Shares bought for Rs 5.25 Cr sold for Rs 52.5 lakh in same yr – capital loss allowed by AO – CIT can review order only if it is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue; both ingredients should be present – ITAT
VALUATION of perquisites has always been a bone of contention. To overcome many of such irritants, the Finance Minister in the Finance Act, 2007 had inserted a deeming provision to define concession in the matter of rent for the purpose of determining the perquisite value. It has also reduced the rate of valuation of perquisite in the nature of concessional rent accommodation and leased accommodation with retrospective effect from 1 st day of April, 2006, that is with effect from assessment year 2006-2007. This had necessitated similar reduction of rates in case of both rent-free and concessional rent accommodations and leased accommodation in Table I of rule 3 with retrospective effect from 1 st day of April, 2006, that is in relation to assessment year 2006-2007 and subsequent years.
THE main point raised in this appeal is against the reduction in the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC. The facts are that the return of income was filed claiming deduction u/s. 80HHC at Rs. 7,38,416/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that there was a net profit of Rs. 14,54,272/- on total export turnover of Rs. 2,48,26,964/ -. The net profit included Duty draw back turnover of Rs. 21,10,298/- and DEPB of Rs. 6,63,942/-. The Assessing Officer on verification of export in Form No. 10CCAC observed that the assessee has Loss on export turnover at Rs. 10,19,985/-.
Disallowance of travel by employees: the assessee had calculated the disallowance under Rule 6D with total number of travels undertaken by each employee during the year. This means that the disallowance was worked after setting off disallowables on one trip against the deficit in another trip in respect of each employee. However, the Assessing Officer observed that this disallowance under Rule 6D has to be computed with respect to each travel and ultimately, made an addition of Rs.2,00,000/ – which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
Nothwithstanding the fact that the imported Rolls Royce car gathered dust at the Customs godown for nine long years due to non-clearance, the importer would still not be entitled to any depreciation, the Supreme Court has held.
CallingID safe browsing toolbar automatically shows whether sites visited are real and safe to login, submit personal information to or deal with. It displays the site owner’s name and physical address and a risk indication for safe e-commerce and online banking. Calling ID checks if the site owner is actively conducting business. Problems like phishing, site that hides owner identity or has any security problem is automatically detected.
CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Supreme Court) -The review petition filed by the department against the judgement reported in CIT P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC) {reg applicability of DTAA} has been dismissed.
Hero Exports vs. CIT (Supreme Court) -Though section 80HHC does not provide so, an assessee is entitled, in computing the indirect cost of goods exported, to claim deduction at 10% as indirect expenses incurred for earning export incentives, misc income and brokerage etc. The deduction is allowed on estimate basis and as per the underlying principles of apportionment.
Provident fund contributions need not be deducted from the payment made towards annual leave encashment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled. Allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by various factories, Justice K. Chandru said leave encashment could not be considered part of the basic wage for deducting provident fund contributions. Employees usually did not exhaust their earned leave; they chose to encash them at the time of retirement, or the sum was paid to their heirs in case of contingency such as the death of an employee. Hence, they would not be benefited at all by provident fund deduction from the encashment of annual leave.
Latest Advance Ruling may impact billion-dollar Vodafone takeover case; Capital gains – Transfer of shares between two non-resident entities abroad – Since situs of income is located here, it is taxable in India. TAXING capital gains has always been a tricky subject for the Revenue. If it ever involved two non-resident entities, it always proved to be a much trickier and harder nut to crack. Then came the insertion of the most crucial clause in the statute – the situs of the capital asset, a step to iron out the hiatus in the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. This was designed to take care of the transactions between two non-residents over the capital assets situated in India.
