Messages

The Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Royal Packaging  has held that interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible.The ITAT followed judgment in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC).
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543

In Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. & Anr. v. Asstt. CIT (TDS) & Ors. (2001) 251 ITR 306 (Cal)it was held that the procedure as laid down in sections 131 and 133A is not meant for and/or can be resorted to only in the case of proceedings under Chapter XIV of the Act. This power can be exercised to conduct TDS Survey
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543

 Dear sir
1. If stay in India exceeds 182 days then the person will be treated as resident in India but since the person fulfills conditions mentioned in section 6(6) hence he will  b resident but not ordinarily resident in India for first two years.
2. Once the fellow is non-resident in india section 195 will apply and accordingly tax will be deducted as per that section read with part II of the annual finance act. the rate of tax deduction will be 30.9 pc
3. The answer will much depend upon the relevant tax rules in UK.
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543

u will have to pay MAT because lower of BL or UD is allowed to be deducted  further Exp (b) to section 115JB(2)(iii) clarifies that if anyone of BL or UD is nil then nothingt will b deducted
CA MANOJ GUPTA
09828510543

Fully agree with the views of Ashutosh ji

 It is a contentious issue.
Section 90(2) provides that Where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee.

Section 206AA  overrides all other provisions of the Act and it is being later enactment hence it will prevail and tax will have to be deducted at 20 percent plus applicable cess.
But CBDT vide circular no. 333 dt. 2-4-1982 has clarified as under
1. It has come to the notice of the Board that sometimes effect to the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement is not given by the Assessing Officers when they find that the provisions of the agreement are not in conformity with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The correct legal position is that where a specific provision is made in the double taxation avoidance agreement, that provisions will prevail over the general provisions contained in the Income-tax Act.  In fact that the double taxation avoidance agreements which have been entered into by the Central Government under section 90 of the Income-tax Act, also provide that the laws in force in either country will continue to govern the assessment and taxation of income in the respective countries except where provisions to the contrary have been made in the agreement.

3. Thus, where a double taxation avoidance agreement provides for a particular mode of computation of income, the same should be followed, irrespective of the provisions in the Income-tax Act.  Where there is no specific provision in the agreement, it is basic law, i.e., the Income-tax Act, that will govern the taxation of income.

This circular has been approved in CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 626 (Cal.),  and again in Azadi Bachao Andolan Case.
As per this circular tax shall be deducted at 10 percent plus cess.

1.  section 47 (xiii) providing for tax free transition of firm into a company was inserted in the Act from the assessment year 1999-2000. However, the courts have maintained that there are no capital gain consequence on the conversion of a firm into a company under Part IX of the companies Act, 1956 . Applying this to the case under consideration it can be said that no capital gain consequence will follow. The requirements of the Second Schedule to the LLP Act, 2008 must be adhered to in order to get away from the rigours of the capital gains tax.
2. New PAN would have to be obtained.
3. Separate return for firm upto date of transmission into LLP wld have to be filed.

u have read the amendment wrongly. The amendment provides that an HUF can accept gift from its members.

No problem this can be done. No tax liability as per decision in Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 40 (II) ITCL 2 (Rajk-Trib)

It is better you first check that whether TDS has been deposited and reflect in 26AS of your client through e-filing site

yes u have to add it back

If u can do nothing then simply make a search on Internet if the F Co is showing any establishment in India

If the F Co has no PE in INdia then no income can be taxed in INdia. Consequently no TDS requirement under section 195
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543

1. the view that every comapny need to obtain report is incorrect. Section 115JB(4) says that "Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book profit has been computed in accordance with the provisions of this section along with the return of income filed under sub-section (1) of section 139 or along with the return of income furnished in response to a notice under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142." Now section 115JB(1) says that " Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income-tax, payable on the total income as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, [2012], is less than [eighteen and one-half per cent] of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee and the tax payable by the assessee on such total income shall be the amount of income-tax at the rate of [eighteen and one-half per cent]]."
So on a conjoint reading it is clear that if a company is liable to pay MAT then only it need to obtain report in form no. 29B
2. So far as filing of report with AO is concerned rule 12(2) says that "The return of income required to be furnished in Form SAHAJ (ITR-1) or Form No. ITR-2 or Form No. ITR-3 or Form SUGAM (ITR-4S) or Form No. ITR-4 or Form No. ITR-5 or Form No. ITR-6 shall not be accompanied by a statement showing the computation of the tax payable on the basis of the return, or proof of the tax, if any, claimed to have been deducted or collected at source or the advance tax or tax on self-assessment, if any, claimed to have been paid or any document or copy of any account or form or report of audit required to be attached with the return of income under any of the provisions of the Act.". Though rules cannot override statutory provisions and statute provides that report be filed with the return but if CBDT says so we need not file report with the AO.
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543

Incomes referred to in Chapter III covering sections 10 to 13B do not form part of total income so they are out of purview of GTI