Month: June 2013

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 confers wide powers on the Commissioner to revise any assessment which is “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. While the section is widely worded, Courts have read in a number of checks and balances to ensure that the said power is not abused by the Commissioner. The author has carefully analyzed the entire law on the subject and identified all the core legal principles

S. 56(2)(vii)(b), as substituted by the Finance Act 2013, provides that if immovable property is transferred for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value, the difference is assessable as income in the transferee’s hands. The authors have carefully studied this provision and raised several thought-proving questions as to its implications in the hands of the transferor and the transferee

There are several judgements on the question of deductibility of expenditure incurred on education of a director’s relative. While some have held the expenditure to be incurred for business purposes, others have held it to be in the nature of personal expenditure. The author has carefully analyzed the judgements and culled out the core principles that need to be borne in mind to ensure that the expenditure is deductible

No practitioner can afford to be unaware of latest judgements & whether experts view the judgement as being right or wrong. Towards that end, the author has agreed to take time out of his busy schedule to make an analysis of landmark judgements every quarter. In this part, the author has identified two landmark judgements analyzed them with a critical eye and identified their strengths & shortcomings

The author is irked by the fact that despite severe strictures and clear cut directions by the High Court, the CBDT is not taking any steps to address the problem of non-grant of TDS credit in a case where the deductor/ payer is at fault. He cites several judgements to emphasize that in such cases, the taxpayer/ recipient cannot be denied TDS credit and urges the CBDT to speedily issue suitable directions in the matter

The author, an eminent columnist, is irked that instead of taking steps to recover the tax of Rs. 19,000 crore that Vodafone sought to evade by adopting unfair means, the Government is actually thinking of sparing Vodafone of that liability. He argues that the Government is acting out of the misplaced fear that being firm with tax dodgers will prove detrimental to the Country. Instead, the Country will benefit if tax is recovered from Vodafone, he says