Amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 131/2016 - Customs (N.T.), dated the 31st October, 2016, published vide number G.S.R. 1018 (E), dated the 31st October, 2016
12-Jan-2017 read more
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the income shown by the assessee under the head of capital gain is consistent with the accounting treatment made in the books of accounts. Relying on the judgments the Tribunal allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee. Further, the addition was made by the lower authorities on several grounds but on analysis of the facts the Tribunal found that there was no fault on the part of the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee has made investment for Rs.75, 000/- and on same day the dividend income was received from UTI as evident from the account statement which is placed on the paper book. Also, the same amount of dividend is also reflecting in the bank statement of the assessee which is placed on the paper book and said amount was credited in the bank of the assessee on through account payee cheque. To this point, the Revenue has not brought anything on record to contradict the argument made by the assessee.
As such, the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
11-Jan-2017 read more
Notifies that all the provisions of the said Agreement and Protocol between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of Republic of Cyprus for the avoidance of double taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income as set out in the annexure hereto
10-Jan-2017 read more
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that since the issue raised in the aforesaid ground of appeal is identical to the one raised in A.Y. 2007-08 in a case, the Tribunal followed the same and set aside the disallowance and remanded the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Further, the expenses are treated as revenue in nature and deduction is permissible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, ground nos. 3 and 3.1 were allowed. Furthermore, on the basis of the ground no. 3 ground no. 4 was allowed. Moreover, the facts need verification by the AO and therefore the Tribunal, set aside the addition and remanded the matter to the AO for determining as to whether it is a case of double disallowance. The addition was set aside and the ground no. 5 was allowed for statistical purposes. Also, it is pertinent to mention that section 35 (2AB) was introduced as an incentive for encouraging research and development in the industrial sector and therefore, has to be liberally construed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in a case. The AO and the DRP have misdirected themselves in not appreciating the true intent and purport of section 35 (2AB) of the Act. Having not disputed the fact that these tests are part of R & D activities conducted by the appellant in Baroda, the disallowance is not permissible. The appellant is entitled for deduction under section 35 (2AB) of the Act. Ground nos. 7 and 7.1 were allowed. Remaining grounds were rejected as well as allowed.
As such, the appeal was partly allowed.
10-Jan-2017 read more
Direct Tax and Indirect tax collection figures for the period April 2016 to December 2016 have shown a positive trend as Direct Taxes grow by 12.01% and Indirect Taxes grow by 25% over the corresponding period last year
09-Jan-2017 read more