« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money  ITAT Cuts ?4.85 Lakh Penalty After ?14.02 Lakh Interest Income Was Missed in ITR  ITR filed under old regime, tax calculated under new regime; Delhi ITAT gives taxpayer relief  ITAT Delhi Quashes Tax Notice on AMU PG Student’s ?18.34 Lakh Stipend, Declares It Tax-Free Under Section 10(16)  Advance tax deadline September 15: What happens if you missed the previous instalment payment?  How much gold jewellery can you keep at home? Nagpur ITAT explains rules on ownership, gifts, taxability  ?5.31 lakh TDS refund allowed by ITAT Delhi: Why absence of an original ITR did not block the taxpayer «  Economists not for cut in direct tax rates... Dialling Mayawati... » SC rules in favour of Income Tax Commissioner January, 07th 2008 The income tax department has won its appeals against tea exporting companies when the Supreme Court resolved the prevailing conflict of views among the High Courts on the question as to at what stage Section 80HHC, deduction in income tax, should be allowed i.e. before the 60 : 40 apportionment under the 1962 IT Rule 8(1) or from 40 per cent profits on sales taxable as business income.   Rejecting the view of the Gauhati High Court and approving of the Calcutta High Court view, the Supreme Court ruled in the Commissioner of Income Tax vs Willamson Financial Services that the deduction under Section 80HHC should be allowed after the apportionment of the income, as argued by the tax authorities   Liability of service tax on recipient: SC   The Supreme Court has upheld the view of the Kerala High Court that it was the liability of the service recipient to pay service tax and interest upon it and not the foreign firm which provided consultancy.   In this case, the state electricity Board had entered into a consultancy agreement with SNC Lavlin Inc, Canada. The Board did not pay the service tax on behalf of the foreign company, denying any obligation to do so. The High Court ruled that the burden was on the recipient-Board.   Modi Tele Fibres Ltd appeal dismissed   The SC has dismissed the appeal of Modi Tele Fibres Ltd against the energy charges demanded by the UP State Electricity Board for supplying power to the residential colonies of the company.   Following heavy losses, the company had closed down and it had asked the board to discontinue supply of power to the residential colonies through the company's connection. It had asked the Board to make separate connections to the colony as the company was unable to pay the charges. The Board did not do so.   The company moved the Allahabad high court without success. The Supreme Court dismissed its appeal pointing out that it had not taken any step to provide separate supply to the colonies nor deposit the required amount. The agreement between the two parties also did not permit disconnection before the expiry of two years.   Sc upholds Gujarat HC order   The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal directing Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Ltd to deposit Rs 2 crore as a condition for entertaining its appeal.   The Commissioner of Customs had imposed Rs 10 crore as penalty. The Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunals order. In the Supreme Court, the company pleaded that it was financially sick and the condition would cause undue hardship on it. The court rejected the argument.