The existing restriction in exemption u/s. 54EC is clearly an attempt to prevent home owners from fully enjoying the benefits. The treatment of long-term capital gains (LTCG) has been a contentious issue in recent years. Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, exempts from taxation capital gains arising from transfer of a long term capital asset, provided the assessee invests the whole or part of the capital gains in long term specified assets for three years.
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
Provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) would apply only to the expenditure which remain payable as at the end of the relevant financial year. Assessee entitled to claim deduction of expenses if the TDS deducted there on is remitted before the due date for filing the return of income.
Provisions of section 23(2) make it clear that benefits of relief in respect of self-occupied property is available only to owner who can reside in his own residence, that means, benefit of relief is available to self-occupied property only to an individual assessee and not to an imaginary assessable entity/fictional entity such as a partnership firm. Various High Court decisions denying relief under section 23(2) to partnership firms cannot be invoked to deny relief to a HUF since unlike a firm which is a fictional entity and cannot physically reside and so cannot claim benefit of provision, HUF cannot be held to be a fictional entity.
the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Z (A.A.R. No.1048 of 2011) held that income from sale of Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) by the applicant is taxable in India as ‘Interest’ under Section 2(28A) of Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act) and Article 11 of India-Mauritius tax treaty (tax treaty). Further the AAR held that sale of Indian company shares by a Mauritius company is not exempt under the tax treaty.
Briefly stating the facts are that Hemant Gandhi was acting as a middleman for accused Dr. A.K. Srivastava and Lallan Ojha, who were respectively posted as Commissioner and Superintendent of Central Excise at the relevant time. The allegations are that they were involved in obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means from the businessmen. Further the allegations are that they had conspired to conduct an unauthorized raid at the business premises of Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal.
