Income Tax : Understand whether director remuneration is taxed as salary or business income. Learn about tax implications, employer-employee re...
CA, CS, CMA : In a partnership, compensation for the partners’ time, expertise, and capital investment is an important part of the busines...
Income Tax : Learn about disallowed expenses under PGBP in India's Income Tax Act. Understand key sections like 37, 40, and 40A, and their impa...
Income Tax : Income-tax Act contains provisions for taxability of various allowances received by a taxpayer. These allowances are either in the...
Income Tax : In this Article we have discussed briefly Different Provisions Applicable to Income from Business and Profession at one place. In ...
Income Tax : From April 1, 2025, rental income from house properties must be reported under "Income from House Property," not as business incom...
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...
The Bombay High Court ruled that once the taxpayer’s submissions with respect to section 14A was accepted by a tax officer, the Tribunal cannot send back the same matter for the tax officer’s re¬consideration. Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-458-HC-MUM-IT) has held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not justified in sending back the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) after applying the ratio of the decision in the case of ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd [2008] 312 ITR (SB) (Mum) since the submissions made by the taxpayer in this regard was accepted by the tax officer during the assessment proceedings.
Tribunals upheld the concept of ‘make available’ and held specified services not Fees for technical services Mumbai and Bangalore bench of Tribunal upheld the concept of ‘make available’ in two different cases and held that the specified services were not in the nature of Fees for included/technical services.
With the tax authorities out to prove that the existence of a large number of transactions in shares is to be treated as business income, while the focus of assessees generally has been on trying to refute the tax authorities arguments through stressing the various factual aspects related to the transactions, very often one tends to miss out on exploring the possible alternative contentions, which could mitigate the impact or at times even dissuade the Assessing Officer from treating such transactions as business transactions. What are these contentions?
Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (ITA Nos.87Del//2008, 4788/Del/2007 and 233/Ahd/ 2006) holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.
The definition of Capital asset continues in DTC. However the DTC classifies assets into two broad categories i.e. investment assets, and business assets. DTC envisages taxing income from transfer of investment assets as capital gains. Under the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”), income from transfer of capital assets even if used for business purposes was taxed as capital gain. DTC proposes to tax income from transfer of business capital assets as “business income” and the scope of definition of transfer is expanded to include business assets also.
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.
