BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Shri P.C. Ramakrishna, his wife and his two daughters. There was an oral total partition of H.U.F. on 16.9.1994 between Sri P.C. Ramakrishna, his wife and two daughters. Under this oral partition, the two daughters were allotted Rs.12,50,000/ – each and these amounts were adjusted against a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- advanced to each of them earlier as loan by H.U.F. In the said partition, all other properties of H.U.F. were allotted to Sri P.C. Ramakrishna. This oral partition took place on 16.9.1994 which was subsequently confirmed by a Deed of Declaration confirming the partition.
Letters of credit are commonly used to reduce credit risk to sellers in both domestic and international sales arrangements. By having a bank issue a letter of credit, in essence, one is substituting the bank’s credit worthiness for that of the customer.
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.
Recently old Rule 3 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, regarding valuation of perquisites, has been substituted by a new Rule, vide Notification No. S.O. 940(E), dated 25.9.2001. Sub-rule (7) of new Rule 3 deals with other fringe benefits or amenities in terms of the provisions of S. 17(2)(vi) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Clause (iv) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 deals with the valuation of perquisite by way of any gift or voucher or token
Of late it is becoming difficult for the employers to retain their top-level employees. Therefore, the employers are trying to provide additional benefits for such employees. In the present scenario most of the senior level employees are very much concerned about their post-retirement benefits viz. pension or some kind of other annuity after their retirement from service.
Recently, the Supreme Court has rendered a very important judgement in respect of valuation of perquisite regarding housing accommodation provided by an employer to its employees, in the case of Arun Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India [2006] 286 ITR 89 (S.C.). In this case, the validity of rule 3 of Income-Tax Rules, 1962(the Rules), as amended in 2001,
Under the existing provisions, in the first proviso to section 10(23C), the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institutions or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clauses (iv), (v), (vi) or (via) of the said clause (23C), shall make an application in the prescribed form and manner to the prescribed authority for the purpose of grant of exemption
The Finance Act, 2005, has inserted in the Income-Tax Act, 1961(the Act), a new Chapter XII-H. This Chapter deals with a new tax known as, ‘Fringe Benefit Tax’ (FBT) and it contains Sections 115W to 115WL. Chapter XII-H has come into effect from 1.4.2006 viz. assessment year (AY) 2006-07, relevant to the financial year (FY) 2005-06.
