CA, CS, CMA : Comprehensively assess trusts for A.Y 2022-2023, A.Y 2023-2024 and A.Y 2024-2025 by discussing key provisions, changes, and implic...
Income Tax : Explore impact of high-pitch assessments in income tax on small taxpayers. Learn challenges they pose, the need for fairness, and ...
Income Tax : Legal responsibilities of deceased's representatives in income tax proceedings. Learn about Section 159 and key judgments shaping ...
Income Tax : Explore the nuances of Income Tax Assessment for Associations of Persons (AOP) and Bodies of Individuals (BOI) for the Assessment ...
Finance : Explore the assessment procedures for partnership firms in the upcoming years 2022-2023 to 2024-2025. Understand key provisions un...
Income Tax : Read KSCAA's representation to the Commissioner of Income Tax, addressing practical issues faced by taxpayers and suggesting solut...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : While uploading Manual order for the A Y 2017-18 user is getting the following message: Manual Order cannot be uploaded for this P...
Income Tax : Tax collections increased from Rs 6.38 Lakh Crore in year 2013-14 to almost Rs 12 Lakh Crore this year 80% growth in tax base; n...
Income Tax : Read about the Madras High Court's decision in Rakesh Beniyal Vs ITO case, where the court dismissed a writ petition challenging a...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court rules that an income tax assessment order passed on an old PAN is appealable even if a new PAN is issued, provid...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court nullifies income tax assessment orders due to a breach of natural justice. Details of the case and implications....
Income Tax : Section 251(2) provides that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall not embark on enhancement of an assessment unless the assessee has be...
Income Tax : It is mandatory for the AO to issue notice u/s 143 (2). The issuance and service of notice u/s 143 (2) is mandatory and not proced...
Income Tax : Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Assessment Unit (AU), Verification Unit (VU), Technical Unit (TU) and Review Unit (RU) unde...
Income Tax : CBDT hereby specifies that all the assessment proceedings pending as on 31.03.2021 and the assessment proceedings initiated on or ...
Income Tax : Faceless Appeal Scheme has been implemented in ITBA and the allocation of cases to Faceless Appeal units is under progress. A numb...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies Prescribed Authority under Section 133C with effect from 13th August, 2020 vide Notification No. 66/2020, Dated: Aug...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies 4195 Income-tax Authorities of Regional e-Assessment Centres to exercise the powers and functions of Assessing Offic...
Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective.
ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (i) The exchange rate gain difference pertaining to exports is an integral part of the exports and export turnover and cannot be treated as income from other sources. (ii) However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deduction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.
ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee had converted stock-in-trade into investments at their book value and later sold them and offered to tax the difference between the indexed book value and the sale proceeds as capital gains and the AO took the view that the difference between the book value and the FMV on the date of conversion had to be assessed as business income, Held:
Mahendra D. Jain vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) – Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business, any loss arising as a result of infraction of the law is not allowable.
SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) – Where the assessee had a ‘Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment’ (‘DAPE’) (“SET India”) in India and it was admitted by the Revenue that the assessee had paid ‘arms length’ remuneration to the said dependent agent but the Tribunal still held (106 ITD 75) that notwithstanding the taxability of the said dependent agent in accordance with domestic law, the assessee had to be assessed in respect of the profits attributable to the said DAPE, held, reversing the judgment of the Tribunal that
It has been decided that in all the Corporate cases selected for scrutiny as per the guidelines contained in the Action Plan document 2008-09 which have returned income of Rs.5 crore or more and where provisions of FBT apply, assessment order shall also be passed under section 115WE after scrutiny of all such cases.
Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)
Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT – (1) Even in the case of an assessee not maintaining books of account and to whom s. 68 does not apply, addition in respect of unexplained entries in the bank book can be made; (2) Where the assessee was not provided copies of the seized documents and the delay in filing the block return was on that count, interest u/s 158BFA (1) is not leviable even though there is no exemption on that count in the statute.;
Your company could face a tax scrutiny if it had introduced fresh capital exceeding Rs 50 lakh last fiscal, or, as in the tax lingo, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. This is according to the new scrutiny norms by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
