Income Tax : Maharashtra Sales Tax Department has published ‘List of Suspicious Dealers, who have issued false bills, without delivery of goo...
Income Tax : Yes, in certain case even if assessee received money through proper banking channels still it may attract tax @ 82.50% if assessee...
Income Tax : Now-a-days Income Tax department investigates alleged trading/investment in shares and securities with collusion/connivance with a...
Fema / RBI : In September 2016, RBI has issued Master Direction - Non-Banking Financial Company –Non-Systemically Important Non-Deposit takin...
Income Tax : While presenting budget 2017, there were several amendments proposed by Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley with respect to Taxation...
Income Tax : In the case of CIT vs. Smt.Datta Mahendra Shah, Bombay High court held that once department has accepted decision of ITAT given in...
Income Tax : In the case of Allscripts (India) Private Ltd.vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Ahemdabad held that for the purpose of fi...
Income Tax : In the case of Nileswar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs. CIT, High court of Kerla at Ernakulam has h...
Income Tax : In the case of Equity Intelligence India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has h...
Income Tax : In the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Tulsi Ram Modi, HC of Rajasthan at Jaipur has held that labourer hired by the assessee employed a...
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation Delhi High Court held that Advance received cannot be treated as income of the assessee and TDS is not deductible on reimbursement of Expenses since it is not an income.
In the case of of Pr. CIT vs. M/s Hues India Pvt. Ltd., High court of Rajasthan bench at Jaipur held that that quantum and penalty proceedings under the Act stand on a different footing and relying on decision in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 2002 (256) ITR 243 and Malani Ramjivan
In the case of /s R.W. Promotions P. Ltd vs. ACIT Bombay High Court held that AO must gives an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statement is relied upon by the revenue , violation of this right is clearly a breach of principles of natural justice.
Restriction on the intellectual property in designs and drawings sold by the assessee for the purpose of setting up a plant in India does not change the character of the transaction from the sale of the product to the use of licence/know-how.
On 9th July 2015 RBI has issued two circular firstly DNBS (IT).CC.No.01/24.01.191/2015-16, Dated 9-7-2015 for returns to be submitted by NBFC’s (Assets size below Rs 500 Crore) and secondly DNBR (PD) CC.No. 065/03.10.001/2015-16, Requirement for obtaining prior approval of RBI in cases of acquisition/ transfer of control of Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs).
Lump-sum payments are covered under the term royalty. The agreement postulated grant of permission to use or right to use intellectual property rights or knowhow and it is not a case of outright sale.
Whether addition made by AO for undisclosed income of Rs 2,68,11,454/- is justifiable in view of the fact that assessee has rebutted onus cast of him with the help of information/ documents/evidence, which he could have made to support his claimed that he has not done any transaction with alleged party.
It would be incongruous and inappropriate in the context of Section 10B of the Act to hold that the respondent-assessee, an 100% export oriented unit, who had refurbished a mini cement plant in Zambia and established a mini steel mill in Kazakhstan
That once the AO became aware that the property was not owned by the assessee and that he had received the amount on someone else’s behalf, notice could not have been issued under Section 158BD. He urged that this Court should not interfere with the ITAT’s order on this ground alone.
While Section 68 certainly enables the AO to bring to tax amounts which are suspect, in a transaction of the present kind, where the identity and the relationship of the donor are known, the AO in our opinion ought not to have concluded that the transaction – by which the assessee received the amount of Rs. 1,84,860/- was ingenuine.
