July is the month of the year which provides us lots of rains after dry hot days, when freshness and life retunes to schools and college, when mangos are in plenty and there is happiness all around. July is also the month when one has to file his or her annual income tax returns for the previous year ended in March. 31st July is the last date to file tax returns for individuals and those whose accounts are not subject to any audit. The options available to assessee is to do it himself or to call on his chartered accountant who can file the tax returns by just asking for few informations and papers. Tax returns are however, now a days an easy job as returns can be filed with case and online.
There were judgments on section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 relying on technicalities even at the final stage. Now, in my opinion, technicalities are ignored and the substance is keenly noted in a petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. For example, there were many decisions on the issue of ‘consent’ under section 399 of the Act and there were judgments saying that disputed facts can not be decided by the Company Law Board and those require Trial. In the recent past, there were no such pronouncements.
This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated September, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No. 1449 (Cal)/2000 for the Assessment Year- 1997-98 and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal.
A bank is bound to inform the consumer well in advance before blocking his credit card, a district consumer forum has held while directing the ICICI bank to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to its client for not doing so and putting him in an embarrassing situation. A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench presided by V K Gupta held ICICI bank guilty of deficiency in service and also criticised the private bank for misbehaviour of its staff with the consumer.
Navelkar Estates Developers v CIT and ITO (Mumbai HC) The main contention of Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the reasons have not been furnished to the Petitioner/Assessee for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessee is not in a position to file objections to the issue on notice.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out to the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time so that the Assessee can file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
Withdrawal of tax benefits from special economic zones (SEZs) would adversely impact India’s exports and economic sentiments, Assocham today said. Developers have invested huge money in SEZs. If tax benefits are not given, there will be adverse impact on exports and economic sentiments, the chamber said. It said that about Rs 30,000 crore worth of exposure that banks and financial institutions have given to SEZ projects under various stages of implementation may turn into non-performing assets.
Vide Order No 119 of 2011 dated 14.7.2011 the CBDT has transferred and posted Commissioners / Directors of Income-tax with immediate effect. Download the Order
Provided further that approval of Central Government is not required for a subsidiary of a listed company, if — i. the Remuneration Committee and Board of Directors of the holding company give their consent for the amount of such remuneration of the applicant and for the said amount to be deemed remuneration by the holding company for the purpose of section 198 of the Companies Act, 1956 and; ii. a special resolution has been passed at the general meeting of the company for payment of remuneration of the applicant and; iii the remuneration of the applicant is deemed to be remuneration paid by holding company and; iv. all members of the subsidiary are bodies corporate.
Transstory (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- The taxpayer was to pay royalty for only seven years and in respect of certain specified product, the royalty payable by the two group companies in China was for 20 years and it was based on sales of all the products. The only basis of adjustment made by the TPO is variation in rates of royalty paid by the taxpayer vis-a-vis the two group companies in China.
Notification No. 60/2011-Customs Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column (2) of the Table annexed hereto when imported into India from Bangladesh from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), subject to the following conditions, namely:– the importer produces evidence to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that such goods have, in fact, been locally produced in Bangladesh and are imported into India through the land route from Balat or Kalaichar land customs station for sale in Balat or Kalaichar border haats;
