: IT is not only the Ministry of Commerce which is struggling to sculpt a perfect substitute for the most popular exports incentive scheme of DEPB, even the Income Tax Department has been breaking its head against multiple possibilities as to how to treat the value of DEPB. And the very same question came before the Tribunal in a recent case. The merchant exporter had computed its Sec 80HHC benefits by taking into consideration the DEPB income whereas the A.O. did not consider DEPB income as eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Let’ take a quick stroll through the various arguments and the recent judicial pronouncements which enabled the Tribunal to form a concrete opinion on this contentious issue.
the process of review under Section 35E of the Act could be resorted to for challenging the refund sanction orders passed pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund sanction orders of the original authority were only consequential to the order of the appellate authority and any process of review should have been thought of against the appellate order rather than against the consequential orders of the original authority. The appellate authority’s order (which treated the refund claims as not time-barred) became final and binding on the Department in the absence of review and, consequently, it was not open to the Department to demand duty from the party on the ground of erroneous refund.
The income tax department has won its appeals against tea exporting companies when the Supreme Court resolved the prevailing conflict of views among the High Courts on the question as to at what stage Section 80HHC, deduction in income tax, should be allowed i.e. before the 60 : 40 apportionment under the 1962 IT Rule 8(1) or from 40 per cent profits on sales taxable as business income.
IN this batch of writ petitions, the prayer is that the provisions of Section 245D(2A), Section 245D(2D), Section 245D(4A) and Section 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be declared unconstitutional. The provisions under challenge relate to settlement applications made by the Petitioners to the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Act prior to 1st June, 2007.
THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.
If the assessing officer is going to make good an omission on the part of the assessee, he must be expressly authorised by law to do so lest he is hauled over coals for cosying up to the assessee. The recent Supreme Court verdict in Goetz (India) Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323), tersely dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the assessing officer (AO) not allowing a deduction which it was admittedly entitled to under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but which it had not claimed by even filing the revised return, is unexceptionable though it has come in for criticism from some quarters.
The IT Department acquired a property at Gandhi Nagar in Chennai when the agreement for sale relating to the property was submitted for getting the ‘No Objection’ certificate. This was done on the ground that the apparent consideration was less than the market value. The department made an assessment and found that the difference between the market value and the registered value was more than 15 per cent.
Explore essential FAQs on family arrangements, including their nature, legality, and differences from partitions. Get clarity on stamping and registration requirements.
A Special Bench of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that the income tax that an employer pays on behalf of its employee is a non-monetary benefit in kind and, therefore, exempt from tax. The Tribunal’s ruling will benefit multinational companies operating through liaison and sales offices and unregistered Indian companies, some of which are known to bear the tax costs for their employees.
JUST a week ago, we carried a story and case where a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court had taken serious note of the lackadaisical approach of the Department in releasing the information. The High Court had directed the department to furnish the information within two weeks.
