The option of choosing the initial year for claiming tax holiday under the Section for a consecutive period of 10 out of 15 years (20 years in some cases) from the commencement of operations of an eligible undertaking, is intended to provide meaningful benefit to such taxpayers, since these business are capital-intensive and typically have long gestation period during which they incur losses and are not in a position to avail the profit-linked tax holiday benefit.
A recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. (Taxpayer) [AIT2010-211-1TAT] under the provisions of the Indian Tax Act, 1961 (ITA),held that any person from whom a non resident is in receipt of any income can be treated as an agent of such non-resident.
CIT vs. Leena Ramachandran (Kerala High Court):-I-T- Sec 14A – assessee can claim deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds utilised for acquisition of shares only if shares are held as stock-in-trade and not investment: HC
Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay HC held Rule 8D r.w. S. 14A (2) is not arbitrary or unreasonable and Rule 8D is not retrospective and applies from AY 2008-09, for earlier disallowance can be worked on reasonable basis
Vodafone International Holding B.V. (Vodafone NL) was issued an order by the Indian Tax Authority assessing a capital gains tax alleged to have arisen to the Hong Kong based Hutchison Group (Hutch) on acquisition of controlling interest in an Indian entity, Vodafone-Essar Ltd. The controlling interest was acquired by acquiring the shares of a foreign holding company that indirectly held more than 50% of the shares of the Indian entity.
In case of multiple sale and purchase of residential houses, the exemption cannot be calculated considering the aggregate of capital gain and aggregate of investment in the residential houses. The exemption will be available in relation to each set of sale and corresponding investment in the residential house and the combination which is beneficial to the assessee has to be allowed.
Appeal by revenue against the order of Tribunal setting aside penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not have the requisite mens rea to evade payment of service tax
While Explanation 2 to s. 147 deems income to have escaped assessment if excessive deduction is allowed, the reopening of an assessment u/s 147 has serious ramifications because the AO is empowered to reassess income even in respect of issues not set out in the notice. Therefore, if the power to rectify an order u/s 154(1) is adequate to meet a mistake or error in the order of assessment, the AO must take recourse to that power as opposed to the wider power to reopen the assessment. If the error can be rectified u/s 154, it would be arbitrary for the AO to reopen the entire assessment u/s 147. Further, the error in the order was not attributable to a fault or omission on the part of the assessee and the assessee cannot be penalized for a fault of the AO;
1. Heard counsel on either side at length. Records perused. 2. Even though both sides had cited several decisions of this Court on the scope and application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but it is neither necessary nor required to deal with those cases in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
In a setback to foreign carrier companies, the Bombay high court has ruled that delayed payment of foreign travel tax (FTT) could attract penalty under the provision of the Finance Act, 1979. Rejecting the plea of petitioners Malaysian Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, North West Airlines and Kenya Airlines
