Income Tax : Now-a -days most of the employers, especially the companies have been providing loans to their employees for the purpose of purcha...
Income Tax : The word ‘Gratuity’, has not been defined in the Income-Tax Act, 1961(the Act). In the absence of any definition of ‘Gratuit...
Income Tax : Recently, I was approached by a multi-national company for an opinion regarding tax-treatment of the expenses reimbursed by the co...
Income Tax : There are a number of entities, the income / surplus of which is governed by the principle of mutuality and therefore, such income...
Income Tax : Of late, the concept of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) has been very much in vogue, in regard to the developers and builde...
The Finance Act, 1994, provided for levy of service-tax in respect of ‘Taxable services’. Section 68 of the aforesaid Act lays down that the provider of taxable services shall be liable for payment of service tax, at the specified rate. The relevant provisions in this regard are section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, as also Rule 6 of the Service-Tax Rules.
In this regard paragraph (25) of Circular No. 14 of 2001, is relevant. The aforesaid Circular No.14 provides Explanatory Notes on the provisions of Finance Act, 2001, relating to direct taxes, which is printed in 252 I.T.R. (St) 65. Paragraph (25) of the aforesaid Circular is to be found on page 86 thereof. For the sake of ready reference, the aforesaid paragraph (25) is reproduced as follows:
Under the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), where in the case of a company, the income-tax payable on the total income in respect of any assessment year (AY), is less than ten percent of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee and tax payable by the assessee on such total income shall be the amount of income-tax at the rate of ten percent.
It has been held in the aforesaid judgements that it is not open to a person making payments to a non-resident to take a unilateral decision that the payments made by him are not sums chargeable to tax. To take that view, concurrence of the Assessing Officer as provided in section 195(2) is sine qua non. For reaching the aforesaid conclusion, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 587 (S.C.) has also been invoked.
Employees’ Stock Option Plan or Scheme (ESOP or ESOS, for short), was not liable to fringe benefit tax (FBT) upto the assessment year (AY) 2007-08, relevant to the financial year (FY) 2006-07. The reason for the same is that though under the provisions of section 115WB(1)(a) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), ESOP could be considered as a privilege and accordingly, chargeable to FBT, yet in the absence of specific valuation provisions in this regard in section 115WC,
In the present day scenario, looking at the high rate of attrition, it has become very necessary for the employers to provide various incentives to their employees in order to retain their services. One of such incentives is provision of pension to the employee after his retirement from service. In this context, it must be clearly understood that a grant of pension on retirement to employees,
As pointed out earlier, normally any profit and gain on the sale of shares held as a stock-in-trade is treated as business income, which is liable to tax at the rate of 30%. On the other hand, any gain made on the sale of shares held as investment is normally liable to tax at the rate of 10%.
In order to understand the implications of the aforesaid Circular in the correct perspective, it would be necessary to understand the meaning of certain terms as provided under section 2 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The same are discussed
Recently, the Supreme Court has rendered a landmark judgement, dated 4.1.2007, in the case of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. DIT [2007] 288 ITR 408 (S.C.): 207 CTR 361(S.C.). This judgement has thrown new light in respect of the expression ‘Income deemed to accrue or arise in India’, as contemplated under section 9 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Of late, it has been observed that with the growth of the economy of the country the number of transactions of the tax-payers in India with non-residents have been increasing. Such transactions may relate to supply of plant and machinery from abroad, technology transfers, provision of technical and consultancy services by non-residents, etc.
