Tax Keeda

The AO is not right in his decision in treating the long term capital loss incurred on sale of listed shares on the same footing as that of long term capital gain and thereby denying the carry forward of long term capital loss since long term capital gain was exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act

A failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default/defaults for which penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) is sought to be to be imposed on him, has to be visited with and accorded the same treatment as in a case where the A.O had failed to strike off the irrelevant default in the ‘Show cause’notice, because, in both the situations the assessee is not informed and rather is left guessing of the default/defaults for which he is being proceeded against for

In the absence of pending return of income, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act is clear that notice can be issued only when a valid return is pending for assessment. Accordingly, this notice has no meaning

In Income-Tax Officer V/s. Techspan India Private Limited and Another, reported in [2018] 404 ITR 10(SC), the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561(SC) that the Assessing Officer has a power only to reassess and has no power to review the assessment order. Thus, it held that no re-opening notice can be issued which is premised on a change of opinion

The Querist is a private limited company. For the assessment year 2008-09, the querist filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.17,18,090 and claimed refund of Rs.6,68,460. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer objected to the assessee’s…

The law is clear that the assessee deductee is entitled to credit of the tax deducted at source with respect to amount of TDS for which Form No.16A issued by the employer deductor. The department has to give credit of tax deducted at source to the assessee – deductee to the extent form no.16 A issued by the deductor

The concept of diversion of income by overriding title is to be applied in situations which are clear and where the existence of the title in the legal or natural person in whom an overriding title is to be recognized is also certain, and the facts are such as to warrant the conclusion that the income is not that of the recipient, but in fact the income of the person in whose favour an overriding title is to be recognized

The charge is not on gross receipts but on profits and gains properly so called. Gross receipts or sale proceeds, however, include profits. The word “profits” in section 28 should be understood in normal and proper sense. However, subject to special requirements of the income-tax, profits have got to be assessed provided they are real profits

In the case of the telecom company, it is the owner of the prepaid voucher/SIM card and not the wholesale dealer. It is the telecom companies who are providing the services to the distributors on prepaid package. If at all, there is an agency relationship on which TDS is required to be deducted on the commission paid to the dealers is qua the cellular operator and the wholesale dealer

“The contract between the assessee and C & F Agent is a service contract which has not been specifically included in Explanation III below section 194C. In this view of the matter, the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to the payments to the C & F agents. If that is so, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax from the payments made to C & F agents