Update
TG
TDS-CPC Handbook
prev.
ICAI President’s Message – August 2014
BS
TG
A spew of Budget Glimpses :
ICL
Retrospective Tax Legislation and 'Small Repairs'
OFFHAND
Q
But the case importantly "illustrates that retrospectivity alone is not enough: much depends on exactly what the position was before the law was amended and whether a reasonable taxpayer would have thought that tax was not payable." UQ
To supplement, with thoughts on some more interestingly inter-related or - connected aspects/concepts:
In one's perspective, the concept of 'retrospectivity' implies 'retroACTIVITY' (-activating); hence has tagged on to it the inherent but inescapable impediment, more often than not confronted with is as how best to give effect to anything which is such a change in law brought about. That mostly depends and is entirely left to be taken care by the so called 'machinery' provisions - in short,such as secs 147,154,263,251, 254.
A brief study attempted on the mentioned area riddled with irresolute complexity is covered in, among others, the published article,-"INCOME-TAX ACT:RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENTS (OF WHAT CONSEQUENCE ?) - (2005) 3 Comp. L J (pg. 24)
Over to active / proactive law experts for an insightful exploratory exercise!
(-may be contd.)
LCI
Taxation
Service tax proceedings - by Neeraj Kumar Giri
TG
July 3
Deductor to be deemed as assesee in deafult only in respect of actual tax liability of Non-Resident
June 30
Why Tax Practitioners Bill Required For India?
@ June 17
2014
In an attempt to provoke useful thoughts and stimulate appreciation of the
validity of the suggestion to the Revenue volunteered in the last post, to the
end of an early resolution, the following observations may be added:
As per information gathered from known sources, and piecing those
together, the reality of the current scenario, as inferred, is this: Even in
cases in which taxpayers have not failed but taken care to report correctly the
address, if that has since changed, in the tax return subsequently filed, there
is still a mismatch; in that, both 26AS and the certificates of TDS later
issued by deductors still continue to disclose not such changed address but
some old address. If probed into, the strong indication is that the old address
so reflected is the one as shown in the tax return (s) filed in order or about
the time when the CPC came to be setup and started functioning. That is the
time when the respective AOs uploaded in the system, besides the other data,
also the address, per tax return (s) lately filed. In other words, the mismatch
has nothing to do with the address in taxpayer’s application for allotment of
PAN, if made, before the set up of CPC (i.e prior to 2009/2010).
Others faced with and happen to have realized a similar predicament are
requested to share own individual experience, for the benefit of one and all
equally concerned.
@ June 17 2014
In an attempt to provoke useful thoughts and stimulate appreciation of
the validity of the suggestion to the Revenue volunteered in the last
post, to the end of an early resolution, the following observations may
be added:
As per information gathered from known sources, and piecing those
together, the reality of the current scenario, as inferred, is this:
Even in cases in which taxpayers have not failed but taken care to
report correctly the address, if that has since changed, in the tax
return subsequently filed, there is still a mismatch; in that, both 26AS
and the certificates of TDS later issued by deductors still continue to
disclose not such changed address but some old address. If probed into,
the strong indication is that the old address so reflected is the one
as shown in the tax return (s) filed in order or about the time when the
CPC came to be setup and started functioning. That is the time when the
respective AOs uploaded in the system, besides the other data, also the
address, per tax return (s) lately filed. In other words, the mismatch
has nothing to do with the address in taxpayer’s application for
allotment of PAN, if made, before the set up of CPC (i.e prior to
2009/2010).
Others faced with and happen to have realized a similar predicament are
requested to share own individual experience, for the benefit of one
and all equally concerned.
- See more at: http://taxguru.in/income-tax/cpctds-offers-tips-faster-answers.html#comment-964675
@ June 17 2014
In an attempt to provoke useful thoughts and stimulate appreciation of
the validity of the suggestion to the Revenue volunteered in the last
post, to the end of an early resolution, the following observations may
be added:
As per information gathered from known sources, and piecing those
together, the reality of the current scenario, as inferred, is this:
Even in cases in which taxpayers have not failed but taken care to
report correctly the address, if that has since changed, in the tax
return subsequently filed, there is still a mismatch; in that, both 26AS
and the certificates of TDS later issued by deductors still continue to
disclose not such changed address but some old address. If probed into,
the strong indication is that the old address so reflected is the one
as shown in the tax return (s) filed in order or about the time when the
CPC came to be setup and started functioning. That is the time when the
respective AOs uploaded in the system, besides the other data, also the
address, per tax return (s) lately filed. In other words, the mismatch
has nothing to do with the address in taxpayer’s application for
allotment of PAN, if made, before the set up of CPC (i.e prior to
2009/2010).
Others faced with and happen to have realized a similar predicament are
requested to share own individual experience, for the benefit of one
and all equally concerned.
- See more at: http://taxguru.in/income-tax/cpctds-offers-tips-faster-answers.html#comment-964675
BL
Lalit Kumar
Caught between the law and the rules
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, charged with framing the Rules of the new Companies Act, may have exceeded its brief
The apprehension that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) would misuse its rule-making...
»
>> "The
point is whether the MCA can make amendments to the provisions of the
Companies Act. .."
prev.
Lci
A typical poser from a lawyer to Expets' ! >
Inquiry - by Amit Maheshwari
hello to all Respected Experts . I am Amit Maheshwari (Advocate) and need some suggestions on this matter .
A
property was attached by Income tax Dept. due to outstanding of Income
tax . In this property a Trust was Decreed by court to register 65%
property in his favor . now the ratio is 65% in favor of trust and 35%
is in favor of Income Tax Department . And this is Undivided portion
between both parties . About 7-8 years ago a land scam-er has taken
Possession of 3 go-downs in said property by illegal way . After this he
(land scam-er) given these go-downs on rent to unauthorized tenants by a
Agreement of on 100 rs. stamp convincing them that he is the owner of
the said go-down . I got a photo state copy of Agreement from one tenant
. In this Agreement land scam-er says that he is owner of this go-down
and rent is rs. 5000/- per month starting from 1 Aug 2008 . I send many
letters to IT dept. but they are not taking any action about the
confusing for their portion which is undivided . And Trust is also not
taking any action for family feud . I want to know for my knowledge Is
it allow under sec 39 or 154 Cr.p.c. any other person who is not
concerned about the said property but as a responsible citizen can he
lodge a complain about this crime or is there any other provision for
lodging complain about this matter in law .
PIL!
Theft of gov. fund by illegal agreement(Criminal Law)
TG
Black x White <<<>>>
5 Ways People Use to Convert Black Money into White Money
Service Tax
1.
Refund Of Service Tax (ST)
Credit For ST Paid Under Reverse Charge
2.!
