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...
Sometime back, a query was raised whether the benefit of exemption under sections 54 and 54F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in respect of long-term capital gains, on account of investment of such capital gains in the purchase / construction of a residential house in a foreign country, is available to an assessee, being a non-resident Indian.
The issue whether any disallowance of expenditure could be made under section 14A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in respect of exempt in income by way of dividend earned by an assessee engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities; has come up for consideration before various judicial fora.
Vide the Finance Act, 2012, section 9(1)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), has been amended by insertion of new Explanations 4 and 5, thereto. Similarly, section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, has been amended by the Finance Act, 2012, by insertion of Explanations 4, 5 and 6, thereto.
This Note relates to the significance of the recent judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs Industrial Fin. Corpn. of India [2012] 346 ITR 11 (Guj), which deals with the interpretation of the provisions of section 281 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), relating to Certain transfers to be void. As per aforesaid judgement, section 281 of the Act,
In the judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India [2007] 292 ITR 470 (Cal), it was held that section 43B(f) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was arbitrary, unconscionable and de-hors the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) and accordingly, the same was struck down as ultra-vires.
It is a well-known fact that the Assessing Officers (AOs) in many cases make high-pitched assessments and raise huge uncalled for demands against the assessee, as a result thereof. It is also a well-known fact that after raising such uncalled for and unjustified high demands, the Revenue authorities take recourse to coercive measures for the recovery of such demands in a highly arbitrary and hasty manner. In such a situation,
As a result of the aforesaid protests and representations, there has been roll-back or reduction in the rigour, in respect of some of the aforesaid proposed amendments. The same were announced by the Finance Minister in his speech, while introducing the Finance Bill, 2012, for consideration. Besides, in certain respects, some additional reliefs have also been announced by the Finance Minister. The same are briefly discussed as follows:
I am preparing this Note in order to clarify the position that none of the amendments relating to Direct Taxes, particularly those relating to TDS and TCS, will come into force with immediate effect. In other words, all the amendments relating to the Direct Taxes will become effective, only after the Finance Bill, 2012, is enacted as part of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
1. The biggest wonder in the world is that a human being who normally spends 80 – 100 years on the planet earth, (i) does not ever think that he / she is not the body and his real self is the Atma or Spirit within, and (ii) he never deliberates upon the purpose of the life on this planet earth.
Vide the Finance Bill, 2012, the heading of Chapter XII-BA regarding alternate minimum tax (AMT), in respect of persons other than a company, has been substituted by the words ‘Persons other than a company’, in place of the words ‘Limited liability partnerships’. As per amendment of the aforesaid Chapter, provisions of AMT have been made applicable to all persons other than companies
