Income Tax : Analyze the tax implications of share splits and amalgamations in India. Understand capital gains treatment, period of holding, an...
Income Tax : Understand capital gains tax on equity and mutual funds. Learn about short-term and long-term gains, tax rates, exemptions, and st...
Income Tax : Section 54B of Income Tax Act provides relief to individuals or HUF who have transferred their agricultural land and wants to inv...
Income Tax : Step-by-step guide to filing ITR-2 online for FY 2023-24, covering salary income, capital gains, and other sources of income. Ensu...
Income Tax : Learn about capital gains exemption on the sale of residential houses under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, including conditions...
Income Tax : Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 Key Features of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 1. Provides that no tax demand shall be ...
Income Tax : The government introduced the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which seeks to withdraw tax demands made under the Finance Act...
Income Tax : 4 Major Tax Exemptions to Startups includes Income Tax Exemption on profits under Section 80-IAC of Income Tax (IT) Act, Tax Exemp...
Income Tax : Finance Act, 2018 has withdrawn the exemption under clause (38) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and has introd...
Income Tax : The Finance Act, 2015 has amended provisions dealing with indirect transfer of capital asset situated in India. The amendment prov...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules that Section 50C deeming provisions cannot be applied to leasehold rights in the Shivdeep Tyagi vs ITO case....
Income Tax : Understand the implications of the Parulben Vijaykumar Patel vs ITO case from ITAT Ahmedabad. Detailed analysis and conclusion pro...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore dismisses valuation of bonus shares under Income Tax Act sec. 55(2)(aa)B. Detailed analysis of Zash Traders vs ACIT...
Income Tax : Section 54F amendment restricting exemption to one residential house was prospective, applying only from April 1, 2015 and Violat...
Income Tax : Discover how the Madras High Court ruled on treating multiple flats as a single residential unit under Section 54F. Detailed analy...
Income Tax : The Ministry of Finance, through the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), issued Notification No. 44/2024-Income-Tax on May 24, 2...
Income Tax : The Government of India in IEBR for FY 2022-23 have not mandated NHAI to raise funds from the market. Therefore. NHAI shall not is...
Income Tax : The Finance Act, 2021 amended clause (10D) of section 10 of the Act by inserting fourth to seventh provisos. Fourth proviso provid...
Income Tax : CBDT vide Notification No. 8/2022-Income tax notifies Rule 8AD Computation of capital gains for the purposes of sub-section (1B) o...
Income Tax : No tax demand shall be raised in future on the basis of the amendment to section 9 of the Income-tax Act made vide Finance Act, 20...
There is no rider u/s 54F that no deduction would be allowed in respect of investment of capital gains made on acquisition of land appurtenant to the building or on the investment on land on which building is being constructed.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the government’s apex tax policy and collection body, has suggested that the new direct taxes code abolish Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and continue to offer individuals tax exemptions on savings under the existing EEE (exempt-exempt- exempt) method.
In the previous chapter we studied the impact of proposed tax rates and concluded it is more in favour of the rich and not for middle income group. A similar view has also been expressed by group of Senior Income Tax Officials in which they have stated “under the garb of providing long term stability in the tax regime, the tax code in fact would widen the rich-poor gap and create more economic absurdities”[BS.21/09/09] In this chapter we propose to discuss the impact of the new code on the salaried persons who are the most efficient tax payers of this country.
The new code attempts to change the methodology of taxation of business profits from the existing model where the taxable income is equal to business profits with specified adjustments even though this model does not provide for items of receipts which form part of business profit and deduction to be made there from.
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal – Powers of – Assessment year 1996-97 -Whether though Tribunal is not akin to a Court but functions discharged by it are similar to a Court, and, hence, in addition to its expressed statutory powers it has got inherent power to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice – Held, yes –
As the facts indicate the holding company has advanced funds to the assessee company in 1998 which was received as share application money, later on transferred to unsecured loan. The amounts were utilised in investments and the incomes thereon were offered under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’.
The assessee, an employee of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) India, received from J&J, USA, on 12.7.1989 a “cashless” option to buy 2500 shares at the then prevailing market price of $ 57.88 per share. The options were exercisable in installments over 10 years starting 11.7.1991. On 13.8.1992 (AY 1993-94), the assessee ‘sold’ the options and made a gain of Rs. 5,44,925
Question Nos. 2 to 6 pertain to one and the same issue, that is, whether IVP is a capital asset or not. It is seat from the orders of the Tribunal that investment in IVP is assessed in the case of the assessee as unexplained investment only to the extent of fresh investment made in the respective year and reinvestment after encashment of earlier deposits was in tact allowed.
Having an effective management in India is not a sufficient ground to deny exemption from capital gains tax to a company that is based in Mauritius, ruled a Delhi bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT held that under the India-Mauritius double taxation avoidance agreement
S. 47 (v) provides that a transfer of a capital asset by a subsidiary company to its holding company shall not be regarded as a “transfer” if the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company is held by the holding company. The assessee transferred shares to its subsidiary and claimed exemption from capital gains u/s 47 (v). The AO denied exemption on the ground that as two shares of the said subsidiary
