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 : Article discusses about Order which can be rectified under section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Rectification of Income Tax order ...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Every taxpayer has to furnish the details of his income to the Income-tax Department. These details are to be furnished by filing ...
Income Tax : Ensure sufficient time for compliance with Section 143(2) notice and the mandatory issuance of valid notices under Section 142(1)(...
Income Tax : It has been observed that in many cases an assessee may wish to make a claim which was not made in the return of income filed unde...
Income Tax : We have attached a file in excel format. The file contains the format of various details which normally assessing officer asks As...
Income Tax : Read the detailed judgment of Bombay High Court in ACIT Vs Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt Ltd regarding TDS deduction on retr...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Chennai's decision on penalties under sections 269SS and 269T for Pearl Beach Promoters P. Ltd....
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order on Sec 56(2)(viib) and its implications for premium amounts on shares issued to holding...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Reassessment cannot be solely based on a reevaluation of exi...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
ITAT Delhi held that payment of IUC Charges is not Fee for Technical Services or Royalty within the meaning of its definition as per section 9(l)(vi) and 9(l)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
ITAT Raipur held that there is no bar on an individual to join a partnership firm in his representative capacity of a firm being represented by him. In short, partnership firm can be formed by partners represented by their respective firms.
AO had applied his mind while doing the assessment therefore, the investigation by AO could not be called ‘lack of investigation’ and revision order passed under section 263 was quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received from sale of software (i.e. copyrighted article) cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-USA DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received by the assessee from providing SAP support services and IT support services is not covered within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and hence not taxable in India in absence of permanent establishment.
Linklaters LLP Vs Asst Vs CIT (IT)-3(1)(2) Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that remuneration received for providing legal services doesn’t amount to ‘fees for technical services’, where the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, the same is not taxable. Facts- The assessee is a LLP incorporated under the laws […]
Madras High Court held that impugned assessment order passed without granting time despite of specific request from the petitioner is liable to be quashed and remanded back as against the principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions contained in section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted in case of the trust created for the benefit of the members / relatives of the settler who have been identified as beneficiaries.
ITAT Hyderabad restore the issue to file of CIT(A)-NFAC as non-appearance before CIT(A)-NFAC due to unavoidable circumstance. Further, due to continuous non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by CIT(A)-NFAC, cost of INR 10,000 imposed to be paid to PM’s Relief Fund.
ITAT Chennai held that as cash deposited by assessee received from petty shop owners on account of sale of its product during demonetization period was not examined by AO during assessment. Accordingly, PCIT rightly passed revision order u/s 263 directing AO to carry out necessary verification.
