Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Discussion / Refund of additional TDS on already processed e return
« Last post by subbufca on July 29, 2014, 12:59:27 pm »
Sirs,  AN assessee   filed his return electronically and made a claim for refund of excess tax  for the year ended 31.3.2013 based on the tax credits displayed by 26AS. Th return was processed, intimation u/s143(1)(a) sent  and refund received. On regularization of TDS defaults by awarer (the income whereof has been already considered in return filed ) , additional  TDS amount get reflected  in 26AS of the year as at present. How the assessee could claim this additional TDS -whether by fresh e-return  or by direct request to the AO?If e-return how the refund already received is to be shown 

With best regards
K S Iyer
Discussion / Bheviour of ITAT members with AR(s) and DR(s)
« Last post by brettlee on July 28, 2014, 04:54:55 pm »
After a long time I am constrained to write a hard note about the working of some of the ITAT members posted in Delhi. They are not hearing the AR or the DR in a proper manner and always remain in hurry to dispose off the matters. I must tell that this is not good in the eyes of justice and God who is above all. I am least bothered about my carrier in ITAT because I am an advocate who can develop another field of law also but I promise that if any one will try to decide my case in a biased manner then I will spoil the life of such member who does not allow the counsels to file synopsis in the matter. Advocate like me who belong to backward class community may not be good in presenting the matter orally like others but that does not mean that an ITAT member will not allow filing synopsis of the case.  If the Hon’ble President is reading this note then he can contact me I will reveal the name of these persons frankly. My father use to teach me and off course the great grand father of all the Yadav(s) that is lord Krishna has said that silence against injustice is also injustice. And that is why I will not keep mouth shut.
Discussion / Qs & As on New Tax Regime for REITs and InvITs
« Last post by Shakunca on July 28, 2014, 03:42:10 pm »
Analysis in form of Qs & As on New Tax Regime for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs) at:
Discussion / Re: Minimum Alternate Tax
« Last post by pawansingla on July 24, 2014, 12:39:54 pm »
9. The amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account:
As per clause (iii) of Explanation-1 of Section 11 5JB of the Act, the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account has to be reduced for the purpose of computation of book profit. The controversy regarding whether loss shall include depreciation or whether provisions of clause (iii) will apply in case if any of these amounts is nil has been put to rest by insertion of explanation in clause (iii) itself. It has been clarified that the business loss shall not include depreciation loss and should be calculated after reducing deprecation amount. It has been further clarified that the provisions of this clause shall not apply if the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation is nil.
However, one more debatable issue whether accumulated figures of unabsorbed depreciation/brought forward loss is to be taken into account and lesser of these two is to be reduced or whether unabsorbed deprecation/brought forward loss is to be reckoned on year to year basis has not been resolved. The view of the Department is that the quantification should be done on year to year basis. The view of the assessee is that the quantification should be done on the accumulated amount. This can be understood from the following table -
    Depreciation as per books   
Loss as per
books excluding
Total (Rs.)
A.Y. 1999-2000
A.Y. 2000-2001
A.Y. 2001-2002
A.Y. 2002-2003
In the above case, the assessee had reduced Rs. 1,51,15,393 while computing book profit as per clause (iii). However, the A.O. allowed reduction of only Rs.1,06,61,828. The A.O. took the correct plea that since there was no loss in AY 2001-02, therefore, no amount was available for set-off as per clause (iii) in this year.
Although the ITAT in the case of Amline Textiles (P) Ltd v/s ITO, 27 SOT, 152 did not accept the plea of the Department and allowed the appeal of the assessee; however with due respect to ITAT, the view taken by it in the above case is not the correct proposition of law and reasoning given in the Order is flawed. Therefore, The A.O. should allow the reduction on year to year basis in the correct spirit of law and not on the consolidated amount.
- See more at:
Discussion / Re: Minimum Alternate Tax
« Last post by pawansingla on July 24, 2014, 10:55:56 am »
Discussion / Re: Minimum Alternate Tax
« Last post by bennyjs123 on July 23, 2014, 05:49:23 pm »
You may check this site about income tax if this helps a little:
Discussion / Minimum Alternate Tax
« Last post by rohitahuja on July 22, 2014, 12:42:29 pm »
How to calculate amount to be carried forward as per clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of
section 115JB regarding adjustment of brought forwarded losses or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is low as per books of accounts
Discussion / Politicians Want Retrospective Law ... To Save Themselves!!
« Last post by shobha nagrani on July 18, 2014, 09:25:39 pm »
A sigh of relief was heard around corporate India when finance minister Arun Jaitley said that he would be forming a committee to deal with cases of retrospective taxation and also indicated that he would do away with the provision, once pending cases are dealt with. This relief was, however, not shared by a plethora of politicians from Punjab, Jaitley's home state, who made a beeline for the finance minister's office in Parliament on Monday.

Their grievance was very simple and related to a case which dates back to 2007, when a society was floated by a host of Punjabi politicians cutting across party lines.

This society, which had former Union minister Preneet Kaur (wife of Amritsar MP Amarinder Singh), MP Santosh Chaudhary, deputy chief minister of Punjab Sukhbir Singh Badal and his estranged cousin Manpreet Badal, and former deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha Charanjit Singh Atwal, as members held 21.2 acres of prized real estate in Chandigarh.

In February 2007, the society entered into a "tripartite Joint Development Agreement (JDA)" with HASH Builders private limited and Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. Under the agreement, the society signed off on transferring its land to the developers in lieu of a four bedroom flat and Rs 82.50 lakh in cash for each member.

The grand plans were, according to top sources in the finance ministry, halted by a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court, due to which the Court has asked Tata to maintain status quo and make sure that "even a brick should not laid in the area." The apex court then referred the matter to the Delhi high court. To make matters worse the Chandigarh administration has told the high court that "political and business interests influenced the Punjab government's decision to clear the project."

"The unkindest cut however, was yet to come," said the source in the finance ministry. The Income Tax (IT) department citing provisions of transfer as defined in Clause (v) of Section 2(47)2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that the land owners were liable to pay capital gains tax on their share of the gain from the agreement.

Not just, that the assessing officer has held that the transfer arose pursuant to the JDA executed in February 2007. Accordingly, the entire amount of consideration was taxed in assessment year 2007-08. Thus the politicians were told that not only was there a legal impediment to their gaining new flats but that they were now liable to pay huge sums as tax, that too from 2007 onwards.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals confirmed the Assessing Officer's orders, which was followed by a 165 page ruling by the Chandigarh Bench of the I-T Appellate Tribunal in the case of Charanjit Singh Atwal on the development agreement taxability.

This brings us back to Monday and a delegation of these leaders who made a beeline to the finance minister, who is country cousin and a close political ally of some of the members. Sources said that the finance minister heard them out, but he reportedly told them that he was unable to help them as he was opposed to retrospective changes in tax laws or orders. Quite clearly, retrospective tax cuts both ways.
Discussion / Software Driven Transfer Pricing Quiz
« Last post by NikiCA on July 17, 2014, 01:04:00 am »
Software Driven Quiz on Practical Aspects of Transfer Pricing at
CHENNAI: It could go down as the worst publicity for dhoti, considered a 'national attire' in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. A sitting judge of the Madras high court was denied entry into the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Club at Chepauk on Friday. Reason: He was wearing a dhoti.

When Justice D Hariparanthaman alighted from his red beacon-flashing official car at the club premises to participate in a book release function organized by a former high court judge, he was least prepared for the 'reception', sources told The Times of India.

When TOI contacted, Justice Hariparanthaman confirmed the incident and said: "Former acting chief justice of the Madras high court Justice T S Arunachalam authored a book — 'Legal Fraternity Embraced Me'. Former chief justice of the Gujarat high court Justice Gokula Krishnan released it and former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh high court Justice R Ratnam received the first copy. I was invited. I went to the venue at 5.25pm. I wore dhoti and shirt. I was denied entry saying unless I wear pants, I could not be permitted entry."

A Judge of Madras High Court, who was denied entry into Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Club here for wearing dhoti, the traditional attire of Tamil Nadu, today said it was unfortunate that dress code prescribed by British rulers was being followed in clubs even after independence.

When Justice D Hariparanthaman alighted from his official car at the club premises to participate in a book release function organised by TS Arunachalam, a former Chief Justice of the High Court, some staff of the club told him that he could not enter the premises wearing a dhoti.

They told him that they had instructions from the office-bearers not to allow anyone in the premises who violated the club's dress code.

Protesting the way in which the club treated invitees, Justice Hariparanthaman said in a statement that "dress code was introduced by British rulers in clubs started by them. It is very unfortunate that even after independence only the same dress code continued and our traditional dress is prohibited."

"It is not the first occasion where clubs denied entry to persons for violating dress code. Even former Supreme Court Judge Justice VR Krishna Iyer was denied entry in 1980s in the Gymkhana Club here, who wrote a protest note in the guest book", Justice Hariparanthaman said in the statement.

The book release function was held at club for which Justice Hariparanthaman was an invitee. Former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court Justice Gokula Krishnan released the book and former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court Justice R Rathnam received the first copy.

Senior advocate of Madras High Court R Gandhi and GR Swaminathan, an advocate of Madurai High Court, were also denied entry to the function for wearing dhoti.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10