The income tax act defines Income tax and laws related to income tax. It covers income tax levy, collection, administration, and recovery. Income tax acts and income tax laws get changed/updated from time to time. Read our Latest News and Updated on the Income-tax act and Articles on the income tax act to understand the income tax act and its sections. Read our articles to understand income tax act section 10, income tax act section 24, income tax act section 54, income tax act section 80c, income tax act 44ad, income tax bare act, etc.
Income Tax : Understand the implications of receiving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Learn how to respond, time limits, a...
Income Tax : Learn about the consequences of filing your ITR incorrectly and claiming a full refund. Understand Section 133(6) of the Income Ta...
Income Tax : Learn about income tax rules for Indian Army personnel: exemptions, ITR filing requirements, salary details, and benefits. Explore...
Income Tax : Discover Section 194R introduced by the Finance Act 2022, detailing TDS requirements on benefits or perquisites provided to reside...
Income Tax : Discover everything about Income Tax Deduction under Section 80C - eligibility, qualifying investments, maximum deduction, and mor...
Goods and Services Tax : CBI arrests a CGST Superintendent for accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000, while designated courts in Ahmedabad and Madurai sentence f...
Income Tax : Live webinar – Taxation Critical Issues & Solution Did you know our Indian Tax System is extremely vulnerable? Let me te...
Income Tax : Explore the challenges faced by Karnataka State Chartered Accountants Association (R) in processing updated returns under Section ...
Income Tax : Chamber of Tax Consultants seeks an extension for filing Form 10B and Form 10BB while requesting relaxation of requirements. Detai...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department conducts searches on two real estate groups of Bengaluru and Hyderabad Income Tax Department carried out sea...
Income Tax : Section 54 deduction was allowable on cash transactions involving residential property as it was ensured that genuine investments ...
Income Tax : Read ITAT Kolkata's full text order on Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO. Learn why old loans converted into share allotment were dee...
Corporate Law : Read the detailed analysis of Orissa High Court's decision to revise compensation under Section 44-AE of Income Tax Act in a motor...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur rules that AO's non-addition of bogus LTCG does not make the order automatically erroneous. Detailed analysis of Vipul...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment proceedings against Chaudhary Stone Crusher, ruling on sale of partners property before IT notice ...
Income Tax : Facing a delayed income tax refund for AY 2021-22 due to technical issues? The CBDT offers relief! Electronically filed returns wi...
Income Tax : Explore the latest Income Tax Notification No.11/2024 regarding Punjab State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine. L...
Income Tax : Explore the details of Notification No.10/2024 by the Ministry of Finance, providing income tax exemption to Chennai Metropolitan ...
Income Tax : Explore the latest Income Tax Notification (No. 9/2024) dated January 5, 2024. Details on Polavaram Project Authority's specified ...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Notification No. 8/2024 by the Ministry of Finance on Haryana State Board of Technical Education's specified...
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2010-TII-ITAT-MUM-INTL) dealt with the issue of whether passing of an order by the AO is necessary for filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for a declaration that no tax was deductible on such income. The Tribunal held that Section 248 of the Act does not require any order being passed by the AO as a condition precedent for filing an appeal before CIT(A) . Further, the taxpayer also fulfilled all the necessary conditions required by the provision of the Act. Therefore, the taxpayer was right in filing an appeal before the CIT (A).
The taxpayer, a manufacturer and exporter of chemicals had more than 97.5 percent of its sales to its associated enterprise (“AE”). It benchmarked the sales to AEs under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method based on the average price charged by the AEs to the customers. The Revenue observed that the non-AEs who purchased the chemicals paid a higher price and adopted the price charged to the non-AEs as the CUP. The taxpayer stated that the AEs operated in the insulation industry and that the non-AEs were in the aerospace sector, which also resulted in the difference in pricing. It also contended that the AE came into existence for the reason that its ultimate customers required long term warranties on the product and were more comfortable dealing with an American firm than directly with the taxpayer. It was also pointed out that the ALP determined by the Revenue turned out to be higher than even the price ultimately charged to the buyers by the AEs. It also stated that the sale to non-AEs were in small quantities and non-recurrent, which cannot be compared directly with the sales to the AEs. However, the Revenue rejected taxpayer’s contentions after considering various aspects concerning the comparability of sales to non-AEs including differences in turnover, quantity, customer profiles and geography. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the taxpayer and ruled that there was no case for the Revenue in making the adjustments and accordingly, the sales to the AEs were held to be at arm’s length.
Circular No. 7/2010 The Board has received various references from the field formations as well as members of public about the period of validity of approvals granted by the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax or Directors General of Income Tax under sub-clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (via) of Section 10(23C) and by the Commissioners of Income Tax or Directors of Income Tax under Section 80G (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Notification No. 75/2010-Income Tax [F.No.203/152/2009/ITA-II), dated 11-10-2010. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Maharashtra Rajya Draksha Bagaitdar Sangh, Pune has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules. 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2010-2011 onwards in the category of ‘Other Institution’, partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-
The scope of wealth tax, which is currently levied on unproductive assets like jewellery, yacht and aircraft will be extended to productive assets like equity or preference shares held by an Indian company in its overseas subsidiary and interest in f
Notification No. 73/2010-Income Tax Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes) number
In a recent decision, in the case of Entertainment One India Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-210-ITAT-MUM] (“the assessee”), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has held that there is no liability to withhold tax under sections 194C and 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on payments made to producers, directors and actors for financing film production.
Once section 249(4)(a) is treated as a mandatory condition for filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals) and once that condition stood satisfied at the time of his filing an appeal to CIT (Appeals), then, there was no necessity for the assessee to once again pay the admitted tax due as a condition precedent to his filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).
The Direct Taxes Code (DTC) Bill has proposed to substitute all profit-linked incentives with investment-linked incentives for businesses that enjoy tax sops under the existing law. Apart from developers of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and units operating out of them, the proposal will also affect companies in power, infrastructure, food processing, hotel and hospital sectors, among others.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission, even after commencing the proceedings, is empowered to examine the authenticity of such full and true disclosure of the unaccounted return of the assessees, said the apex court dismissing the plea of real estate major Ajmera Housing Corporation and others.
