In Part I, the concept of recognized provident fund (‘RPF’) has been discussed. In this part, concepts of approved superannuation fund (‘ASF’) and gratuity fund will be discussed. Approved Superannuation Fund [ASF]: The term ASF is defined under section 2(6) to mean a superannuation fund which is recognized by the
Madras High Court in BNY Mellon Technology Private Limited[1] – The time limit prescribed for TPO to complete assessment before 60 days prior to the last date to complete assessment under section 153 is mandatory in nature and the word ‘prior to’ should be interpreted differently from the word ‘to’:
SC in Pioneer Overseas Corporation[1] – Merely raising a dispute before any authority cannot be a ground not to levy interest or waive interest under Section 220(2A) of ITA: A SLP was filed by the assessee with respect to waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of ITA. The petitioner
Contribution to recognized provident fund (‘RPF’) and/or approved superannuation fund (‘ASF’) are the most popular saving options being selected by the employees across the industries. In addition to the above, it is very common that the employer makes payment to employee as gratuity. This is because, various tax deductions are
The Supreme Court in the matter of Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills[1] has upheld the judgment of Bombay High Court in the AN Naik Associates & Others[2], which has interpreted the term ‘otherwise’ appearing in Section 45(4) of ITA[3] to include the instances of retirement of partners. Before getting into
Chennai ITAT in P Srinivasan vs ITO[1] – Receipt of Gift from Uncle’s son and daughter-in-law to the assessee can be said to be constructive gift from Uncle and accordingly not taxable in light of Section 56(2)(vii) in the hands of assessee: An interesting issue has come up for consideration
Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Prakash Chandra Mishra[1] – No Equalization levy is deductible when the person running the advertisement (ad), the target audience and the person displaying the ad are all located outside India: The Jaipur Tribunal has held that the assessee is not liable to deduct equalization
Introduction: Issue of Notice under section 148 of ITA[1] after 31.03.2021 under old provisions has created a buzz in the reassessment matter in recent times. Finally, the matter reached the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal[2] and CBDT[3] has issued an instruction[4] to implement the decision of Supreme
Notices issued under section 148 to assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021- Supreme Court. Background: During the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, in order to provide sufficient time to comply with various provisions under the
