Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Queries and replies relating to black money / Re: Taxation of perquisite
« Last post by Ramasamy on January 11, 2017, 03:03:37 PM »
Hi,

Accommodation facility provided by company to it's employee on account of transfer from one place to another place subject to taxable perk if stay excceeds 15 days. However, in the given case it is short term deputation, your company  may take the benefit tax free allowance  given in Sec 10(14) read with rule 2BB.

"any allowance, whether, granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from his normal place of duty ";

Regards,
Ram
2
Discussion / Mumbai High Court decision
« Last post by vsaiyar on January 04, 2017, 08:15:16 PM »
Dear Friends

The department seems to have filed an SLP in the matter of Indo French Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  The Officer has given 18600/13.  Can anyone provide me a copy of the Mumbai High Court judgement in DIT(E) v/s Indo French hamber of Commerce and Industry.  I will be grateful.
3
Queries and replies relating to black money / Taxation of perquisite
« Last post by Mansi Thakkar on January 04, 2017, 07:16:29 PM »
Will perquisite tax attract in the following cases:

1. the employer deputed an employee for three months to his Ahmedabad branch and provides company guest house/ company funded hotel for his stay in Ahmd

2. the employer provides employee, a non-exclusive, rent-free stay in the company guest house, wherein the place will be shared with others and no access to key, etc will be given.

An early reply will be appreciated. Thanks.
4
Discussion / Re: s.11 exemption reopening
« Last post by Padmini on December 20, 2016, 09:13:38 PM »
Please clarify me whehter Sec 12A registration is mandatory to accept corpus donations?
5
Discussion / Charitable Trust or society
« Last post by Padmini on December 20, 2016, 09:08:15 PM »
Is 12A registation required to accept corpus fund donations?
6
Discussion / Reopening- Long/ short term cain and s.40(a)(ia)
« Last post by rajul5234 on December 18, 2016, 08:59:20 PM »
Gujarat high court. SCA 17223/2016. Dt. 29/11/16. Sandeep Padshala.

Held, Reopening not maintainable on scrutinised issue of capital gains for shares and non deduction of tax.

R K Patel
7
Discussion / Reopening- Reappraisal
« Last post by rajul5234 on December 05, 2016, 11:06:56 AM »
SCA 14513 / 2016. Dt. 21/11/16. Navkar share and stock brokers. Gujarat H C.

Held, Reappraisal of evidence on record is not permissible in reopening beyond 4 years from end of the year.

R K Patel
8
Discussion / Limited scrutiny- Reopening u/s 147.
« Last post by rajul5234 on November 27, 2016, 04:20:27 PM »
Elecon engineering co. Gujarat high court. SCA 1641/2015. Dt. 30, 31/8/16.

Held, After Kelvinator's case of SC, when multiple reasons are recorded, limited scrutiny is permissible only to the extent of issues unprocessed at original scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3).

Refer para 21 in particular.

RK Patel
9
Discussion / Transfer Pricing. Reference to TPO
« Last post by rajul5234 on November 27, 2016, 04:15:24 PM »
Gujarat H C. SCA 772012016. Dt. 16/11/16. Alpha Nippon

Held, While making a reference to TPO, speaking order by AO is a mandatory requirement as per CBDT Instruction 3/2016.

R K Patel
10
So far we have been discussing the implications of section 270A, levy of penalty and rate of tax in case of any deposit made in the bank and offered to tax in the return.  We have not factored or discussed the implications of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 which will give a severe blow to all those who are depositing money in their bank accounts which they will not be able to explain.

In yesterday's newspapers, the ministry of finance has given half page advertisement warning people not to permit use of their account by others for converting their black money and they may be prosecuted and punished for rigorous imprisonment of 7 years.

A question arises what if unaccounted money deposited in a bank account ? Can it be termed as 'Benami Property' and the consequences of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 of confiscating the same and launch of prosecution may be taken up.

As per Section 2(9) of the Act, "Benami Transaction means"
(A) ...
(B) ...
(C) ...
(D) a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the person providing the consideration is not traceable or is fictitious.

Section 2(8) defines "benami property" to mean 'any property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction and also includes the proceeds from such property.'
Section 2 (26) defines "property" to mean 'assets of any kind, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal and includes any right or interest or legal documents or instruments evidencing title to or interest in the property and where the property is capable of conversion into some other form, then the property in the converted form also includes the proceeds from the property.'

Thus, any bank account is a property. If the depositor is not able to substantiate the source of money deposited, can it not be said that the person providing the consideration is not traceable, hence, it is a benami transaction and liable for action.

Merely by claiming the same to be depositor's money will not suffice. 

We have discussed a lot about applicability of income-tax provisions. We shall start discussing the implications of the new law.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10