Income Tax : The framework outlines different assessment types to verify income and tax liability. It ensures accuracy through self, summary, s...
Income Tax : Explore the assessment procedures for partnership firms in the upcoming years 2022-2023 to 2024-2025. Understand key provisions un...
Income Tax : This article explains the five most frequent issues arising in modern income tax assessments, including unexplained cash deposits,...
Income Tax : Explains how Section 3 defines the earning year and the taxation year under the Income-tax Act. Clarifies why income earned in one...
Income Tax : Courts have ruled that notices or orders issued by a Jurisdictional AO under the faceless regime are void due to lack of authority...
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 : The Tribunal admitted a new legal ground and held that jurisdictional defects can be raised at any stage. It quashed the assessmen...
Income Tax : The ITAT has declared an assessment against SoftwareONE India Pvt. Ltd. void, ruling that an assessment framed in the name of a no...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court directs acceptance of Acuity KP Solutions' tax return and refund, citing time-barred assessment proceedings after...
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 : A CAG audit report on direct taxes for FY 2022-23 reveals over ₹7,929 crore in tax effect from 481 observations, highlighting as...
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...
: ON 17.1.2001 a search under Section 132 of the 1961 Act was carried out at the premises of the respondent-assessee, an individual. The search unearthed an unexplained investment of Rs. 65,000/- being the value of household valuables and Rs. 97,427/- on account of unexplained marriage expenses (undisclosed income).
It was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to show in the reasons recorded by him that any income escaped assessment due to error or omission on the part of the assessee in not disclosing all material facts relevant for assessment of this year. The assessment order does not show any error or omission on the part of the assessee in disclosing all material facts. So the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the re-assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the loss incurred by the assessee is on account of the loan advances to BFL from which the assessee company had earned interest. It was the surplus fund of the assessee which was utilized for advancing loan with the intention of earning interest, but assessee is not a money lender. It is common in the commercial practice that if surplus money is available then the business invests the same for earning interest instead of keeping it idle. The said investment would be capital in nature as surplus funds are invested with a view to earn interest. The assessee is also not a dealer in securities and investments. ‘ A So the loss sustained by the assessee in respect of the loan advanced to BFL is in the nature of capital loss and is not allowable u/s.28 of the Act also.
THE New Year has just set in, and things have started going awry for the CBDT. In fact the CBDT’s ‘time chakra’ had entered the adversarial zone some time late last year when the Delhi High Court had begun to take note of its frivolous appeals. It did warn the income tax authorities and also asked for detailed procedure and screening methodoligies adopted by the Board before an appeal is filed before the High Courts.
The appellant exercises computer control over the computes installed at the premises of the subscribers. This amounts to a fixed place of business for carrying on the business of the enterprise in India . But for the supply of computers, the configuration of computes and connectivity which are provided by the appellant either directly or through its agent AIPL will amount to operating part if its CRS system through such subscribers in India and accordingly PE in the nature of a fixed place of business in India. Thus the appellant can be said to have established a PE within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of Indo-Spain Treaty.
IN a remarkably interesting ruling, involving the IT giant Infosys Technologies, the Apex Court has held that every benefit received by a person is not taxable as income unless the Legislature makes the same taxable. For period prior to 2000, there were no provisions in the Income Tax Act to tax ESOPs. As regards the TDS, it noted that ESOPs were not taxable during the lock-in period as the value of non-transferable shares (perquisite) was not ascertainable. As regards the Clause (iiia) of Sec 17 the SC held that it was not clarificatory as argued by the Revenue and very much prospective if one goes by the wordings used in the Clause and the explanatory memorandum of the Finance Act, 1999.
IN this batch of writ petitions, the prayer is that the provisions of Section 245D(2A), Section 245D(2D), Section 245D(4A) and Section 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be declared unconstitutional. The provisions under challenge relate to settlement applications made by the Petitioners to the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Act prior to 1st June, 2007.
THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.
In the Bank of India case, the Authority for Advance Ruling pointed out that the section levying MAT should be considered a self-contained code. It should prevail over the other provisions of the I-T Act. The Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) has been in vogue intermittently for nearly 20 years. It has undergone several changes in structure. But the basic principle remains the same. The idea is that every company with ability to pay should contribute to the exchequer even though it may not show taxable income because of tax concessions and incentives utilised.
If the assessing officer is going to make good an omission on the part of the assessee, he must be expressly authorised by law to do so lest he is hauled over coals for cosying up to the assessee. The recent Supreme Court verdict in Goetz (India) Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323), tersely dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the assessing officer (AO) not allowing a deduction which it was admittedly entitled to under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but which it had not claimed by even filing the revised return, is unexceptionable though it has come in for criticism from some quarters.
