Notification No. 17/2013 – Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby- (a) directs that the Commissioner of Income-tax specified in column (2) of the Schedule hereto annexed, having his headquarters at the place specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Schedule, shall exercise the concurrent powers-
The EPFO’s board discussed the rate of interest for 2012-13. After detailed discussion, the board decided to recommend a rate of interest of 8.5% for the year. Decision to pay 8.5% interest rate was taken unanimously by the board.
Notification No. 16/2013 – Income Tax Director General of Income-tax (Systems) specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having his headquarters at the place specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule, shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of such cases or classes of cases, in respect of which the Commissioner of Income-tax specified in the corresponding entries in column (4) of the said Schedule has jurisdiction vested in him.
Notification No. 15/2013 – Income Tax Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that the income-tax authority specified in column (3) of the Schedule below shall be subordinate to the income-tax authority specified in column (2) of the said Schedule.
Instruction regarding Notification No. 1/2013- Service Tax dated 22-2-2013 which seeks to amend the Service Tax Rules 1994 so as to prescribe the revised return Form ST3 and also stipulate that the last date for filing a return for the period July 2012 to September 2012, is 25th March 2013. As per rule 7 of […]
There is every need for the Government to enable/assist the Banks in reducing their NPAs (Non-performing Assets) and it is beyond doubt that the Banks are now well assisted/equipped through the legal frame-work in recovering their dues.
According to the Tribunal, was a condition precedent for making a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also held that, in any event, the DVO’s report was based on incomparable sales and, therefore, could not be relied upon. The Tribunal also held that the burden was on the revenue to show that the real investment in the said properties was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal held, on facts, that the said burden had not been discharged by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and found that the reference to the DVO itself was not in accordance with law.
Contrary View to Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision quashing Circular No.154 & 158 with reference to Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. In a recent judgment dated 01-02-2013, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Delhi Chartered Accountants Society (Regd.) V/s Union of India & Others, C.M.No.9237/2012 (for stay, has quashed Circular No. 154/5/2012 – ST […]
This week is important from the economic view point as the Government would unfold its economic performance and agenda in the form of economic survey, railway budget and Union Budget for next fiscal- something for which the entire nation and investors all over the world excitedly wait for.
It is a well settled law that when two different views of the different jurisdictional High Courts are available, the decision favourable to the assessee is to b03e followed. The hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) has held that (page 195) “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well-accepted rule of constructions recognized by this court in several of its decisions”. Therefore, in view of the above, the Tribunal has been following the judgment of the hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) in various cases holding that exemption under section 10B is to be allowed without setting off brought forward unabsorbed loss and depreciation from earlier assessment year or the current assessment year. A similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the following cases as well :
