1. Budget 2014: Private sector contributions to NPS may be taxed for past 5 years  (Click for detail)
   

2. Budget 2014: Government yet to decide on tax evasion rule GAAR's implementation  (Click for detail)  

3. Beware of Phishing Emails, Cautions Income Tax Department  (Click for detail)

4. RBI eases overseas investment rules in local companies  (Click for detail)

5. RBI stops NBFCs from charging penalties on loan pre-payment  (Click for detail)  

6. Budget brings tax worries for foreign portfolio investments  (Click for detail)
   

1.  Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Tax Appeal No. 33 of 2014, Date of Order: 21.01.2014, High Court of Gujarat

Licence fee for putting up hoardings is taxable as income from other sources

If the Corporation, permits hoardings to be put up in its property by issuing licences, for which it charges licence fees and also charges licence fees from the owners allowing hoardings to be put up in their private properties, in our opinion, the same cannot be said to be business activity of the Corporation. Such licence fees are collected for regulating the activity of putting up hoardings to ensure that it does not damage the public safety and does not offend the public morality and decency. The safety measures, standards of morality and decency, all have to be maintained by the Corporation since such hoardings would be eitherin the Corporation property or private property, in number of cases on the plots abutting a public street. We have noticed that the collection from such licence fees is less than 1% of the total revenue of the Corporation. In our opinion, therefore, the view of the Tribunal that such income was not business income, but must be “income from other sources”, therefore, calls for no interference.

(Please click here for judgment)
 

2.  Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Writ Petition No. 2468 of 2011, Date of Order: 12.06.2014, Bombay High Court

Bald statement that assessee has failed to make a full & true disclosure of material facts not sufficient. Details must be given as to which fact was not disclosed

In the present case, admittedly there are no details given by the Assessing Officer (Respondent No.1) as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the Petitioner that led to it's income escaping assessment. There is merely a bald assertion in the reasons that there was a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts without giving any details thereof. This being the case, the impugned notice is bad in law and on this ground alone the Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition.

(Please click here for judgment)