Status of Pending Income Tax Refunds

Dear All

You can find your Income Tax Refund details in the link below:

https://tin.tin.nsdl.com/oltas/refundstatuslogin.html

Exemption to Charitable Institution u/s 12A

On the basis of Non filing of auditors report u/s 10B, exemption cannot be denied.

Sir Kikabhai Pemchand Trust (Mumbai) ITA/ 5308/ Mum/2009

Revision u/s 263 by Commissioner

Where AO adopts one of the possible view permissible in law or where two views are possible and AO takes one of the possible views , commissioner cannot exercise his power u/s 263 to differ with view of AO even if there is a loss of revenue.

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. ( Delhi ) 194 Taxman 175

Assessment Proceesing : Addition on account of Guess Work

Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 had given a priciple that in making the assessment ITO is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without return or any evidence or material.

DTAA : India - UK - Dividend Income

If an assessee i.e. Resident of India, desires to get the tax credit in respect of dividend income from a UK company available as per UK law, then he will be treated at par with resident of UK and amount received by assessee would then be deemed to increase by 1/9th of dividend received from UK company for purpose of taxation under Indian Income Tax Act and tax credit can only be adjusted against his tax liability in India but he cannot claim refund, if any, in case his credit is more than his tax liability.

Homy N. J. Dady (Mumbai ITAT)

Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property : Retrospective amendment and constitutional validity : UPHELD

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity and retrospective levy of service tax on renting of immovable property.

The levy of service tax on renting was challenged by Shubh Timb Steels Ltd, owning commercial property in Himachal Pradesh, on the issue of Constitutional validity and also validity of the retrospective amendment. On both these points, the court ruled in favour of the government. The court observed that it could not be held that renting of immovable property did not involve any service, as a service could only be in relation to property and not be renting of property. It said renting for commercial purposes is a service and has a value for a service receiver.