The proviso to sub-section (1) to section 209, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 is prospective in nature and not with retrospective effect. The proviso was brought into operation with effect from 1-4-2012, therefore, the assertion of revenue is disagreed with. Even otherwise, the language used in section 209(1) is regarding payment of advance tax in the financial year, therefore, the proviso is not attracted for the impugned assessment year.
The undersigned is directed to invite a reference to Rules 5 & 6 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008, as per which a Central Government employee had an option to elect to come over to the revised pay structure either from 1.1.2006 or from the date of his next increment or from the date of promotion, upgradation of pay scales. Such an option was to be exercised within 3 months from the date of publication of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The rule also provides that the option once exercised shall be final.
In the latest Basel accord (Basel III), Basel Committee introduced two new liquidity ratios in addition to the increase in existing ratios, to reduce the vulnerability of banks to unfavorable situation like 2008 crisis. By introducing these new ratios, the Basel Committee intends to fortify banks against adverse and distressed situations, abolish mismatches between assets and liabilities and push more sound and reliable sources of funding such as long term funding.
The Finance Ministry has finalized new norms for GAAR. They will come into effect from April 1, 2016. GAAR will not apply to such FIIs that choose not to take any benefit under DTAA. GAAR will also not apply to non-resident investors in FII. Investments made before August 30, 2010, will be grandfathered. A monetary […]
The Expert Committee has submitted its Final Report on General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) in Income-tax Act, 1961. The Report is very comprehensive and apart from giving an in-depth explanation of what the GAAR provisions are, it also has a number of examples of transactions which would be affected by GAAR. Link to download Full report is given at the bottom of the Article. Gist of Recommendations is as follows :-
The proposed Companies Bill, 2012 does not contemplate any verbatim corresponding provision. However, somewhat similar provision is contemplated in the Bill, not as a separate provision, but as part of the provision relating to “Signing of audit report, etc.” contained in section 145 thereof. The said section 145 reads as under:
Notice gives jurisdiction to ITO – Issuance of notice within period of limitation gives jurisdiction to Assessing Officer to proceed to make reassessment.
It is difficult to sustain the notice issued u/s. 148. The audit objection is only an inference that the royalty payment resulted in a capital benefit; such an opinion expressed by the audit cannot constitute tangible material on the basis of which the assessment can be reopened.
We may however clarify that public interest litigation affecting the administration of justice, at the instance of the Advocates practicing in the court/fora and representing litigants before that court/fora can be entertained in as much as those lawyers would have locus to the extent of being directly affected by the functioning of the said courts/foras.
Only aspect mentioned in the reasons recorded is about the requirement of inclusion or non-inclusion of cenvat/modvat credit in closing stock. The Assessing Officer stated in his reasons inter alia that on perusal of break up the loans and advances in the balance-sheet, it was found that the assessee had at the end of previous year a particular amount of cenvat credit not utilised and that the assessee had not credited the said amount to the profit & loss account.
