Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) is not applicable as there is no cash payout on retirement of the partner. Further, there can be no implications under section 56(2)(x) of the Act in the hands of the partner, as the transaction cannot be said to be without consideration as the partner extinguishes his… (read more)

As no cash payment nor capital asset is given to the retiring partner, section 9B nor section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is attracted. (read more)

The firm stands dissolved by operation of law in March 2022 i.e., AY 2022-23. Therefore, the asset should be reflected in the books of the erstwhile partner for FY 2022-23 i.e., AY 2023-24. Further, the transaction is not an exempted transaction under section 47 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). Therefore, the surviving partner cannot… (read more)

The disallowance made by the Ld. AO is correct as the law has been amended with retrospective effect. However, the provision for imposing penalty being substantive law cannot have retrospective effect, unless expressly stated by the Legislature to be so applicable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal – Jaipur… (read more)

The Action of the Ld. AO is not correct. Similar matters are pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The decision will have a bearing on the assessee. (read more)

The terms of cancellation of ESOPS would have to be understood. Extinguishment of rights or buyback of shares would be a transfer as per the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Waiver of right to receive would be a transfer and the same would attract Capital Gains tax. The period of holding would be from… (read more)

As per clause (c) of the third proviso to section 139(8A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, no updated return shall be furnished by any person for the relevant assessment year, where, the Assessing Officer has information in respect of such person for the relevant assessment year in his possession under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign… (read more)

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Kalia v. UOI [2019] 111 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) held that employees of PSUs and nationalised bank cannot be treated as Government employees and thus, they are not entitled to get full tax exemption on leave encashment after retirement/superannuation under section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax… (read more)

It is a well settled position in law that a taxpayer claiming for an exception/deduction or any beneficial provision to reduce any tax obligation must prove that the said provision covers him. Hence the stricter rule of interpretation is adopted for interpreting beneficial provisions in the said cases. Further, the Kolkata Bench of the Income… (read more)

From facts in query it transpires that there is no element of export of services etc. Though the allowance is made for local expenses, it is not falling in category of pure agency as balance money remains with cricketer. However, such receipt by cricketer will be as player. In other words, it is part of… (read more)