If this is the position, which has not even been disputed by the learned Departmental Representative, then there can be no question of roping such income within the ken of section 9(1)(i).
Issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports V/s CIT (supra) wherein it has been held that not the entire amount received by the assessee on sale of DEPB, but the sale value less the face value of the DEPB will represent profit on transfer of DEPB by the assessee. Respectfully following the above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to recompute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and accordingly the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the above assessment years do not call for any interference.
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports [216 CTR 195] wherein their Lordships observed Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Sec. 68 of I.T. Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their Individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment
The contention that the provisions of section 56(1)(v) regarding the amount received from the relative was not there before Revenue authorities. Moreover it is to be established that the person who gifted money is assessee’s sister as claimed. It was also to be established that the said sister is working as Dentist in U.K. The audit certificate placed before the CIT (A) with reference to the creditworthiness should have been admitted and examined by the CIT (A) which was not done.
There is no dispute to the fact that as per sec. 251(1) of the Act, the ld. C.I.T.(A) has no power to set aside any matter to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh verification and adjudication. Therefore, considering the fact that some additional evidence was admitted by the ld. C.I.T.(A) and he has set aside some issues to the file of ld. A.O. u/s. 251(1) of the Act, which he is not empowered to do, we deem it proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issues to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
In the case of Mukherjee Estate P. Ltd. reported in 244 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that income on account of display of hoardings on the top of the building for advertisement purposes to display the advertisement is not an income from house property as hoardings do not form part of the building which is income from the house property and other parts of the building.
If after making the entire payment, merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee before the period stipulated, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act. Similarly, if he has invested the money in construction of a residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition to be occupied within the period stipulated, that would not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit under section 54F of the Act.
The contention of the learned Sr.AR to the effect that the Revenue moved rectification application in the year 2011 i.e. after around 3 years from the date of passing of the Tribunal order u/s 254(1), belies the Revenue’s stand of such ground having been in fact taken, is without any force. When section 254(2) provides a period of limitation of four years from the date of passing of the order, it implies that any rectification application moved within this statutory period of four years requires consideration. As the instant application u/s.254(2) is well within the stipulated period, in our considered opinion, there is no justification in not accepting it.
Transfer of right to use software/computer programme in respect of copyrights would fall within mischief of royalty – In both the cases, it was held that consideration paid by the Indian customers or end-users to the assessee-a foreign supplier, for transfer of the right to use the software/computer programme in respect of the copyrights falls within the mischief of royalty as defined under sub-clause [v] to Explanation 2 to Clause [vi] of section 9[1] of the Income-tax Acts 1961.
It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that since in the quantum appeal, the matter was set aside and sent back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 29.12.2010, the penalty order of the ld. AO dated 23.03.2010 will not survive. In fact, the Hon’ble Tribunal in the quantum appeal had restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the penalty order should be considered in the light of the quantum appeal decided by the ld. CIT(A). For this reason, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13.09.2011 and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the penalty order of the ld. AO in the light of his findings in the quantum appeal.
