As announced by the Governor today, it has been decided to reduce the Repo rate under the Liquidity Adjustment Facility (LAF) by 25 basis points from 7.75 per cent to 7.50 per cent with immediate effect.
In the instant case, undeniably the order under section 271FA was passed by the Director of Income-tax who is equivalent in rank with the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the order of the Director of Income-tax cannot be challenged or assailed by filing an appeal before an Officer,i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals), who is equivalent in rank with the Director of Income-tax. The appeal can only be filed before a higher forum than the forum whose order is to be challenged and the higher forum is only Tribunal and before it the order of the Director of Income-tax can only be challenged by filing an appeal.
The grievance of the Revenue with regard to the impugned order so far as change of opinion is concerned, is that the Assessing Officer had acted upon on audit objection which has been received by him. Thus, there was tangible material available for issuing notice for reopening of the assessment.
Keeping in background, the roll-out of GST in April 2016; the Finance Minister’s proposals this time around are introduced with a view to prepare the economy for the smooth transition to the new levy. These are discussed with the respective proposed amendments herein below. 1. Roll out of Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’): Unlike the […]
The Finance Minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley, appears to have maneuvered the way to spur growth and fulfill on the promises of the NDA Government with the limited room available, having regard to the tight fiscal situation, outsize expectations from all sectors of the country etc. by delivering the expertly crafted Union Budget 2015-2016 which is […]
Though the government has been able to successfully enact Wealth Tax act in India for nearly 57 years till now, it has now considered to scrap the Act in it’s entirety w.e.f 1st April, 2016. This means that the return of wealth need not be filed for the Financial Year 2015-16.
Emanating from an appeal against the Divisional Bench Judgment of the Madras High court, in the case of T. P. Vishnu Kumar v. Canara Bank P.N. Road, Tiruppur and Ors, the highest court of the country, reiterated the principle that when specific remedy is available, invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible.
In a recent ruling that will have a bearing on the buyback activities, the Bombay High Court held that the premium paid for buyback of shares shall be tax deductible as business expenditure. (CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd).
The Prime minister in his live Lok Sabha Session on 27 February said that they aim to eradicate the ‘grey area’ in the nomenclature so that the ambiguity in law can be eradicated and shackles of litigation can be clogged. One such amendment has been brought in Rule 14 which now finally brings a full stop to the yearlong battle between the revenue and assessee. By this articulation we wish to throw light on the same.
CIT vs. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Sub-section (4) of section 10B stipulated that deduction under that section shall be computed by apportioning the profits of the business of the undertaking in the ratio of turnover to the total turnover.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
