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 revised ITR forms for AY 2026-27 introduce new tax slabs, expanded ITR eligibility, and enhanced disclosure requirements. Unde...
Income Tax : The article argues that the daily backup requirement under Rule 46(8) applies only to books maintained in electronic mode, not mer...
Income Tax : Judicial authorities have held that Foreign Tax Credit is a substantive right and cannot be denied merely due to procedural delays...
Income Tax : This guide explains how unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and related provisions can attract steep taxation under Section ...
Income Tax : The document outlines how MAT and AMT ensure that companies and eligible non-corporate taxpayers pay a minimum level of income tax...
Income Tax : The CBI apprehended an Income Tax Office Superintendent in Odisha after he was allegedly caught accepting a bribe for deleting a d...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has proposed a priority disposal mechanism for appeals filed up to and including 2022 in respons...
Income Tax : A representation has urged CBDT to merge TDS return codes 1023 and 1024, arguing that both apply to the same contract payments wit...
Income Tax : Association requested CBDT to rationalize CASS 2026 case selection considering the administrative burden caused by implementation ...
Income Tax : KSCAA requested the CBDT to release e-filing utilities and schemas for AY 2026-27 without delay, stating that pending utilities ar...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT sustained the addition arising from the sale of listed shares after finding discrepancies in purchase records, incl...
Income Tax : ITAT Lucknow held that derivative losses incurred by a spouse using funds gifted by the assessee can be clubbed and set off under ...
Income Tax : While recognising that earlier judgments had invalidated JAO-issued notices, the Court avoided passing orders that would make the ...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that where purchases are reflected in accepted sales and closing stock, the entire purchase amount cannot be d...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that repeated non-compliance with statutory notices transformed the reassessment into a best judgment assessme...
Income Tax : The CBDT has identified specific categories of taxpayers whose returns will be compulsorily selected for complete scrutiny during ...
Income Tax : The Ordinance exempts interest income and capital gains arising from Government securities for Foreign Institutional Investors and...
Income Tax : The Central Government has specified infrastructure sub-sectors from the Updated Harmonised Master List as eligible businesses und...
Income Tax : CBDT has granted scientific research approval under the Income-tax Act, 2025, enabling eligible donations to qualify for tax benef...
Income Tax : CBDT has granted scientific research approval under the Income-tax Act, 2025, allowing eligible donations to qualify for tax benef...
It is seen that in the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made payments towards purchase of land in the Devanahalli taluk of Bangalore District out of which sums amounting to Rs. 87,92,635 were found to have been paid in cash in contravention of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee’s explanation in letter dated December 18, 2008, that the payments were made at places which were not served by any banking facilities was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for the reason that Devanahalli taluk is a well developed suburb of Bangalore having a large number of banks and the recipients of the consideration were residing in that area and some of them were in receipt of government compensation for land acquisition and had accounts and deposits in such banks.
In the instant case also services were provided by the assessee outside India and for this business the services of non-residents were utilized to whom technical fee in question was paid. No good reason could be shown by the DR as to why the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal is not applicable in the instant case and why the said decision should not be followed in the instant case. We, therefore, following the above decision, hold that the services of non-residents to whom the technical fee of Rs. 74,63,768/- was paid by the assessee were utilized for the business which was carried out outside India for earning income from a source outside India. Therefore, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
The dispute is regarding allowability of claim of bad debt not made in the return of income. The claim had been made before AO only during assessment proceedings which had not been allowed following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) in which it has been held that any claim before the AO has to be made by way of filing revised return if not made in the original return. CIT(A) has therefore, upheld the order of AO. It may however be noted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (I) Ltd. was regarding claim to be made before the AO.
In our considered opinion, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is nothing but mere change of opinion. The issues which have already been considered in the original assessment cannot be reappreciated in reassessment proceedings under the garb of income escaping assessment. If the Assessing Officer has not given any finding after considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the income had escaped assessment on account of concealment of income of the assessee.
Observations of the assessing officer to the effect that no one makes a loss in real estate business and that the market perceptions indicate that the prices of the immoveable properties are always on the upward trend. These observations have, inter alia, formed the basis of the additions made by the assessing officer. It was even suggested before us on behalf of the revenue that it is a “notorious practice” prevailing in real estate circles that in all property transactions there is non-disclosure of the full consideration. As pointed out earlier, this cannot per se constitute the basis of the addition, though we must hasten to add that it can very well be a starting point for further investigation. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessment on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the “notorious practice” prevailing in trade circles.
If income arises out of the transfer of a long term capital asset being an equity share in a listed company, the said income would be exempt under section 10(38) of the said Act. There is no doubt that the shares of Goodyear India Limited are listed shares and therefore even if a consideration had been charged for the transfer of the 74% share, the income arising therefrom would be exempt by virtue of the provisions of section 10(38) of the said Act.
As far as the assessee’s claim on payment of additional interest is concerned, while confirming the Assessing Officer’s view that the payments were contrary to the RBI guidelines, the First Appellate Authority as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that all that the assessee could pay as per the RBI guidelines was 8% interest only and any amount paid over and above the permissible limit was against the public policy, hence, hit by Explanation 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As far as this line of reasoning is concerned, we find from the Circular issued by the RBI that there is ceiling on interest payable in current account/saving bank account and discretion is available on interest to be paid on term deposits. The circular reads as under:-
The assessee disclosed capital gain and claimed exemption under section 54F on the ground that entire sale proceeds were invested in construction of house property. In the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, denied exemption on ground that construction of house property was complete before the date of transfer of shares.
The primary condition for rejecting the book results as laid down under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is that the Assessing Officer should be satisfied that the books of account maintained by the assessee are not complete and correct. As can be seen from the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has merely proceeded on a surmise that the profits of the assessee are sought to be reduced by selling its products to M/s. Pragathi Automation P. Ltd., the assessee’s sister-concern at a lesser price.
The assessee AOP in the present case has been assessed as AOP and found to have fulfilled the condition laid down in section 80 IB(10) and has been held to be eligible for such deduction. The quantum of deduction under section 80 IB (10) will depend on the income earned from eligible project. The quantum of deduction will not depend upon the mode of distribution of shares amongst the members of AOP as income of AOP is taxable at maximum marginal rate.
