Income Tax : Question - What is Krishi Kalyan Cess? Answer - An enabling provision is being made to levy Krishi Kalyan Cess on all taxable serv...
Goods and Services Tax : ♠ Input Tax Credit means credit of input tax. ♠ Every taxable person is entitled to take credit of input tax. ♠ Input tax me...
Goods and Services Tax : This act may be called the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2016. It extends to whole India. IGST applicable on all supplies...
Corporate Law : a cheque in the electronic form means a cheque drawn in electronic form by using any computer resource and signed in a secure sys...
Goods and Services Tax : This act may be called the Central GST Act, 2016 (CGST) / State GST Act, 2016 (SGST). It extends to the whole India. In case of SG...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula pr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in th...
Income Tax : It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that clause 244A (1) (b) is residual in nature which prescr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transf...
Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the present case, the order of AO may be brief but that by itself is not a sufficient reason to hold the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that clause 244A (1) (b) is residual in nature which prescribes interest on refund from the date of payment of tax in cases which are not covered by Section 244A (1) (a). Necessarily, it will cover interest on refund of excess self-assessment tax paid by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transfer instructions, no transfer of funds had, however, been effected, would be of little moment in-as-much as the addition is toward unexplained money or bank deposit.
ITAT held that Revenue has not disputed the fact that effective rate of interest paid by assessee in India was 6.62% on loans whereas Interest paid by assessee on loans taken from AE abroad was 5%. This was below the rate of interest assessee was paying on loans taken within India.
Bombay High Court held that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source in respect of payment made towards demurrage charges in cases where section 172 of the IT Act applies. The Revenue did not dispute in the present case that section 172 applied.
High Court held that as the issue of service of notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) are concerned, it is an admitted position that the said notices were never served on the Petitioner. The Revenue seeks to justify service of these notices on the Petitioner by contending that they have served the said notices on the last known address of the Petitioner which was the address of Ingram Micro India [earlier known as Tech Pacific India], the downstream company of the Petitioner.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd. vs. DCIT/Union of India that in the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.169/2014 dated 08.12.2015, it was held that before effecting deduction at source one of the aspects to be examined is whether such income is taxable in terms of the Income Tax Act.
High Court held that section 10(33) provides that any income by way of (i) dividends referred to in section 115-O; or (ii) income received in respect of the units from the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963; or (iii) income received in respect of units of a mutual fund specified under section 10(23D), shall be exempt from tax.
