Penalty proceedings- Mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of income of assessee, but if claim besides being incorrect in law is malafide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) comes into play and work to disadvantage of assessee.
If all speculative transactions will be claimed as hedging transactions, very purpose behind the provisions of section 73 not permitting set off of speculative loss against business income will become redundant.
Business disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) – Payment to resident without deduction of tax-Amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010-Nature of amendment-Amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) is of clarificatory nature and hence would apply retrospectively from 1-4-2005.
Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)-Money advanced to shareholder for specific purpose-Where the company advanced certain sum to a shareholder for a specific purpose then the amount so advanced cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)
The Tribunal held that income earned by the taxpayer on sale of factory building, plant and machinery although not taxable as “Profit and gains of business or profession” was in the nature of income of business though assessed as capital gains and he
Chennai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Frontier Offshore Exploration (India) Ltd. v DCIT ITA No. 200/Mds/2009, held that where payment to a non-resident is covered under the special regime of section 44BB, withholding of appropriate tax by the payer through the application of the special regime and without approaching the Assessing Officer will not lead to any violation of withholding tax provisions. Accordingly, expenses cannot be disallowed for short withholding of taxes.
The CIT contended that there was no specification of assets, such as know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, which was represented by the said goodwill. Further, th
In the case of DHL Express (India) P Ltd. v. ACIT [SA No. 119/Mum/2010], dated 19 November, 2010, the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (
Premium paid in excess of the face value of the security held under ‘Held to Maturity’ (‘HTM’) category which has been amortised over the period remaining till maturity is allowable – rules Mumbai Tax Tribunal
Whether in computing the deduction under section 80-IA(8), for the purpose of determining the inter divisional notional transfer price, the market price of the power generated should be taken as the price of power purchased from independent power sup
