The recommendation of Shyamala Gopinath Committee regarding agents’ commission was to reduce commission of 0.5% on Senior Citizens Saving Scheme (SCSS) and 1% on Public Provident Fund (PPF) to zero, reduce 4% commission under Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana (MPKBY) to 1% in a phased manner and to reduce 1% commission for all other schemes under Standardised Agency System (SAS) to 0.5%.
Advocates/Chartered Accountant/Authorized Representative and assessees are hereby informed that in case of E-Payment of Tribunal Fees the respective Challans are to be counter signed by the concerned bank manager or attested by the authorized Representatives or assessees themselves
India has entered into Double Taxation Avoidance agreements (DTAAs) with 84 countries. In addition, DTAAs have been signed with 3 countries, viz. Colombia, Uruguay & Ethiopia and will enter into force after completion of necessary formalities in these countries. Proposal to sign DTAAs with 12 more countries/jurisdictions is under process. These countries/jurisdictions are Albania, Bhutan, […]
On the request of the Central Government and persistent follow up in June, 2011, France has provided details of Indians having bank accounts in one of the banks of Switzerland under the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC) between India and France. Based on this information, investigations have been undertaken by the different jurisdictional authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Central Government has given the notice in view of the possibility of tax evasion by some insurance companies of private sector. The names of the companies which have been served upon Show Cause Notices in 2012-13 (upto October 2012) are as follows:
Moment the commercial surcharge is recovered irrespective of the provisions of the agreement entered into by and between the landlord and tenant it immediately become exigible to tax as rental income from house property for agreement binds the parties thereto and it becomes irrelevant the moment it is found to be in conflict with legal provision on the subject.
It is obvious that when the assessee revised its return and claimed deduction under section 44C at higher level than that claimed in the original return, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to consider the higher claim under section 44C and not to restrict himself to the claim made in original return. Any absurdity in the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer to consider deduction under section 44C on the basis of revised return subject to verification of the correctness of the revised return.
The assessee’s prime grievance is the non-examination by the Assessing Officer of the material adduced before Commissioner (Appeals) for the first time. At the same time, there has been, without doubt, a clear violation of rule 46A. The question of consideration of the additional evidence/s by the Commissioner (Appeals) comes only subsequent to first qualifying for admission in terms of rule 46A, which is mandatory in nature.
The application made, for recalling the order dated 19th November, 2012, has failed to convince the Court to the fullest extent. The person sworn-in to the affidavit has stated that he was managing the affairs of the Company and he was in the Country for six months, itself, is not sufficient to recall the winding-up order. First of all, he should have stated as to how only he was responsible to file this affidavit when other Directors were available.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-firm filed its return of income (ROI) on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. ‘NIL’. The books of accounts of the firm are duly audited u/s 44AB and the report in form No 3 CA and 3CB dated 26/09/2009 were filed alongwith the ROI. The assessee-firm derives its income from sale of Petrol and Diesel and also from transport business. The A.O has completed his order u/s 143(3) on 7.1.2011.
