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 : Rule 46(8) mandates daily backups of electronic books on servers located in India, strengthening digital tax compliance and data i...
Income Tax : CBDT allows eligible salaried taxpayers with LTCG up to ₹1.25 lakh under section 112A to file ITR-1, simplifying return filing f...
Income Tax : Explore income-tax rates applicable over the last ten assessment years for individuals, companies, firms, LLPs, HUFs, and co-opera...
Income Tax : Learn how business and professional income is computed under the Income-tax Act after the Finance Act, 2026. This guide explains t...
Income Tax : Understand the statutory time limits for issuing income-tax notices and completing assessments under the Income-tax Act. The guide...
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 : ITAT Jaipur held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was filed late when it was already avail...
Income Tax : Bombay HC admitted the Revenue's appeal on AMP expenditure and payments to doctors, holding both require judicial examination. It ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that agricultural land within the prescribed municipal distance is a capital asset and restricted the on-money addition ...
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 : 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...
Valuation of residential accommodation provided by the employer:-(a) Union or State Government Employees- The value of perquisite is the license fee as determined by the Govt. as reduced by the rent actually paid by the employee. (b) Non-Govt. Employees- The value of perquisite is an amount equal to 15% of the salary in cities having population more than 25 lakh, (10% of salary in cities where population as per 2001 census is exceeding 10 lakh but not exceeding 25 lakh and 7.5% of salary in areas where population as per 2001 census is 10 lakh or below). In case the accommodation provided is not owned by the employer, but is taken on lease or rent, then the value of the perquisite would be the actual amount of lease rent paid/payable by the employer or 15% of salary, whichever is lower. In both of above cases, the value of the perquisite would be reduced by the rent, if any, actually paid by the employee.
Withholding tax proceedings under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were barred by limitation, since it has been initiated beyond a reasonable period of four years. Further the Tribunal held that in the absence of period of limitation under Section 201 of the Act prior to an amendment2, a reasonable time period was to be read into it, which was within 4 years from the end of the relevant Financial Year
In this case, the issue which arose before the Honorable Delhi Tribunal was that whether income received by the assessee for provisioning of technical services in connection with prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil would be taxable under section 9(1)(vii) read with section 115A of the Income Tax Act,1961(‘the IT Act’) or section 44BB of the IT Act.
The payments under the IT agreement were not in the nature of reimbursement as the preamble stated that the French company had the capacity and resources to provide and co-ordinate IT services. There was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the transaction was in the nature of reimbursement. For providing services under both, the wide area network as well as the messaging system, some hardware was to be utilised.
The Income Tax Department has decided to bring its over two-lakh strong staff under biometric monitoring system to ensure strict adherence to working hours. In an ambitious project rolled out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), I-T’s administrative authority, the department has invited tenders for ‘purchase, installation and monitoring of biometric based attendance monitoring system’.
Unless there is a finding that assessee’s investment is not business activity and the funds are not utilized for the purpose of business, disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) does not arise. There is no disallowance under section 14A in this year as the dividend income was taxable. Therefore, the interest disallowance has to be considered under section 36(1)(iii). If there is income or loss under the head capital gains, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) pertaining to the investment activity is also to be considered as deduction, while working out the capital gain.
The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revise the assessment order. In view of the above discussion, we hold that when the AO has conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view then while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263, the CIT cannot take a different view.
Indisputably, the documents placed at sl. no. 3 on page no.15-20 of the paper book viz. affidavit of Ms. Anjana Vohra, her confirmation and PAN details were never considered by the AO, having been submitted before the AO after the conclusion of hearing on 23.12.2009. There is no sl. no.4 in the paper book; admittedly sl. nos. in the paper book having been wrongly numbered. Though the ld. CIT(A) referred to the relevant submissions of the assessee in the impugned order and these documents are stated to have been placed before him, he did not record his specific findings in the light of these documents and merely affirmed the order of the AO.
The applicant approached this Authority with the present application seeking an Advance Ruling on a plea that all the agreements relating to this transaction were negotiated and concluded outside India. It takes the stand, that the loan having been guaranteed by EKN, the interest paid under the transaction is not liable to charge to tax in India under the Income-tax Act in view of Article 11.3 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention between India and Sweden. While allowing the application under section 245R(2) of the Act, this Authority framed the following questions for the ruling:
We had occasion to consider the ruling in Dassault, the ruling in P.No.30 of 1999 in re.(AAR/821/2009) of this Authority, the other relevant rulings and the ruling in Millenium, in our recent ruling in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. (AAR/822 of 2009). Therein we have held that there cannot be a user of software over which exists a copyright without a use of the copyright therein. The payment for such use can only be royalty. We have also held that what is paid by a seller on behalf of the customer and what is paid by the customer direct, both partake the character of royalty. In the light of that Ruling, it does not appear to be necessary to further reason out the issue. We adopt the reasons given by us in the Citrix Ruling to find that what is paid by the reseller to the applicant and what is paid for updates and maintenance are royalty and not business income.
