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 article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has remitted reassessment cases for fresh consideration after the retrospective insertion of Section 147A, leavi...
Income Tax : Learn the most frequent errors taxpayers make while filing Income Tax Returns for AY 2026-27 and how avoiding them can prevent not...
Income Tax : The article explains how the interaction of Section 87A, marginal relief, and Health & Education Cess can leave taxpayers earning ...
Income Tax : Learn who can apply for an advance ruling, applicable fees, withdrawal rules, and its binding effect under the Income-tax Act. The...
Income Tax : Net direct tax collections for FY 2026-27 grew by 14.64% as of June 17, 2026, driven by higher corporate and non-corporate tax rec...
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 : The High Court held that failure to pass the order giving effect within the time prescribed under Section 153 resulted in abatemen...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that unexplained trade credits falling under Section 68 cannot qualify for deduction under Section 80-I...
Income Tax : The Tribunal restricted the Section 14A disallowance to exempt income and deleted additions relating to bad debts, tea and coffee ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that the CPC could not make adjustments under Section 143(1) without first issuing the mandatory intimation to the a...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that Fees for Technical Services were taxable at 10% under section 115A(1)(b) since the RBI's automatic appro...
Income Tax : CBDT has approved a scientific research institution under the Income-tax Act, 2025 for tax years 2026-27 to 2030-31. The notificat...
Income Tax : CBDT has approved the University of Hyderabad for scientific research under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 2025. The approval i...
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...
The interim order makes a mention about the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 5.1.2004 in Ajay Gandhi v. B. Singh [2004] 134 Taxman 537 providing for a Collegium comprising the President, ITAT and two Senior Most Vice Presidents. A reference has also been made to a D.O letter dated 2.11.2012 (Annexure-4)from former officiating President, ITAT Sri G.E. Veerabhadrappa.. presently Senior Most Vice-President, ITAT to Sri Karwa (R-2 and 3), who has taken over as officiating President, ITAT w.e.f. 1.9.2012.
Supreme Court in the case of P. R. Prabhakar v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 548 where the order of the Special Bench cited (supra) stands approved. It was clarified that the amendment made to clause (baa) of the Explanation below Section 80HHC which defines “profits of the business” in such a manner as to exclude receipts like interest, commission etc. which did not have an element of turnover, was introduced prospectively by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 w.e.f. the assessment year 1992-93 and the amendment did not operate retrospectively.
Board had issued directions that the appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds Rs.2 lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals U/s 260A or Reference U/s 256(2). The aforesaid circular is binding on all the authorities under the Board including the appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The Board had taken this decision in continuation to earlier directions issued by the Board on 28.10.1992 where the monitory limit was Rs. 50,000/-. Now in view of the changed circumstances, as directed by the Board by instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that the appeal or reference below Rs. 2 lakhs, could not have been filed. The instructions of the Board are binding to all the authorities working under the Board including the appellant. This appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully covered by the instructions issued by the Board on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have been filed . The aforesaid position has been clarified by two Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Chand Goyal and Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co. (supra).
The partnership firm was formed on 5.7.1990 and on 7.7.1990 Master Shishir Garg deposited Rs. 1,90,000/- and Rs. 72,000/- as capital money with the Firm through bank clearance of two bank drafts. The accounting period being financial year i.e. ending on 31st of March, 1991, the Firm could not have any income at the time of its formation. The identity of the depositor i.e. Master Shishir Garg was not in issue at any point of time before the Income Tax Authorities. They treated the said deposit by Master Shishir Garg. This being so, if for one reason or the other, they were not satisfied with the financial capability of Master Shishir Garg, the amounts could have been added at the hands of Master Shishir Garg and not at the hands of Firm.
Tribunal by the impugned order followed its order in the matter of WNS North America Inc rendered on 25th November, 2011. The Tribunal while upholding the order of the CIT(A) held that the amount of Rs. 2.93 Crores was received by the Respondent-Assessee as reimbursement of lease line charges and would not classify either as royalty or as income attributed to a Permanent Establishment in India.
Insofar as the absence of any other business or source of income is concerned, first of all, respondents themselves have no case that the petitioner had any other business or source of income. It is also the admitted case of the respondents that the entire properties of the petitioner are under attachment and that the interest liability of the petitioner was satisfied from out of the compensation amount remitted by the Corporation of Cochin. These facts, in my view, prima facie substantiate the case of the petitioner that he had no business or source of income and that payment of interest as demanded, would cause genuine hardship.
This is not denied that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The credit facilities cannot be provided until and unless the assessee receives the deposits. It cannot always be provided out of its own capital. Receiving of the deposit is necessary and essential for advancing the money on credit and earning the interest income. The deposits may not have been derived from the income for providing the credit facilities to the members.
Now we come to argument of the assessee that there is no change in the operating model or the business activity of the assessee company, hence, rule of consistency should be followed and hence no adjustment is warranted. In this regard we are of the opinion the res judicata is not applicable to taxation cases. Moreover, as held by Apex Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. (supra) that to perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify is the compulsion of the judicial conscience.
Insofar as question (b) is concerned, it becomes academic as if the eight comparables selected by the TPO are found not to be functionally comparable then the difference between the operating margin of the respondent at 15.05% as against the 18.97% of comparable companies being within the range of +/ – 5% the amounts received by the respondent – assessee is within the statutory limits. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain question (b).
That apart, the learned counsel for the assessee has rightly contended that the provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act applies in computing the profits of an eligible business for the purposes of working out the quantum of deduction for the initial assessment year and for every subsequent year thereafter. The incentive deductions both under section 80 IA and 80 IB of the Act have the concept of initial assessment year in respect of almost all eligible business.
