Messages

yes i will
i am giving citations here
30 days theory
ACIT v. Smt Kavita Devi Agarwal 48 SOT 191
Ran Mal Bhansali v ACIT 143 TTJ 65
Sugamchand C Shah v ACIT 37 DTR 345

I think no Carbon Credit is not subsidy.

pl read PART II FA2015 carefully. Entry (D) provides that TDS sholud be at 10pc

The ITAT have applied 30 days theory. If held for more than 30 days then it is STCG
Otherwise business
If purchased and sold on same day its speculative
F&O turnover is add up of plus and minus transactions ignoring the negative sign
This is as per ICAI and ITAT in the case of Preetinder Singh

your client will have to include difference between Stamp Value and Purchase value as income from other sources in its ITR

In My Home Power Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2013) 50 (II) ITCL 412 (Hyd B-Trib) : (2013) 21 ITR 186 (Hyd B-Trib) : (2013) 151 TTJ (Hyd B-Trib) 616. Since upheld by High Court in the case of CIT v. My Home Power Ltd 365 ITR 82.
In the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2014) 55 (II) ITCL 12 (Chen C-Trib)
and
In Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ITA No 582/Mds/2013, dt. 12-6-2013 (Chenn B-Trib),
The Carbon Credits Have been held to capital receipts not liable to be taxed.

the section is intented to cover purchases but there is drafting error as suggested by u

section 200A which provides for processing of TDS statement itself provides for refund of excess amount.

Article 23 between India and Nepal provides as under
Article 23 : Methods For Elimination of Double Taxation

1. The laws in force in either of the Contracting States shall continue to govern the taxation of income in the respective Contracting States except where provisions to the contrary are made in this Agreement. Where income is subject to tax in both Contracting States, relief from double taxation shall be given in accordance with the following paragraphs of this Article.

2. Double Taxation shall be eliminated as follows:

(i) In India:

(a)''' Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, may be taxed in Nepal, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident, an amount equal to the tax paid in Nepal.

Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that portion of the tax as computed before the deduction is given, which is attributable, as the case may be, to the income which may be taxed in Nepal.

(b)''' Where in accordance with any provision of the Agreement income derived by a resident of India is exempt from tax in India may nevertheless, in calculating the amount of tax on the remaining income of such resident, take into account the exempted income.

CA Manoj Gupta
Jodhpur
09828510543

then such land will not be treated as a capital asset. If the agricultural land is not a capital asset, then its transfer will not result in capital gain. Further, the gain arising from transfer of such land will be treated as agricultural income.
For this proposition u may refer to Explanation 1 to section 2(1A) which provides that any revenue derived from transfer of agricul-tural land referred to in section 2(14)(iii)/(a)/(b) (Being land situated in urban area) shall not be treated as revenue derived from land being exempt under section 2(1A).
Therefore, if the agricultural land falls outside the scope of section 2(14)(iii)(a) or 2(14)(iii)(b), then the gain arising from its transfer can be treated as agricultural income because section 2(1A)(a) pro-vides that any rent or revenue derived from land which is used in India and is used for agricultural purposes is agricultural income.
The ITAT Cochin Bench has taken similar view in the case of ITO v. Dr. Koshy George 2009 317 ITR 116
Further section 43CA may apply to such cases on a technical interpretation of the matter.
CA Manoj Gupta
Jodhpur
09828510543

The payment to italian firm is not liable to tax in india. hence no tax deductible under section 195

ALMOST ALL HIGH COURTS EXCEPT GUJARAT AND Kerala HIGH COURT HAS SO FAR RULED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE.
REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO
CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Karn)
Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax  (2013) 215 Taxman 597 (Karn)
CIT v. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand'HC)
CIT V AIMIL LTD 321 ITR 508 DELHI
CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP)
CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (Raj-HC)
Commissioner of Income Tax v. REI Agro Ltd. (Cal-HC).
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. (P&H-HC),
Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Raj-HC)
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Raj-HC)
Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Karn-HC)
CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (Bom-HC)
CIT V. GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD (BOM-HC)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Guj-HC) and Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin
v.
Merchem Ltd.HAS HOWEVER TAKEN AN OPPOSITE VIEW.
GOING BY THE ACT I BELEIVE VIEW OF GUJARAT And Kerala HIGH COURT IS CORRECT ONE.
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543

agreed ketanji Good argument

Section 17(2)(vi) provides that value of any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred directly or indirectly by the employer or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to the assessee shall be taxed perquisite in the hands of the employee.
In this case since no employer-employee relationship exist hence the charging provision under section 15 fails.
No taxability would arise.
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543

Clause (va) of section 36(1) provides for deduction of any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employees account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date.
The Explanation to clause (va) clarifies that for the purposes of this clause, 'due date' means date by which the assessee is required as an em-ployer to credit an employees contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule, order or notification issued thereunder or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise.
Section 43B provides that a deduction in respect of any sum payable by the assessee by way of :
(ii) any sum payable by an assessee as an employer for contribution to provident fund or gratuity fund or superannuation fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees;
will not be allowed as deduction if not paid during the previous year and will be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of only that year in which it is actually paid. This provision will be applicable irrespective of the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee.
Section 43B deals with employers contribution while section 36(1)(va) deals with employess contribution.
The observations of the Kolkata bench of ITAT in the case of Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2011) 41 (II) ITCL 345 (Kol C-Trib), are noteworthy that a claim/deduction which is otherwise not allowable under section 36(1)(va) or for that matter any other provision of the Income-tax Act can neither be considered nor is allowed under section 43B. The opening words of section 43B, namely "notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act. ..... make it amply clear that section 43B comes into play only when deduction is otherwise allowable under the Income-tax Act. The purpose of section 43B is:
(i) to bar the deduction of the sums referred to therein unless they are actually paid, and
(ii) not to allow deduction which is otherwise not allowable under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, section 43B cannot be pressed into service where deduction is not otherwise allowable under section 36(1)(va). Moreover, section 43B is a general provision which merely bars deduction of specified sums, unless they are actually paid and whereas provisions of section 36(1)(va) specifically deal with deduction in respect of payment of employees contribution to the Provident Fund. Therefore, the provisions of section 36(1)(va), being special provisions enacted to deal with specific matter would prevail over the general provisions of section 43B on the principle that a general clause does not explain to those things that have been previously provided for specifically.
ITAT benches in the following cases held the view that employees contribution is controlled by section 36(1)(va)
Jt. CIT v. ITC Ltd.(2008) 299 ITR (AT) 341 (Kol-Trib)
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2011) 41 (II) ITCL 345 (Kol C-Trib)
ICI India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 43 (II) ITCL 339 (Kol B-Trib)
Dy. CIT v. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. (2011) 44 SOT 556 (Kol-Trib) : (2011) 139 TTJ (Kol-Trib) 192
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Joint CIT (2003) 85 ITD 608 (Nag-Trib)
ITO v. LKP Securities Ltd. ITA No. 638/2012, dt. 17-5-2013 (Mum-Trib)
High Courts however has taken the opposite view
CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Karn)
Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax  (2013) 215 Taxman 597 (Karn)
CIT v. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand–HC)
CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del)
CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP)
CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.  (2013) 53 (I) ITCL 433 (Raj-HC)
Technically speaking speaking employees' contribution is controlled by section 36(1)(va), therefore, the provisions of that section will prevail and thus, employees' contribution if not paid according to scheme of section 36(1)(va) will not be allowed.
ALMOST ALL HIGH COURTS EXCEPT GUJARAT AND Kerala HIGH COURT HAS SO FAR RULED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE.
REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO
CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Karn)
Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax  (2013) 215 Taxman 597 (Karn)
CIT v. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand'HC)
CIT V AIMIL LTD 321 ITR 508 DELHI
CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP)
CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (Raj-HC)
Commissioner of Income Tax v. REI Agro Ltd. (Cal-HC).
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. (P&H-HC),
Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Raj-HC)
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Raj-HC)
Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Karn-HC)
CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (Bom-HC)
CIT V. GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD (BOM-HC)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Guj-HC) and Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin
v.
Merchem Ltd.HAS HOWEVER TAKEN AN OPPOSITE VIEW.
GOING BY THE ACT I BELEIVE VIEW OF GUJARAT And Kerala HIGH COURT IS CORRECT ONE.
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543
CA MANOJ GUPTA
JODHPUR
09828510543