Income Tax : Explore the intricate details of different heads of income, including salaries, and their tax implications. Gain insights into tax...
Income Tax : In this Article we have discussed briefly Different Provisions Applicable to Income from Business and Profession at one place. In ...
Income Tax : Taxpayers are normally aware of deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for which they are eligible but it is noticed that taxpay...
Income Tax : INCOME to start with, from F&O is considered as 'business income' not as a 'capital gain income'. Hence, in case of individuals it...
Income Tax : Master the nuances of lease rent taxation with our comprehensive guide. Learn how courts, including the Supreme Court, determine i...
Income Tax : The introduction of the Direct Taxes Code (DTC), which will replace the 50-year-old Income Tax Act, will make Foreign Institutiona...
Income Tax : The proposed reduction in corporate tax rate from 30% to 25% in the new direct tax code is only one side of the story. The cut ha...
Income Tax : A Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was signed between India and Tajikistan today, i.e. 20th November, 2008. The Agreement was s...
Income Tax : In ITO vs. Late Shri Chandi Ram, ITAT Jaipur upheld CIT(A)'s decision, recognizing arbitration and interest receipts from contract...
Income Tax : Assessee cannot include interest received on deposits as business receipts and estimate net profit under section 44AD on such inte...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that waiver of loan is not taxable under section 28(i) of the Income Tax Act as the same is not a business income....
Income Tax : Appellant builder treated Property as stock-in-trade & profits on its sale would be offered as business income and no rental incom...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that rental income from giving out commercial properties for compensation as per Memorandum of Association (MOA) ...
Income Tax : Clause (via) in section 28 is inserted by Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. Financial year 2018-19 and it provides taxation of Inventory i...
Finance : A. P. (DIR Series)CIRCULAR NO03/RBI under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 29B of the IT Rules, any person respons...
Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.
S. 9, Treaty with South Africa; in favor of taxpayer: – Z, a South African company, offered to promote and market the products of the taxpayer, an Indian company, on commission basis. Z will procure and negotiate orders and forward these to the taxpayer. The taxpayer will execute the orders directly and will receive the consideration in India. Z will render all services outside India and will not maintain any PE in India.
S. 80HHC; in favor of taxpayer: Post the amendment by Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005 (effective from 1 April 1998), controversy had arisen as to whether in case of an exporter having export turnover of more than INR100 million (where generally conditions mentioned in section 80HHC cannot be satisfied), the entire sale proceeds of DEPB need to be excluded while calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC or only profit on transfer of DEPB should be excluded.
S. 271(1)(c); in favor of taxpayer : The taxpayer was a trust organized in the US and was a resident of the US. As regards India, it was registered with SEBI as a sub- account of M/s Fidelity Management Resources Co. It filed a return of income declaring short-term capital gains and dividend income. Thereafter, based on an AAR ruling in case of XZY/ABC Equity Fund (2005) (250 ITR 194), the taxpayer filed a revised return of income,
The taxpayer was a banking company. In the current appeal, the Revenue’s grievance was that the CIT(A) had erred in directing that the written back ”provision of bad-debts” was not taxable as ”business income” especial y when a deduction of a sum was already al owed under Section 36(1) (vi a). The AO in the assessment order held that such write off of the provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowed as deduction in the previous years and therefore the current write back should be taxable. The CIT(A), while deciding the case before him, held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, an amount of liability written back cannot be taxed as income.
In the current times where several MNCs are facing the issue of operating losses (the term ‘operating losses’ for the purpose of this article denotes business losses) in various jurisdictions, it becomes imperative for them to evaluate the provisions on utilisation of tax losses in these jurisdictions so as to optimise the overall tax cost. Considering the above, this article contains a broad overview of provisions prevalent in certain key jurisdictions on utilisation of tax losses. However, it should be noted that there could be certain conditions prescribed under the respective tax laws which may need to be followed before offsetting the tax losses.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-707-ITAT-MUM] in the case of Cipla Investments Ltd. (Taxpayer) on taxability of waiver of loan. The ITAT held that since the loan received was on capital account, its subsequent waiver too was on capital account. Hence, the loan waived was not liable to be taxed as profits and gains from its business (business income) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The ITAT also held that waiver would not be taxable as business income if a taxpayer was not allowed deduction of the loan amount earlier.
In assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the only identical reason recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, with variation in the amounts involved, is that the interest income under section 244 A has escaped assessment and to reassess the same under section 147 of the Act notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 148 the Assessing Officer applied a higher rate of tax, i.e. @ 55%, applicable to foreign companies on the business income instead of the tax rate applicable to domestic companies, aga
The assessee, a partner in a firm, received ‘share of profit’ and ‘salary’ from the firm. While the ‘share of profit’ was exempt u/s 10(2A), the ‘salary’ was taxable as business income u/s 28 (v). The assessee claimed deduction for business expenditure incurred by him. The AO held that as the assessee had exempt income, s. 14A applied and a part of the expenditure had to be disallowed.
The contention of the Revenue is that the sub-contractor is undertaking various activities which constitute the core of the contract work entrusted to the applicant. All the activities undertaken by the sub-contractor are on behalf of the applicant and in connection with the execution of the contract between the applicant and TPT. It is pointed out that the sub-contractor is a nominee of the applicant and the delegation of work to the sub-cont
