Income Tax : An analysis of trust taxation under the Income Tax Act, including Finance Bill 2025 amendments, tax exemptions, anonymous donation...
CA, CS, CMA : This article explains the GST implications of rental income and provides an overview of the different types of income tax assessme...
Income Tax : Explore how AI transforms educational assessments through personalized learning, improved accuracy, and real-time feedback, addres...
Income Tax : Explore how Section 170 of Income Tax Act applies to post-amalgamation assessments, with key judicial decisions and implications f...
Income Tax : Understand the time limits for issuing income tax notices and completing assessments, including updates from the Finance Acts of 2...
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 : In a case of BVM Global Education Trust vs Assessment Unit, Madras High Court declares computation sheet and demand notice invalid...
Income Tax : Read about the Madras High Court's order for rectification of an income tax assessment order regarding addition on sale considerat...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court nullifies Income Tax assessment order for 2016-17 after petitioner couldn't attend video conferencing due to tec...
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 : 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...
The Income Tax Department here has put on its website the list of income tax refunds of all salary tax payers which could not be sent to the concerned persons for want of correct address. Salary taxpayers who have not received refunds for assessment years 20034 to 20067 can long on to the website (www.incometaxindia.gov.in (mumbai region) and query using the PAN number and assessment year whether any refund due to them has been returned undelivered from the menu `undelivered salary refund management system’, an official release said on Monday.
THE assessee company was incorporated during the financial year 1997-98. Originally, there was a company jointly promoted by Tatas and IBM , which were known as Tata IBM. During the financial year 1997-98, it was mutually agreed between the two promoters to bifurcate the business activities into separate entities viz. IBM Global Services India Private Limited (the assessee company) and Tata IBM . As per the agreement entered into, various assets of the erstwhile Tat IBM were transferred to the assessee company has paid amounts of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – and Rs. 5.3 Crore on account of transfer of certain employees to the assessee company and on account of transfer of the data base of the domestic business. The assessee company actually paid a sum of Rs. 18.4 crore for the transfer of the employees to the assessee company but claimed an expenditure of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – as the remaining sum of around Rs. 9.01 crore was attributable to STP Unit, income of which was exempt.
In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHE before setting off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the gross total income. Before the Assessing Officer it was contended that section 80HHE is the self-contained section and contains the definition of profits of the business, export turnover, total turnover etc. Section 80AB refers to the nature of income entitled for deduction u/s VIA and include in the gross total income. Section 80HHE does not refer to any income included in the gross total income.
THE Special Bench decided on a substantial question of Law. A bench of the Tribunal decides an issue in favour of the assessee. The Revenue goes in appeal to the High Court, which dismisses the appeal as there was no substantial question of law. Is this decision of the High Court a binding precedent on the Special bench? `Yes’, ruled the Bench.
One Vivek Bansal, Liberty House, Karnal had originally purchased deep discount bonds 1997 of Industrial Development Bank of India (I.D.B.I) @ of Rs. 5500/- each (the original purchaser). From him the assessee-respondent purchased those bonds @ Rs.9700/- each on 01.01.2001 for total value of Rs.19,40,000/ – (the assessee secondary purchaser). The original purchaser filed his return for the assessment year 2001-02 and reflected the difference in amount of purchase and the sale. Thus, a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/- became long term capital gain in respect of the original assessee. It is undisputed that the bonds were subject to accruing of interest year to year although, no income was received annually by the bond holder. The condition was modified by issuance of a press note later. The assessee-secondary purchaser received a draft of Rs. 19,08,200/-. This amount has been accounted for by the assessee-secondary purchaser.
The Supreme Court has disapproved of the view of the Guwahati High Court and upheld the opinion of the Calcutta High Court on the question of applicability of Section 80HHC deduction under the Income Tax Act for companies which do both agriculture and trade.The tax authorities had appealed to the Supreme Court against the high court judgments in a large batch of companies engaged in growing, manufacturing and exporting tea.
The optional scheme of electronic payment of taxes for income-tax payers was introduced in 2004. With a view to expand the scope of electronic payment of taxes, it is proposed to make the scheme mandatory for the following categories of tax-payers:- (i) All corporate assesses; (ii) All assesses (other than company) to whom provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act are applicable.
When agreements are entered into for purchase of property, rights are created in favour of the parties to the agreement. Failure to honour the agreement can lead to breach of contract and claims for damages or specific performance. Quite often, such breach of contract ultimately results in a compromise settlement of the dispute and monies are paid as quits. Will the receipt of such compensation for breach result in tax consequences?
TILL a few months back, it used to be a rare event in which the Delhi High Court used to impose costs on the Income Tax Department. And this is what perhaps encouraged the Revenue to keep filing appeals indiscriminately and virtually in all cases. But such a cosy run has evidently run out of luck now. So much exasperated is the High Court over the Department’s thick-skinned approach to curb frivolous appeals that it can now be seen imposing costs in most of the cases. And it happened even in this case where the issue revolves around allowance of bad debts and stock damages. While computing book profits u/s 115JA, the AO added back the provisions of doubtful debts and stock damages as he felt that such provisions cannot be categorised as ascertained liabilities in advance.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the rent and deposits received by the intermediary tenant from the ultimate user of the premises or the rent and deposit received by the assessee from the intermediary tenant, who never occupied the premises is to be taken for the computation of the net wealth of the assessee for valuation under Rule 3 of part B of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?
