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 : Understand every reporting requirement under Form 3CD as amended by the Finance Act, 2026. This guide explains clause-wise disclos...
Income Tax : Section 50AA overrides the normal holding period rules and deems gains from specified assets as short-term capital gains, even if ...
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 : 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 : NCLAT held that a single application covering multiple years and company officers is maintainable in the absence of any statutory ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 87A rebate cannot be denied on tax payable under Section 111A where the assessee qualifies under the prescr...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that applying the gross profit rate of a different assessment year was excessive. It reduced the addition to 1% GP...
Income Tax : Receipts earned by a German resident individual from rendering managerial, consultancy and business development services outside I...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that proceedings initiated under the old Section 153C framework after the Finance Act, 2021 amendments were leg...
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 assessee is solely responsible for executing the contract with the persons to whom he has given forklift vehicles on hire and it was only for fulfilment of this contract that he has also engaged the forklift vehicles from the outside parties. In case of hiring from outside parties the responsibility and the risk involved for performing the contract work lay with the assessee only and no such risk and responsibility seems to have been transferred to outside parties vis-à-vis his principals.
Assessee owned only 38 guntas of land when he started the construction, he acquired an extent of 1,440 sq. ft. of land adjoining the said land, thus making the total land in which the project was put up, to 44,470 sq.ft. more than 43,480 sq.ft. which is prescribed under the law. The modified housing project was approved in the year 2001 after the aforesaid provision was inserted. On 20.5.2003 occupancy certificate is issued. Therefore, the construction is within the 4 years period stipulated.
In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the AO found the payment of remuneration to director excessive having regard to either (a) fair market value of the services or facilities; or (b) the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee; or (c) the benefits derived by or accruing to the assessee on receipt of such services or facilities. The AO while making the disallowance observed that disallowance was made keeping in view quantum and nature of business of the assessee. But how quantum or nature of business affected payment of salary to its director, has not been elaborated.
After taking into consideration the Instruction No. 5 of 2008, it is found that by virtue of the said Instruction, the revenue was prohibited from pre
In the present case, the assessee can be said to have discharged its onus under section 68 of the Act in proving the genuineness of the share capital in respect of the impugned 22 shareholders in the light of proposition laid down by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in the cases cited above. The appellant has given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the aforementioned share applicants. It is also observed that all the share applicants are corporate assessees, incorporated under Indian Companies Act.
During the year under consideration the appellant received dividend income on surplus funds invested with various mutual funds through Citibank who acted as investment adviser with no cost to the appellant company. The dividends were directly credited to the bank account of the appellant electronically by ECS. No interest was paid by the appellant during the year. As such, the appellant did not incur any expenditure on earning dividend income and section 14A and the I.T. Act, 1961 did not apply.
In the instant case, the claim of the CIT is that the assessee is the owner of house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalroe and therefore, the said decision is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In our considered view, if the house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalore are owned by the assessee’s wife then the same cannot be considered as owned by the assessee for disallowing exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
Without any motive it is quite unnatural that any individual would extend the monetary benefit to any person in this day to day world. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajeev Tandon v. ACIT (supra) has observed that in such circumstances the taxation authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances.
Assessee here, in our opinion, did fall within the concept of rendering a formal education and could not be equated with a coaching institute. We are, therefore, of the opinion that assessee could not have been denied the eligible exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for a reason that it was not doing charitable activity as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act.
It has further been the contention of the revenue that the amendments vide Finance Act 2010, inserting mutually exclusionary clauses in s. 44BB and s.44DA are clarificatory, and hence are retrospective in operation, w.e.f. AY 2004-05. We find that this contention is not at all correct as the said provision of the Act cannot be said to be clarificatory and hence retrospective in operation. In this regard in the case of CGG Veritas Services SA (supra) comes to the rescue of the assessee. Furthermore, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2010, excluding the application of Section 44BB in cases where Section 44DA applies, is prospective and applies from assessment year 2011-12.
