I am directed to refer to the Ministry’s General Circular no. 14/2012 dated 21st June 2012 & General Circular no. 19/2012 dated 27th July 2012 and to say that fees on Form 23B (Information by statutory auditor to the Registrar) has been further deferred for one week and shall now be applicable from 12th August, 2012.
Impact of Errors made while filing returns – • Returns can be classified as defective u/s 139 (9) and in some scenarios the return can be declared in valid / Non Est. ITD is not introducing this concept to cover certain types of errors in order to prevent future grievances • Computation Errors – In electronic filing it has been noticed that most of the errors are due to data errors as filed by the assessee This includes non filling of key schedules, wrong details etc resulting in rectification requests etc which delay closure of processing
To organise focussed programs to keep the members abreast with the latest development in the profession on the maintenance of Cost Accounting Records and Cost Audit and filing of Cost Audit Report in XBRL mode, besides other important changes relating to Valuation Audit, CENVAT Audit, etc. To Issue remaining Cost Accounting Standards and Guidance Notes thereon To Issue Cost Audit and Assurance Standards
Circular No. 6/2012 – Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 mandates that an individual or Hindu undivided family, if his or its total income or the total income in respect of which he is or it is assessable under the Act, during the previous year, exceeds ten lakh rupees, shall furnish the return electronically for the assessment year 2012-13 and subsequent assessment years.
The other ground raised by the revenue that the assessee has not registered under A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and hence the assessee is a non charitable one, is an argument to be admitted only to be rejected. The provisions of Sections 2(15), 11 to 13 are very clear and self contained code in respect of institutions which are considered as charitable in nature and the exemptions that these institutions are eligible for under the Income tax Act.
Notification no. S.0-447 (E) dated 28.02.2011 on revised schedule VI is effective from 1st April 2011. The current year filing is based on revised schedule VI is due for filing. The revised form 23AC & ACA is under finalization and will be notified shortly on the MCA website.
In the present case we find that the warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act has been issued on 10th November, 2006 in the joint name of three persons. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of Section 292CC, as inserted by Finance Act, 2012 in the Statute Book i.e. the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessments made in the individual capacity of each persons named in he warrant of authorisation was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal were not justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that if the warrant of authorisation was issued jointly in the name of more than one person, the assessment could not have been made in the capacity of an individual.
As regards, more particularly, government securities, and bonds and debentures, the text specifies that premiums or prizes attaching thereto constitute interest. Generally speaking, what constitutes interest yielded by a loan security, and may properly be taxed as such in the State of source, is all that the institution issuing the loan pays over and above the amount paid by the subscriber, that is to say, the interest accruing plus any premium paid at redemption or at issue.
Division Bench of this Court that the brought forward business loss can be set off against the interest earned by the assessee from bank deposit in the subsequent year, if such interest can be attributed to a business activity of the assessee, notwithstanding that such interest is assessable under the head “income from other sources” under the Act.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original assessment order dated 28/2/1997 was set aside by the ITAT with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. Accordingly, fresh assessment order was passed on 24/12/2006 and the demand notice was served on 24/12/2006. As per Section 220(1) of the Act, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of demand within thirty days from the service of demand notice dated 24/12/2006.
