CBDT NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION NO 52/2023, Dated: July 20, 2023
No deduction of tax u/s 194 of the IT Act 1961 from any income in the nature of dividend paid by any unit of an International Financial Services Centre [engaged in the business of leasing of an aircraft]
CBDT NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION NO 54/2023, Dated: August 1, 2023
The CBDT vide Notification No. 54/2023 inserted rule 6ABBB; Form of statement (Form No. 3AF) to be furnished regarding preliminary expenses incurred under section 35D, applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2024.
CBDT NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION NO 56/2023, Dated: August 1, 2023
The CBDT notifies 10 year Zero Coupon Bond of REC Ltd. to be issued on or before the 31st day of March of bond 2025; notified u/s 2(48) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
CBDT NOTIFICATION NO. 225/66/2023; Dated: August 3, 2023
The CBDT issued Guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during FY 2023-24 vide F. No. 225/66/2023 dated, 24-5-23. It should be noted that during search, information related to other persons may be found. Such persons may not be connected to assessee’s business or don’t belong to same business group. Thus, the CBDT has clarified that all such non-search cases selected are not required to be transferred to Central Charges unless covered by Guidelines.
Important Judicial Precedents
Mukesh J. Ruparel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1); [2023] 153 taxmann.com 70 (Bombay HC)
Where a reopening notice under section 148A(b) was issued upon assessee on ground that an information was received which suggested that assessee had purchased an immovable property, however, it had not filed its return during year and assessee was directed to provide details of purchase of immovable property supported with copy of registered agreement, details of payment made and source of acquisition of said immovable property, since mandatory requirement of giving minimum seven days of time to assessee to reply to such notice under section 148A(b) was not fulfilled, impugned notice and further order passed under section 148A(d) along with notice issued under section 148 were to be quashed and set aside.
Shrikant Ghanshyam Shah Vs. Int. Tax., Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai [2023] 152 taxmann.com 547 (Mumbai – Trib.)
Where assessee sold two immovable properties but offered capital gain tax on one transaction and capital gain on second property was mistakenly declared in his wife’s return, with taxes duly paid, Assessing Officer of assessee was to be directed to inform Assessing Officer of assessee’s wife to revise her assessment and refund any excess taxes paid along with interest till this date and as soon as refund is initiated, present Assessing Officer may initiate recovery of demand against assessee.
Apex Remedies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1) [2023] 152 taxmann.com 170 (Gujarat -HC)
Section 69A, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Unexplained moneys – (Reassessment) – Assessment year 2014-15 – Assessee sold immovable property comprising of industrial plot of land along with industrial shed (building) constructed thereon – Assessee filed return disclosing LTCG on sale of non-depreciable land and STCG on building – Assessing Officer after receiving information from Investigation Wing with respect to purchase of land by one from assessee observed that assessee had not shown capital gains from sale of land in return of income – He, thus, issued reopening notice on ground that income had escaped assessment – Whether since assessee had already disclosed sale consideration from transaction and had bifurcated said amount under head building and under head land, furthermore assessee had also paid STCG and LTCG, it could not be said that taxable income had escaped assessment and impugned reopening notice was to be quashed – Held, yes [Paras 25 and 26][In favour of assessee]
G.D. Foods and Manufacturing (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Central Circle-26, New Delhi [2023] 152 taxmann.com 323 (Delhi – Trib.)
Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with clause 10 of the General clauses Act, 1897 – Employee’s contributions – Assessment year 2019-20 – Assessee made payment towards employee’s contribution towards EPF and ESI – Assessing Officer disallowed same on ground that deposit of contribution towards EPF & ESIC was made beyond stipulated period prescribed in respective Acts – It was noted that due date for depositing contribution of ESIC & EPF fell on Sunday and gazetted holiday and assessee had made payment on very next day – Assessee had no intention not to deposit contribution of ESI & EPF well within time and depositing contribution very next day of holiday proved bona fide off assessee – Whether contributions of ESIC and EPF made by assessee with one day delay was allowable when due date for payment of ESIC and EPF contributions prescribed in respective acts of ESI & PF fell on Sunday or gazetted holiday – Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, 1 Vs. Axis bank Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 606 (Gujarat-HC)
Where Commissioner(Appeals) imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee for suo motu disclosure of excess depreciation on land claimed in year under consideration, however, Tribunal deleted penalty by observing that addition on account of excess depreciation claimed was surrendered by assessee to align its books with MCA notification and revenue having failed to establish that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, no subsatantial question of law arose for consideration.
Relx Inc. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, (IT)-3(1)(2) [2023] 152 taxmann.com 555 (Delhi – Trib.)
Where assessee, a tax resident of USA, received subscription fee for providing access to data base pertaining to legal and law related information, in absence of any material available on record to prove that assessee was providing full fledged service and solutions for legal professions, payment received by assessee was in nature of ‘business profits’ which could not be brought to tax in India in absence of PE.
Mrs. Usha Eswar Vs. Rajeshwari Menon [2023] 152 taxmann.com 454 (Bombay -HC)
Where AAR in case of assessee, a UAE resident, ruled that he was eligible for DTAA benefits but AO reopened assessment of assessee, on ground that subsequent ruling in another case held that benefits of DTAA would not be available as applicant therein was not chargeable to tax in UAE, since subsequent ruling cannot as a matter of plain intendment and meaning of section 245-S displace binding character of ruling rendered between applicant-assessee and revenue, AO had exceeded his jurisdiction to reopen said assessment.
Check this links to Know more About: Financial Consultancy firm in India | Top audit firms in India | GST Service Provider