Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
The Income Tax Department achieved another milestone in Tax Payers’ Services when SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE HON’BLE UNION FINANCE MINISTER inaugurated and dedicated the AAYAKAR SAMPARK KENDRA (Call Centre Services) to the Nation at Jangipur, Murshidabad, West Bengal on 14th April 2012.
Shareholders qualifying under section 399 of Companies Act, 1956 can approach the Company Law Board under section 397/398 seeking preventive and remedial measures against the oppression and mis-management in the Company. Though, section 397/398 is meant to provide relief to the minority shareholders against the actions of the majority, even the majority can approach under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and at times, the majority may not be in actual control of the company or the majority becomes artificial minority.
The attached document is a draft circular containing details of proposed amendments to harmonize the ER-1, ER-3 and ST-3 returns so that a single common return can be prescribed instead of these three returns as measure of simplification of the Business Processes in respect of filing the Return by assesses. The draft is being placed in public domain for widest possible circulation and an extensive debate from all stakeholders in trade and industry as also from all the field formations of the department. All suggestions and feedback from Trade as well as Field formations, may please be emailed at dircx1@nic.in or at vp60singh@gmail.com latest by 15th May 2012. The feedback and suggestions received would be considered for revising the proposed amendments.
As per the notification, individuals having taxable income exceeding Rs. 10 lakh and, domestic and expatriate resident individuals with assets located overseas have to mandatorily file their returns through the electronic mode.
Assessee has produced valuation report at the time of purchase as well as sale. In Remand, Assessing Officer has not pointed out any lacunae in the same. Moreover, the cost of land so bifurcated was being already reflected in the books of accounts and no depreciation was claimed on that account. In the case of C.I.T. vs. D.C. Ramachandra Rao 236 ITR 51, Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that it is possible to bifurcate the capital gain arising out of sell of land and building, even if, they are sold as one unit. Land is an independent and identifiable capital asset and it continues to remain so, even after construction of building thereon
