Section 50C of the Act is a deeming provision and ostensibly involves creation of an additional tax liability on the assessee and, therefore, notwithstanding the presence of the expression ‘may’ in section 50C(2)(a), the Assessing Officer in the instant case (where assessee had claimed in his return itself that stamp duty values exceeds FMV) ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the value of the capital asset in question.
In partial modification of para (b) (iii) of the General Circular No. 67/2011, dated 30th November, 2011, it has been decided to extend exemption from mandatory cost audit to all units located in the specified Zones such as Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Export Processing Zones (EPZs) and Free Trade Zones (FTZs) and also to the 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs), subject to the following:
Cost Accounting Records Rules, 2011 do not visualize companies to change their cost accounting system if already in-place; but they are required to comply with the Generally Accepted Cost Accounting Principles and Cost Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Cost Accountants of India, to the extent these are found to be relevant and applicable and also file compliance report with the Central Government. It was also observed that existence of structured & verified cost accounting records would enable the companies to fulfil regulatory requirements; comply with the Tax Accounting Standards; and assist is their tax assessments.
The Consent order, containing the alleged misconduct, legal provisions alleged to have been violated, facts and circumstances of the case and the consent terms, shall be hosted on the website of SEBI.
A charitable trust is not invalid merely because that settlor is one of the beneficiaries as long as he is not the sole beneficiary. If settlor is the sole beneficiary, then the trust would be invalid on account of non-divesting of party. Where dominant object of the trust was to help the poor Parsis and to donate to educational institutions, registration u/s 12A was not deniable merely because preference was to be given to poor relatives of the settlor so long as it did not make the poor relatives of the settlor the only beneficiaries.
These rules may be called the Companies (Director Identification Number) Amendment Rules, 2012. (2) They shall come into force with effect from 29th May, 2012. 2. In the Companies (Director Identification Number) Rules, 2006,- (a) after FORM NO. DIN 1, in Annexure 1, for item (i) and entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
The Convention between the Kingdom of Netherlands and the Republic of India for the avoidance of double taxation and for the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital was signed on 30th July, 1988 (DTAC). Both India and Netherlands have concluded a Protocol to amend the Article 26 of the DTAC concerning Exchange of Information to bring it in line with the international standards.
India has entered into a tax treaty with Switzerland; Article 26 of the tax treaty which deals with exchange of information between the two countries was reworded by agreement between the two countries and simultaneously a new paragraph 10 was inserted in the Protocol to clarify the understanding of the operation of Article 26 (Notification No. 62/2011 dated 27 December 2011). India and Switzerland have now entered into a Mutual Agreement regarding the interpretation of paragraph 10(b) of the Protocol to the tax treaty to provide as under:-
The dispute is regarding addition of Rs.14,60,052/- made by AO on account of unsecured loans from Shri Balwantbhai Grewal. There is no dispute that the said amount had been shown as loan in books of account of the assessee. Assessee could not produce any evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal who lived in UK and genuineness of transaction. Subsequently before CIT(A), assessee submitted that the amount had been wrongly entered in books and the same related to transaction of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal with the sister concern M/s. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.
Assessee is an agent of Government of Maharashtra and also considering the fact that Hon’ble High Court granted stay to the assessee for the recovery of the demand when the appeal was pending before ld CIT(A), we hold that the assessee has a prima facie case for grant of stay for recovery of the dues pending disposal of appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we grant stay for recovery of the demand for A.Y. 2006-07 for a period of 6 months or till disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier.
