The question raised before us is with regard to the taxability of the discount allotted to the subscribers of the chit, which as per the counsel for the appellant is in the nature of interest in the hands of such subscribers and not dividend
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P V A L Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 had an occasion to consider the impact of double taxation avoidance agreement provisions of Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that where liability to tax arises under the local enactment, the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act provide for taxation of globle income of an assessee chargeable to tax thereunder
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-707-ITAT-MUM] in the case of Cipla Investments Ltd. (Taxpayer) on taxability of waiver of loan. The ITAT held that since the loan received was on capital account, its subsequent waiver too was on capital account. Hence, the loan waived was not liable to be taxed as profits and gains from its business (business income) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The ITAT also held that waiver would not be taxable as business income if a taxpayer was not allowed deduction of the loan amount earlier.
We have considered the rival contentions, relevant record and various decisions relied upon by both the parties. The undisputed factual position emerging out of the record is that in the case of first assessee in ITA Nos.826 & 827/09 the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 was filed on due date but the return of income for
we find that in the declaration(s) even though the assessee had doubts about the excisability of the said item and even though the assessee had sought clarification as far back on 5th September, 1994; they did not mention the word Scrabble in the body of the declaration(s) filed with the Department. They did not mention the details of the game Scrabble. Therefore, this conduct of the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee herein deliberately declared branded goods under sub-heading 9403.00 of the CETA to avoid any enquiry in the matter by the Department. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Department was justified in invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act.
Section 46(2) provides that when a shareholder receives money or any other asset from a company on its liquidation, then such shareholder shall be charged to capital gains tax. This capital gain is on account of transfer of shares effected by extinguishment of rights in the shares. The section further provides
S. 154 (7) provides that a rectification order can be passed within four years “from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed”. The AO passed an assessment order u/s 143 (3) on 24.11.1998 in which he committed the mistake of reducing the depreciation instead of adding to the income resulting in double deduction. The assessee went up in appeal on other issues to the CIT (A) who decided the appeal on 28.6.2004.
As the search warrant was issued in the joint names of the assessee and her spouse, it means that the officer had reason to believe that the undisclosed assets and income were held jointly. If so, it is not open for the AO to assess the assessee individually on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search in pursuance to the said warrant but the assessment ought to have been only in the capacity of AOP or BOI.
The AO passed a block assessment order u/s 158BC by which he assessed the undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 24.37 L. Subsequently, he passed an order by which he added a further sum of Rs. 13.66 L to the said undisclosed income without issuing a notice u/s 148. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the AO could not have made the addition without reopening the block assessment u/s 147.
Section 80-IA(5) would come into operation only from the year in which the assessee started claiming deduction under section 80-IA i.e. from the initial year and the depreciation relating to the years prior to the initial assessment year cannot be brought back notionally to be adjusted against the income of the initial or subsequent assessment yearsSection 80-IA(5) would come into operation only from the year in which the assessee started claiming deduction under section 80-IA i.e. from the initial year and the depreciation relating to the years prior to the initial assessment year cannot be brought back notionally to be adjusted against the income of the initial or subsequent assessment years
