Karnataka High Court rules rental income from sub-lease of office premises as part of business profits eligible for Section 10A deduction.
CIT Vs. M/S Mcdowell & Co Ltd Now Known As United Spirits Ltd (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, as per the scheme he was allowed to retain the sales tax as determined by the competent authority and pay the same 15 years thereafter. The tax collected was deemed to have been paid and, […]
From a reading of the Centralised Processing of Statements of Tax Deducted at Source Scheme, 2013 it becomes clear that the Department has sought to achieve a comprehensive processing of statements filed under sub-section (3) of Section 200 of the Act, including rectification of a mistake in the said statement under Section-154 of the Act.
The respondents have not disputed this before us. It is true that the assessee had not deposited the long term capital gain in the capital gain account, and he had deposited the said amount in his savings account with Vijaya Bank.
After Kerala HC Karnataka HC too stay the enforcement of notices U/s. 234E by TRACES. In this case Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 234E of the income Tax Act and a notice to the petitioner levying fee vide annexure A1 to A21 and Annexure – B.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s decision in CIT Vs. MBA Nahata Charitable Trust regarding donations, exemptions, and assessment under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Only income from investment or deposit which has been made in violation of section 11(5) that is liable to be taxed and that violation under section 13(1)(d) does not attracts denial of exemption to trust.
To attract Section 45(4) there should be a transfer of a capital asset from the firm to the retiring partners, by which the firms ceases to have any right in the property which is so transferred. In other words, its right to the property should stand extinguished and the retiring partners acquires absolute title to the property.
Petitioners have prayed to declare the newly inserted proviso to Section 115JB(6) and 115-O(6) of the Income Tax Act in the second schedule to the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 as ultra vires, arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Where a return of income could not be filed by the assessee due to unavoidable circumstances, and assessee proved to have a bona fide belief , coupled with the voluntary payment of tax liability, the Chief Commissioner was not justified in declining the benefit of a waiver of interest to assessee under section 234B.
