The assessee, an exporter, claimed deduction u/s 80HHC on account of foreign exchange fluctuation and interest in the EEFC account on the ground that it was part of business income and arose from exports. The AO & CIT (A) rejected the claim though the Tribunal allowed it.
The assessee, a consortium, was awarded a contract by MMRDA for the monorail project. The assessee filed an application u/s 197 for a certificate that MMRDA be directed to deduct tax at 0.11% on the ground that the percentage of total tax liability to revenue was estimated to be 0.11%.
The basis on which a certificate has been declined to the Petitioner under Section 195(3) is manifestly misconceived. The impugned order ignores relevant provisions of law, more particularly of Rule 29B, does not take into account the legal implications out of the MOU dated 25 September 2002 between the Government of U.S. and the Government of India and disregards issues which were settled in the past as a result of the Mutual Agreement Procedure between the two governments.
The proviso to s. 112(1) provides that “where the tax payable in respect of any income arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being listed securities … exceeds ten per cent of the amount of capital gains before giving effect to the provisions of the second proviso to section 48 (i.e. indexation), then, such excess shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the tax payable by the assessee“.
Ashoka Buildcon vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) :-An assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 27.12.2006. A reassessment order u/s 147 was passed on 27.12.2007. A show-cause notice u/s 263 was issued by the CIT on 30.4.2009 in respect of issues that werenot the subject matter of the reassessment order. The s. 263 notice was time-barred if reckoned from the date of the assessment order but was within time if reckoned from the reassessment order.
Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean business profits as reduced by 90% of .. “receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature“. The Tribunal took the view, on the basis of Bangalore Clothing 260 ITR 371 (Bom) that receipts towards recovery of freight, insurance
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that 90% of recovery of freight, insurance and packing receipts amounting to Rs.49,14,076/, sales tax set off/refund amounting to Rs.38,33,148/and service income of Rs. 2,89,17,545/are not to be excluded from profits of business
The object of Section 80IA was to provide an impetus to the growth of infrastructure in the nation. A sound infrastructure is a sine qua non for economic development. Absence of infrastructure poses significant barriers to growth and development. A model which relied exclusively on the provision of basic infrastructure by the State was found to be deficient.
The principal challenge in these proceedings is to the notices issued by the first respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing to assess the income of the petitioner for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 on the ground that there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, within the meaning of section 147.
A nominee has the right to the shares after the original shareholder’ s death and not the deceased’s heirs, Bombay High Court has ruled. Dismissing the application of a widow who sought permission to sell the shares belonging to her late husband, Justice Roshan Dalvi held that she had no right to do so since she was not the nominee. The nominee was her late husband’s nephew.
