Income Tax : Learn about taxation on derivatives and F&O transactions, their treatment as business income, audit requirements, and presumptive ...
Income Tax : Explore conflicting rulings on whether bonafide mistakes in disclosing foreign assets under the Black Money Act can avoid penaltie...
Income Tax : F&O traders need to know how their profits are taxed. With the ITR return filing date approaching, it is imperative to know how st...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Finance Act, 2023, on MSME payment enforcement under section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand ...
Corporate Law : Explore complexities of PMLA bail conditions, their impact on accused, and constitutional concerns. A comprehensive analysis sheds...
Income Tax : Held that the capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit. Particularly in view of the excruciating fact that...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that amount of employee’s share to ESI and PF paid after due date provide under the respective statutes is l...
Income Tax : Aggrieved by the relief granted by CIT(A) to assessee, Revenue preferred Appeal before ITAT for the assessment years under conside...
Company Law : Held that the outstanding being of more than 2 years prior to CIRP commencement date, the relief under Section 43 of the Code woul...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is not entitled for concession rate of tax of 20% provided under section 112(1) of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Income Tax : Notification No. 15/2014-Income Tax entral Government hereby notifies the Ace Derivatives and Commodity Exchange Limited, Ahmedaba...
Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that said decision of this Court was not carried in appeal on the ground that it involved tax effect lower than what is prescribed by the CBDT in circular dated 9.2.2011 permitting the Revenue to carry such appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to point out any factual distinction between the two cases.
Opining that the amendment of Section 43A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1st April, 2003 is amendatory and not clarificatory and would thus, apply prospectively, the Court explained that under the unamended Section 43A, adjustment to the actual cost takes place on the happening of change in the rate of exchange, whereas under the amended Section 43A,
Thus we find, if the functional test for a plant enunciated by Apex Court and jurisdictional court in their decisions referred to supra is applied to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that roads, flyovers bridges etc., constructed and owned by the assessee and utilised in its business of
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench (SB) of Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. (Taxpayer) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1294 (Kol) of 2008) in which the SB held that, prior to financial year 2005-06 (assessment year 2006-07), derivative transactions in shares were covered by the definition of speculative transactions (ST). The SB further held that the exception to the definition of ST, from tax year 2005-06, in respect of eligible derivative transactions carried out on recognized stock exchanges, is not clarificatory in nature and does not have a retrospective effect for earlier years.
Recently, the Special Bench of the Kolkata Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-542-ITAT-KOL-SB) while dealing with a case prior to the amendment to section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) exempting derivative transaction as speculative in nature, held that the derivative transactions will be considered as speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Act. Further, it was also held that the above referred amendment to section 43(5) of the Act is perspective in nature and comes into effect from Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.
After careful consideration of1 above provisions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the stand of the Revenue. As noted above actual cost should ordinarily mean real cost or real worth of assets. If it is not market value, then what is it? Mechanism to take W.D.V as provided in Explanation 2 to Section 43(6)(c) is not available in Explanation 3 o auction 43(1). Further, assets whose actual cost is to be determined under Explanation 3 are second hand and it is always difficult to find actual cost or value of such assets as compared to new assets. In the case of transf
SRF Ltd. v. DCIT, (ITAT Delhi) In the present case it is seen that the liability was discharged by way of issuance of shares. When the assessee issues shares the assessee does not incur any expenditure as the assessee is not to make any payment legally towards shares issued. The shares cannot be equated with debentures, which is purely by way of loan and the same are required to be repaid on maturity.
As can be seen from the above the adjustment made by the assessee is according to the provisions of the Act. Since both the industrial galas fall within the block the WDV is increased by the actual cost of the asset falling within the block and reduced by the amount payable in respect of the asset sold. Accordingly we do not find any mistake in assessee’s working of the block of assets which is according to the provisions of section 43(6)(c). The A.O.’s action in denying the inclusion of asset within the block is on the condition that the asset was not put to use.
. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had plant and machinery already existing prior to the receipt of finance from Wipro Finance Ltd. It is apparent from the chart of payment referred to by the learned AR of the assessee. This clearly indicates that the loan was not given directly or indirectly for the purpose of purchasing plant and machinery.
The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term “Written Down Value” reads as under :-
