Audit Committee Chairperson has indicated to the partner-in-charge of the outsourced firm carrying out internal audit that the coverage of personnel audit would be desirable every six months. Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer agree with the importance given by Audit Committee Chairperson to Personnel area. They have indicated the importance of this area to the partner-in-charge and also cautioned him that this being a sensitive area, needs to be handled with care. This exercise should be done by experienced persons.
FBT is not payable by a trust, fund or institution if its income is exempt under section 10(23C) or it is registered under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, a company registered under section 25 of the Companies Act will also not be liable to FBT if its income is exempt under section 10(23C) or such company is registered under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act.
IT all started with search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of Friends Portfolio. In the course of the search, statements of Shri Manoj Agarwal and other persons were recorded and thereafter assessment was completed in their cases. It was found that all the transactions undertaken by Shri Manoj Agarwal through Friends Portfolio and his other concerns were bogus transactions, in the nature of merely providing entries without any real physical transactions relatable to those entries. Such entries were taken by a number of persons, namely, S/Shri C.P. Khanna, Puneet Khanna, Rajiv Aggarwal, Dhanraj Singh, Harjoot Singh, M/s Ramco Steel (P) Ltd. etc. The last named company filed petition to the Settlement Commission for settlement of its case in respect of entries taken from Shri Manoj Agarwal. In the statement Shri Manoj Agarwal admitted that all the entries given by him through Friends Portfolio and his other companies were in the nature of accommodation entries, which could be grouped into six categories as under:-
As no notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) in the present case as admitted by the AO himself in the remand report submitted to the learned CIT(A) as clearly mentioned by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph No. 17 on page 12 of his impugned order, the assessment order passed by him u/s 158BC suffered from a jurisdictional error and the same, therefore, was not valid in the eye of law.
If an order passed by the authority is not communicated to the assessee or the concerned person, it raises serious issues. These have been considered by Courts time and again. The principles of natural justice are, by now, fully evolved and expounded by a catena of decisions. The importance of the rule of natural justice is not only to secure justice but also to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Admittedly, they do not supplant the law of the land, but supplement it. These principles are enunciated in the case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150), and have been followed in a number of judgments.
Now , even individuals or HUF have been made responsible for deducting tax at source if their sales turnover exceeds Rs 40 lakhs or gross receipts from profession exceeds Rs 10 lacs. Not deducting tax at source from payments made will make them suffer very heavily. The punishment for not deducting tax at source, was enhanced by Finance Act 2004 by an amendment in section 40 of the I T Act. So , substituted section 40(ia) consists of following provision
The Income-tax Department is required to give credit for TDS based on the annual information in NSDL site. The assessee can register his PAN and view the status of TDS, advance tax and self-assessment tax (annual tax statement AS 26). Credit for TDS is given to deductees based on the returns submitted by the deductor. In the event of the returns being rejected for mismatch of challans or non- quoting of PAN numbers of some of the deductees, assessees have no remedy to get credit for TDS in the absence of rectification of returns by the deductor.
The Supreme Court has said that an Assessee cannot claim deduction under section 80-HHC of the I-T Act for losses suffered on transactions. The apex court ruled that the meaning of profits under the provision of the Act would not include losses. Even if there are losses, they have to be ignored for the beneficiary purpose of such deduction, it added.
The CBDT has given norms for current fiscal for selection of cases meant for scrutiny. For corporates: All banks and public Sector undertakings are liable for scrutiny. Also, all NSE-500 companies and BSE-A group companies listed in Bombay Stock Exchange as on March 31, 2007, are covered. Companies in Delhi , Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Pune, Hyderabad , Bangalore and Ahmedabad paying book profit tax under Section 115 JB on the book profit of Rs 50 lakh and above are liable for scrutiny. In the case of companies in other places the monetary limit for book profit is Rs 25 lakh.
RBI EFT is a Scheme introduced by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to help banks offering their customers money transfer service from account to account of any bank branch to any other bank branch in places where EFT services are offered.The EFT system presently covers all the branches of the 27 public sector banks and 55 scheduled commercial banks at the 15 centres (viz., Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhubneshwar, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Mumbai, Nagpur, New Delhi, Patna and Thiruvananthpuram). Funds transfer is possible from any branch of these banks at these centres to other branch of any bank at these centres both inter-city and intra-city.
