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 : Budget 2026 has extended the due dates for ITR-3, ITR-4, and revised returns, offering taxpayers greater flexibility. Understandin...
Income Tax : Relocating to Sikkim does not automatically exempt you from income tax. This article explains who qualifies under Section 10(26AAA...
Income Tax : The article outlines practical methods through which business owners and professionals can legally minimise their tax burden. It h...
Income Tax : Section 54 grants exemption on long-term capital gains from the sale of a residential house because the proceeds are reinvested in...
Income Tax : The Income-tax Act mandates e-payment of direct taxes for companies and taxpayers covered under Section 44AB, while others may opt...
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 Jodhpur ITAT held that deduction under Section 80GGC cannot be denied merely on allegations against a political party in the a...
Income Tax : Assessment orders passed pursuant to express liberty granted by the High Court during pendency of settlement-related litigation re...
Income Tax : The ruling emphasizes that undisclosed business receipts and stock arising from an existing business cannot automatically be chara...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and books of account are not rejected, the entire amount of disputed purchases cann...
Income Tax : The ITAT Pune held that the CIT(A)/NFAC cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on mer...
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...
Yet another issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the capital gain tax, in this case, would be leviable at the normal rate of 20% or at the rate of 10%. Admittedly, capital gain tax at the rate of 10% was payable only in case of ‘listed securities’. Since, these shares had been transferred to the applicants in the public offer, by 5.1.2006 before they were actually listed on the stock exchanges on 6.1.2006, they were not ‘listed securities’ at the time of sale by the appellant and consequently, the transaction would not be eligible for payment of capital gain tax at the lower rate of 10%.
Land in question was declared surplus land under the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976 which was having depressing effect on the value of the asset, the valuation had to be made on the basis of assumption that the purchaser would be able to enjoy the property as the holder, but with restrictions and prohibitions contained in the ULC Act and in such case value of the property or land would be reduced.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 1/162 Taxman 465, has considered the period of limitation for the purpose of section 263 in a case where a series of orders were passed by the assessing authority in the case of that assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the period of limitation commenced from the date of the original assessment order, in which the issues sought to be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, have been discussed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the subsequent orders passed by the lower authorities on different dates cannot be relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax for reckoning the period of limitation. It is, therefore, necessary to see that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the date of that order is to be considered in which the disputed issues have been considered by the lower authorities, at the latest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the period of limitation begins from the original assessment in respect of those items.
When the assessee is not in the business of leasing out of the property and the intention of letting out the premises in question was not to exploit the business assets in relation to the business of the assessee then the said property would not fall under the exception as provided u/s 2(ea)(i)(5) of the W T Act being commercial establishment or complex.
The Assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act for AY 2009-10, in so far as it relates to the profit derived from developing housing project, cannot be regarded as income of a charitable trust or institution within the meaning of Sec.11(1)(a) of the Act, because carrying on of the housing project was not a charitable purpose even in AY 2009-10 in view of the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The income from developing housing project by virtue of the provisions of Sec.13(8) of the Act would become part of the total income under the Act.
In the instant case, Amish Kumar Patel in his statement under Section 131 of the IT Act has nowhere said that the money in question belonged to the petitioner’s firm or was to be delivered to it. Instead, he has stated that the money in question was handed over to him by Praveen Bhai who was found untraceable at the address provided by Amish Kumar. This being so, the petitioners do not get any advantage of Vindhya Metal Corpn.’s case (supra), being distinguishable on facts.
When a notification is issued exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 90A of the Act, it can have effect only on those types of agreement mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof. If such a notification goes beyond that mandate, it will have to be ignored to the extent it goes overboard. Even if the term may be taxed has been given a meaning by the Government through a Notification No. 90A(3) of the Act, so as to extend such meaning to terms used in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, it will have to be ignored.
From decision in case of CGG Veritas Services, SA (supra) it is clear that (i) fee for technical services having business PE or fixed place of profession will be assessable under section 44DA, (ii) fee for technical services without having business PE or fixed place of profession will be assessable under section 115A. The Tribunal has further held that fee for technical services from assessment year 2011-12, whether rendered in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oil, will be assessable either under section 44DA or under section 115 depending upon the fact whether such receipts are effectively connected with PE or fixed place of profession or not.
We may also notice that the proviso to Section 147 of the Act is fully applicable as the assessee had disclosed all the materials facts at the time of original assessment. Even if the materials/evidence was not enclosed with the return, full and true details/material was disclosed during the course of the original proceedings. The turnover or sales made to DMRC has not been disputed.
In the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2011] 12 taxmann.com 309/201 Taxman 237 of Uttarakhand High Court (Uttarakhand), it has been observed that a jurisdictional Commissioner is not to be nominated as a member of the DRP under rule 3(2) of the Rules. By doing this, the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done would be ensured. In the instant case, there was no dispute that one of the members of DRP was the DIT (TP-I)/jurisdictional Commissioner of the assessee when the draft assessment order was passed. Therefore, there was merit in the submissions of the assessee that the order passed by the DRP is liable to be set aside as the same is contrary to the observations of the High Court of Uttarakhand.
