Income Tax : The reform consolidates TDS provisions into a structured system and introduces digital compliance mechanisms. It enhances clarity,...
Income Tax : The ruling clarifies that unauthenticated digital chats and screenshots cannot form the sole basis of tax additions without proper...
Income Tax : The framework permits taxpayers to settle offences by paying prescribed compounding charges instead of facing prosecution. It clar...
Income Tax : CBDT amended Income-tax Rules to include crypto-assets and digital financial products in CRS reporting. The move expands disclosur...
Income Tax : The Draft Income-tax Rules, 2026 require salaried taxpayers to disclose their relationship with landlords, enabling enhanced scrut...
Income Tax : A representation has urged CBDT to merge TDS return codes 1023 and 1024, arguing that both apply to the same contract payments wit...
Income Tax : CBDT signed a record number of APAs to provide clarity on transfer pricing and reduce disputes. The framework ensures advance dete...
Income Tax : The Government stated that representations on own merit promotions are examined regularly as per existing rules, with no separate ...
Income Tax : Draft Income-tax Rules and Forms have been released for public feedback before the new law takes effect, with inputs to shape the ...
Income Tax : Following judicial criticism of delayed appeals, officers urged structural reforms to fix institutional gaps rather than penalisin...
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that CBDT instructions prohibit the AO from examining issues beyond the specific reason for limited scrutiny...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation under Section 11(2) should be condoned where gen...
Income Tax : Court found that the appellant failed to clearly identify which exceptional clause applied. Since the tax effect was below Rs.2 cr...
Income Tax : The issue was whether jewellery found during search can be taxed despite CBDT limits. ITAT held that jewellery within prescribed l...
Income Tax : The case examined whether scrutiny selection without meeting CBDT conditions was valid. The ITAT held that failure to satisfy mand...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department increased monetary thresholds for assigning cases between ITOs and D/ACITs in Delhi Region. The revised ...
Income Tax : The notification requires payers to generate UINs and file quarterly details of declarations even where no tax is deducted. It enh...
Income Tax : Explains the CBDT notification granting section 10(46) exemption to a district legal services authority and the categories of inco...
Income Tax : The Central Government notified an urban development authority under section 10(46A) of the Income-tax Act. The exemption applies ...
CIRCULAR NO 7/2008-Income Tax Dated: August 1, 2008 In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961, Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that corporations which are established by a Central, State or Provincial Act for the welfare and economic upliftment of ex-servicemen and whose income qualifies for exemption from Income-tax u/s. 10(26 BBB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are hereby given exemption from Tax Deduction/Collection at Source on their receipts.
(i) no annexures, TDS/ TCS certificates are required to be annexed to the returns of income. Wherever documents are attached with the return, the receiving official is required to detach and return to the tax-payers all such annexures; (ii) ITR-V verification form is in the nature of an acknowledgement, and therefore, the same should be received by giving a Return Receipt Number, as if it were a return. These ITR-V verification forms are to be received in separate counters to be set up for the purpose and these forms should be kept in safe custody
The Central Board of Direct Taxes has notified amendments to the Industrial Park Scheme 2008 under sub-section (4) of section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 2nd July 2008. According to the amended scheme, the ambit of “industrial activity” has been expanded to include (i) research and experimental development on natural sciences and engineering as defined in section K, division 73, group 731 of the National Industrial Classification, 2004 Code, issued by the Central Statistical Organisation, Department of Statistics; (ii) development of computer software; and (iii) information technology enabled services as notified vide notification number S.O.. 890(E), dated the 26th September 2000 for the purposes of sections 10A, 10B and 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The CBDT, as a measure to reduce litigation, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court. Accordingly, appeals would henceforth be filed in the ITAT only if the tax effect exceeded Rs.2,00,000, in the high court only if the tax effect exceeded Rs.4,00,000 and in the Supreme Court only if the tax effect exceeded Rs.10,00,000. However, it clarified that these monetary limits would not apply to writ matters.
The tax treatment of cross border software transactions has always been a matter of controversy. One of the major issues has been whether payments for software, where the seller retains all copyright, trademark and other proprietary rights in the software, should be characterized as royalty or as business income. This article addresses the said issue in the light of the definition of ‘royalty’ as per domestic law and as per DTAA (India – USA) and by making reference to some relevant case-laws. The author makes a pointer to the fact that though a Special Task Force was set up to examine the issues of taxation of software, no clarification has been issued by the CBDT so far. He, therefore, opines that it is high time that the CBDT/Finance Act should come up with a clarification/ amendment so as to address the confusion and litigation which is prevailing on the taxability of software payments.
The Income Tax Department has extended the last date for filing of tax returns for Tax Deducted/Collection at source for the second quarter of this fiscal to February 29. This measure is likely to provide a major relief to the employers, who could not submit their returns due to delay in clarification on employees stock options or other reasons.
THE variety of information which is nowadays being sought under the RTI Act has indeed grown in quality and magnitude. One such quality question was volleyed at the CBDT which is related to Sec 11 of the Income Tax Act.
One Vivek Bansal, Liberty House, Karnal had originally purchased deep discount bonds 1997 of Industrial Development Bank of India (I.D.B.I) @ of Rs. 5500/- each (the original purchaser). From him the assessee-respondent purchased those bonds @ Rs.9700/- each on 01.01.2001 for total value of Rs.19,40,000/ – (the assessee secondary purchaser). The original purchaser filed his return for the assessment year 2001-02 and reflected the difference in amount of purchase and the sale. Thus, a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/- became long term capital gain in respect of the original assessee. It is undisputed that the bonds were subject to accruing of interest year to year although, no income was received annually by the bond holder. The condition was modified by issuance of a press note later. The assessee-secondary purchaser received a draft of Rs. 19,08,200/-. This amount has been accounted for by the assessee-secondary purchaser.
NOTIFICATION NO 11/2008, Dated: January 18, 2008 Valuation of specified security not being an equity share in the company. 40D. For the purposes of clause (ba) of sub-section (1) of section 115WC, the fair market value of any specified security, not being an equity share in a company, on the date on which the option vests with the employee, shall be such value as determined by a merchant banker on the specified date.
If the assessing officer is going to make good an omission on the part of the assessee, he must be expressly authorised by law to do so lest he is hauled over coals for cosying up to the assessee. The recent Supreme Court verdict in Goetz (India) Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323), tersely dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the assessing officer (AO) not allowing a deduction which it was admittedly entitled to under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but which it had not claimed by even filing the revised return, is unexceptionable though it has come in for criticism from some quarters.
