AIFs Regulations endeavour to extend the perimeter of regulation to unregulated funds with a view to systemic stability, increasing market efficiency, encouraging formation of new capital and consumer protection. Salient features of the AIF Regulations, inter alia, include the following:
There are various ways of converting a firm to a company, viz; slump sale, itemized sale, admitting the company as a partner, dissolution thereof and on dissolution, business being taken over by the company etc.,. Being a topic with a very vast ambit an attempt has been made hereinabove to briefly discuss two alternatives. In view of the choices available. Conversion should be made in a manner appropriate to a particular situation and in a way which is most beneficial.
In the Finance Bill 2012 section 44AD has been amended retrospectively w.e.f A.Y. 2011-12 to the effect that presumptive scheme under the said section is not applicable to persons carrying on profession as referred to in section 44AA(1) or persons earning income in the nature of commission or brokerage income or persons carrying on any agency business.
Meaning:- The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a comprehensive value added tax (VAT) on the supply of goods or services. France was the first country to introduce this value added tax system in 1954 devised by a public servant. In India, due to non consensus between central and state government, the proposal is to […]
Service tax format of declaration and covering letter for issue of User ID and TPIN at aces.gov.in site for existing Assessee’s. EXISTING USER: Directly contact your service tax range office. Kindly submit a requisition letter to your range officer along with your company name, Reg. No & your updated communication email id. After submitting requisition, you will get the TPIN and PASSWORD through Email.
It is found that surrender was made subject to no penalty vide letter of the assessee filed before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, which clearly indicate that surrender was being made with a condition that no penal action will be made and to avoid further litigation and to buy peace and jurisdictional High Court decisions in the case of CIT v. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works [2000] 246 ITR 216/[2002] 120 Taxman 319 (All.) and CIT v. Mansa Ram & Sons [1977] 106 ITR 307 (All.) were in favour of the assessee and Commissioner (Appeals) has followed these decisions while deleting the impugned penalty. Moreover, department has not been able to bring on record any contrary superior Courts decisions in this regard. Therefore, there is no valid ground to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is upheld and appeal of the department is dismissed being devoid of any merit. As a result, the appeal of the department is dismissed.
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006-“Implications for Annual Financial Statements” The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“the Act”) has been notified and has received the assent of the President on 16th June 2006. Subsequently, notifications defining the authorities under the Act and for classifying various categories i.e. micro, small or […]
The current NOOPL of the banks as applicable to the positions involving Rupee as one of the currencies shall not include the positions undertaken in the Currency Futures/Options segment in the exchanges. The positions in the exchanges (both Futures and Options) cannot be netted/offset by undertaking positions in the OTC market and vice-versa. The positions initiated in the exchanges shall be liquidated/closed in the exchanges only.
Pine Packaging Private Ltd V/s. CIT (Delhi HC) Compensation received from customer for under utilisation of taxpayer’s capacity was not profit derived from manufacture/production and was therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income-tax Act,1961
In this case, M/s Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd , a tax resident of UK, was denied the benefit of setting off of the business loss from sale of shares against the income from other sources by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on the ground that the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement . The Honourable Mumbai Tribunal observed that the assessee chose to be ruled by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not DTAA. Thus, the AO was not justified in directing that the business loss should be considered as per provisions of DTAA and therefore taxing the income from other sources without allowing its set off against the business loss.
