An Indian company engaged in computer software business set up a trading office in Japan. The company’s Japan branch suffered loss, which it claimed as deduction from profits earned in India. The assessing officer, however, held that since the profits of the trading office are taxable in Japan only, any loss incurred by the firm in respect of its trading office is not allowable as deduction from the income which is taxable in India.
Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has recently issued Instruction (Income Tax) No. 9/2006, dated 7th November, 2006 (157 Taxman St.23/16 CAPJ St. 739) covering all aspects of procedure to be followed for conduct of revenue audit and also for dealing with audit objections including remedial actions to be taken by the departmental authorities. The present instruction is said to be issued in suppression of earlier instructions nos. 159, 484, 499, 612, 828, 854, 1046, 1057, 1071, 1176, 1205, 1473, 1598, 1609, 1928 & 1971.
The Government has come to the rescue of high net worth individuals on the borderline from an additional tax liability that goes beyond the income in excess of Rs 10 lakh. By way of a rule of thumb, the financial world condescends to grant the hallowed status of high net worth (HNW) individuals on those with assets of Rs 5 crore and more. The income-tax law on this touchstone ought to have imposed surcharge of 10 per cent on those having income of Rs 1 crore or more assuming 20 per cent return on wealth to be normal as a rule of thumb.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the companies have statutory obligation to deduct tax at sources (TDS) on interest payments for the loans taken in the name of its directors. The revenue department is empowered to impose interest on such a company for not deducting tax by declaring it assessee in default, the apex court said.
Gross total income in Chapter VI-A means the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deduction under the said Chapter VI-A. Thus, the only deductions which are excluded by that definition are those under Chapter VI-A. More importantly the total income has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Obviously, the provisions of Income Tax Act includes section 32-AB.
YOU are liable to deduct TDS. By a mistaken understanding, you deduct less TDS than what was required to be deducted. However the deductee pays the correct Income Tax. Can the Department demand the TDS again from you? Logic would say, NO, but logic and tax don’t always go together and you need the Supreme Court to tell you that on the same income, you cannot levy tax twice.
Tax can be recovered only when it becomes debt due from assessee and it becomes a debt due when notice of demand is served – tax recovery officer cannot file claim against property attached by court : SC
Court noted that basic requirement of Sec.53A of TPA is a written agreement and Sec.2(47)(v) can be invoked only if conditions laid out in Sec.53A are fulfilled. In the instant case there was neither any written agreement between the Assessee and builder nor any consideration received by her thus 53A of TPA can’t come into play as a result of which 2(47)(v) can’t be invoked. Thus it held that there was no transfer in the instant case within the meaning of Sec.2(47)(v) of the Act and since there is no transfer, question of resulting profit and capital gain doesn’t arise.
TAXING a non-resident has always been challenging, and wherever possible the law has provided adequate safeguard for the Revenue. That is how Sec 163 came into being. The issue here is: If a non-resident is assessed independently, can its agent in India be also assessed as Representative Assessee for the same income u/s 163?
Sec.263 is the revisionary power of Commissioner which is to be invoked where the order of A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue but all errors and loss of revenue don’t allow for invocation of Sec.263 but in circumstances as discussed above. In case there are two views on an issue and A.O. takes one of the views leading to loss of revenue, it will not lead to an erroneous decision calling for invocation of Sec.263. The circumstances as laid out in the Malabar case is an important pointer and basis for action u/s 263.
