Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Forum Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News What's New Calendar Imp. Links Database More...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Safset Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer

Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) on sale of equity shares on which STT was paid - amount taxed twice as the assessee has wrongly showed the income from business by wrongly including the STCG in the profit and loss account and also showing it under the head capital gains (others) instead of under the head short term capital gain u/s 111A - Held that:- We find that the assessee has income from business of ₹ 2,93,474/- and the income from STCG from sale of equity shares which are covered under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shares on which STT was paid which was liable for tax at the rate of 10% was wrongly shown under the head STCG (others), thereby offering the tax at the rate of 30%. - Since the assessee has wrongly returned the income under the wrong heads and also at wrong rate of tax it is an apparent mistake on the face of record which should have been rectified by the authorities below upon being pointed out by the assessee. However, the submissions of the assessee did not find favour with the Income T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A. We direct the AO to assess the STT at the rate of 10% as the STT was paid on the sale of shares. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 5222/Mum/2013 - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, JM And Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM For the Assessee : Shri Rashmikant C Modi For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by ld.CIT(A)-7, Mumbai, and it relates to the assessment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d capital gains (others) instead of under the head short term capital gain u/s 111A. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.9.2008 declaring total income at ₹ 48,16,530/- wrongly. The assessee strongly showed its income under the head business of ₹ 25,55,002/- instead of ₹ 2,93,474/- by wrongly including STCG on sale of equity shares covered by section 111A of the Act in the business income. Secondly, the assessee wrongly returned the income of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are covered u/s 111A of the Act and liable for tax at the rate of 10% under the head STCG from other assets thereby taxing the said STCG at the rate of 30% instead of 10%. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Thereafter the assessee wanted to file revision petition u/s 264 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income Tax for revising the assessment on the ground that STCG has wrongly been assessed as income from business and also as STCG from other as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e, the appellant is not allowed to withdraw the appeal. As it is evident that return of income was accepted by the department and the AO. has .not pointed out any defect in the return of income, hence in my considered view the A.O. was completely justified in, passing the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. It is pertinent to note here that the legislation has specifically provided the provisions of revised return by which any inadvertent mistake can be revised, however of!. this pretext al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der it proper and appropriate to hold that the A.O. was completely justified in passing, the order -U/S 143(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly the appellant's appeal is dismissed & the appellant's request for withdrawal of appeal is rejected. 4. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued before us that this being mistake apparent from the face of record which has been brought to the notice of lower authorities that the income from STCG on sale of equity shares on which STT paid was wrongly assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e STT was duly paid at the rate of 30% two times. Firstly, by way of showing the same under the head Income from business and secondly, by showing the STCG from the other assets under head capital gain instead of showing the same as STCG on sale of shares under the provisions of section 111A. The ld. Counsel finally argued that this being the actual fact and mistake apparent on the face of record, both authorities below ignored this mistake and treated it as income and taxed which amounted to do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 10%. 5. On the contrary, the ld. DR objected to the submissions of the ld.AR and fairly agreed that the mistake committed by the assessee in filling the return two times and as a result the income was taxed at the rate of 30% whereas as a matter of fact, the income from business ₹ 2,93,474/- was to be taxed at the rate of 30% and ₹ 22,61,528/- was to be taxed at the rate of 10% being short term capital gain on sale of equity shares. However, the ld.DR disagreed with the submissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

  ↓     Latest Happening     ↓  

Highlight: Option to avail composition scheme under GST by electronically filing an intimation in FORM GST CMP-02 and FORM GST ITC-03 upto 30-9-2017 - See Rule 3(3A)

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: GST on Notional rent

Forum: GST ON SALES PROMOTION

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: PROCEDURE FOR SHIFTED OF FINISHED GOODS FROM AP KARNATAKA TO UP

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 11 to 13.

Highlight: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability - CBDT issues draft notification

TMI Note: Certain ICDS provisions are inconsistent with judicial precedents. Whether these judicial precedents would prevail over ICDS.

Highlight: Provisions of ICDS shall prevail w.e.f. AY 2017-18 to the transactional issues dealt therein over earlier judicial pronouncements.

Notification: Levy of anti dumping duty on New/unused pneumatic radial tyres with or without tubes and/or flap of rubber (including tubeless tyres) having normal rim dia code above 16 originating in, or exported from China PR

News: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability

TMI Note: In case of conflict between ICDS and other specific provisions of the Income-tax rules, 1962 governing taxation of income like rules 9A, 9B etc. of the Rules, which provisions shall prevail.

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply to computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act or Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC of the Act.

TMI Note: Where a term has not been defined under ICDS, nor under the Act, but has different interpretations given to it by the courts in tax cases, and in ICAI Accounting Standards, which interpretation would prevail while interpreting ICDS.

TMI Note: Whether the provisions of ICDS apply to a non-resident who claims the benefit of a double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA).

TMI Note: In case any of the ICDS provisions is contrary to a circular or press release issued by the CBDT, which would prevail over the other.

TMI Note: ICDS-I requires disclosure of significant accounting policies and other ICDS requires specific disclosures. Where is the taxpayer required to make such disclosures specified in ICDS.

Notification: Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) - New ICDS to be effective from AY 2017-18

Forum: Input credit of gst paid on urd

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Highlight: GST - Detention of goods under transport - discrepancy in documents - the statutory provisions provide a mechanism for adjudication following detention of goods including for the provisional release thereof pending adjudication - HC

Highlight: Reassessment - first few paragraphs of the assessment order dealt with objections and disposed of accordingly - Unfortunately, the manner in which the AO has decided the issue is wholly unsustainable in law - HC

Highlight: Business expenditure u/s 37 - liquidated damage - breach of contract terms - Expenditure was not incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law - cannot be disallowed - HC

Highlight: Valuation - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses - managing participation of clients in certain mela, fairs, promotional activities etc. - They are liable to service tax on the gross amount received - They cannot restrict their tax liability to only agency commission

Highlight: TDS liability - ITAT confirmed the liability - We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion - HC

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - sufficiency of material available with the AO to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - bogus purchases - seller refused to respond - notice would not be interfered with - HC

Highlight: Exemption u/s 11 - education activities - transport and hostel facilities surplus cannot be considered as business income of the assessee society

News: Draft Notification for insertion of new rule 39A in the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – comments and suggestions-reg.

Highlight: Genuineness of labour wages expenses, embroidery charges, fabrication expenses etc. - getting work done through small workmen who do not have any permanent place of residence - disallowance of ad hoc expenditure deleted.

Highlight: Project import - Since the goods were never used for the purpose for which it was imported, the actual user condition has been violated - Redemption fine and penalty imposed.

Highlight: Penalty u/s 112 (a) - CHA - Lack of due diligence and failure to take more precautions can not, by itself, bring in penal consequences

Highlight: Import of services - GST - The fact that those services were received outside India will not change the fact that the services have been paid for by the beneficiary appellant, who is located in India. - Demand confirmed.

Notification: SEZ for IT/ITES at Madhurwada Village, Visakhapatnam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh - denotified.

Highlight: Merely because payment is received in Indian rupee, it cannot be said that payment against export has not been received in convertible foreign exchange.

Highlight: Merely vehicle numbers was not mentioned on the invoices cannot be the reason to deny Cenvat Credit

Highlight: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Circular

Circular: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017

News: Auction for Sale (Re-issue) of Government Stocks

Article: TDS APPLICABILITY ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS UNDER GST (Under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017)

News: Manmohan takes potshots at note ban, 'hasty' rollout of GST

News: GST on petrol, diesel requires wider discussion: Nitish

Article: WHEN CAN ONE TAKE ITC FOR RCM CASES?

Notification: TDS liability under Section 51 of CGST, 2017 come into force w.e.f. 18-9-2017 - Persons liable to deduct TDS from payment made or credited to the supplier of taxable goods or services specified

Notification: Central Goods and Services Tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2017

Notification: Seeks to extend the last date for filing the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of August to December, 2017

Circular: Filing of Special Leave Petition against Orders of Hon'ble High Courts staying Collection of Tax under GST- reg.

Highlight: Exemption u/s 54F - LTCCG - once entire net consideration is invested, the absence of completion certificate cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of deduction.

Highlight: Deduction u/s 10B - initial AY - Mere authorization to enable the Assessee to import material or export produce in the earlier date would not ipso facto tantamount to commencement of substantial activity of ‘manufacture’/’production’.



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version