Top-up
Epilogue ?!
BS
BL
AT
BL
TOI
Modi govt committed to lower taxes, Arun Jaitley says
BS
PM keen to use biometric technology for cash transfers
BL
The big fat Indian Budget
It’s all about the FM single-handedly rescuing the economy, while everyone else enjoys tax breaks, finds a newbie journalist »
AT
a quixot says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Stop for a moment, TO THINK !
May be so, if RBI ‘s benevolence in liberalizing the extant rules further were to be considered on a standalone basis; but the newly prescribed bitter bill is to be found in the current fiscal Budget proposal to amend Section 54 and 54F , denying the tax exemption thus far available, and further, if perceived closely, in effect, retroactively !
Stop for a moment, TO THINK !
May be so, if RBI ‘s benevolence in liberalizing the extant rules further were to be considered on a standalone basis; but the newly prescribed bitter bill is to be found in the current fiscal Budget proposal to amend Section 54 and 54F , denying the tax exemption thus far available, and further, if perceived closely, in effect, retroactively !
BL
Don’t
rush in implementing GAAR
When Minister of State for Finance Nirmala Sitaraman, in a written reply
to a parliamentary ques... »
All you
wanted to know about: A weekly column that puts the fun into learning
“Oh no, not yet another tax!” Is this your reaction to the Budget
promising to implement Goods a... »
The
Budget should be a long-term policy statement. Why present one each year?
The Budget has been an annual exercise for over a 100 years. The East
India Company was a listed... » 4 comments
Equity
With the
Budget over, it won’t pay to wait for a correction. Here are four signals to
act on
For
equity investors, the biggest factor to cheer about this Budget is that it did
not t... »
TOI
Modi govt committed to lower taxes, Arun Jaitley says
BS
....does not
have favourable tax treaties will have to pay a 15 per cent tax on their
derivative transactions, after the Budget decided to classify income from all foreign portfolio investment as capital gains.
Many foreign portfolio investors earlier described such trades as business income and paid no tax on these.
Derivatives will be taxed as short-term capital gains.
Derivative trading will now attract a tax rate of 15 per cent, compared with
zero earlier, unless, of course, a favourable tax treaty is relied upon,” said
Bijal.
The General
Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR), under which the revenue department has the power
to look into arrangements entered into only to save tax, though, could stall
such migration. Institutional investors might be unwilling to have a token
presence in treaty jurisdictions for tax purposes if they can later be subject
to review under GAAR, if and when the government decides to implement it.
BL
<><>
July 10, 2014:
What’s
the deal with FDI in e-commerce?
Soon after Finance Minister Arun Jaitley concluded his Budget speech, a
number of e-commerce play... »
Besides
tax breaks, the Budget offers small takeaways that leave you with more money
If you were expecting a raise in basic tax exemption limit to ₹5 lakh or
reintroduction of stand... »
1 comment
A discovery of insights
Now get rid of that attitude!
<> SEBI issues circular to safeguard market entities from terrorist financing risks
< Don’t read too much into Budget day market moves
May or not be taken to be a frightfully sane advice or counsel ; but that is not to say that none should, in own individual interest, not even care to give some thoughts to what anyone or more of the Budget proposals have in store for the future of self , if not for in-any-case unpredictable larger national economy.
- Should anyone be interested to know,- does not the Budget have any hidden messages or implications, or forebode any fallout problems in the realm of 'personal taxation', may look up the feedback comments touching upon, made available in connected websites.
- Posted comment as dsclosed (copied) :
"Equally, a gung ho reaction on B-day can fizzle out within a week." If viewed with a different stroke or in another light : That pushes any one into a sort of dilemma; turning upon the twin probabilities , - 'can ' or 'cannot'. May or not be taken to be a frightfully sane advice or counsel ; but that is not to say that none should, in own individual interest, not even care to give some thoughts to what anyone or more of the Budget proposals have in store for the future of self , if not for in-any-case unpredictable larger national economy.
- Portion in inset omitted by the 'MODERATOR' for reasons known only to him ; specific request to rectify the omission not been heeded to as yet, again for reasons known only to him.?????
Copied:
1. Comments will be moderated by The Hindu Business Line editorial team.
2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published.
3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters,
or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text.
(example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not 'the', n is not 'and').
4. We may remove hyperlinks within comments.
5. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.
<<<<<Inside Readers' Editor, paper's guide | Business Line
1. Comments will be moderated by The Hindu Business Line editorial team.
2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published.
3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters,
or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text.
(example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not 'the', n is not 'and').
4. We may remove hyperlinks within comments.
5. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.
<<<<<Inside Readers' Editor, paper's guide | Business Line
No sign of India's own media culture | Business Line
www.thehindubusinessline.com/...raghavan/no-sign-of-indias-own-medi...No sign of India's own media culture. B. S. Raghavan. Share · Comment · print ·. T+ · T- · Tweet. April 25, 2013: ... (This article was published on April 25, 2013).
What I did not share with the audience was my long-held conviction that
media readers and viewers are the most helpless and unorganised lot and,
therefore, the weakest and the most exploited section of society. True,
there are the superficial trappings for making known their opinion on
the running of a newspaper or a TV news channel. Of these, the ‘Letters
to the Editor’ column is the oldest existing facility for newspaper
readers. This has now been purportedly expanded by the stationing of an
Ombudsman who is meant to function as the readers’ bold and independent
watchdog.
The public perception is that, in practice, these devices have little
impact on the mindsets of proprietors or editors. They can render the
readers mute and powerless by hiding behind their age-old prerogative of
choosing what to publish and what to throw in the waste paper basket,
and mutilating the contents of what may be published..... UQ
itatonline
Finance Ministry's Presentation On Changes To Service-tax Law In Budget 2012 on Useful Miscellania!
(comment inside)
http://www.itatonline.org/forum/index.php%3Faction%3Drecent
1.1 The Finance Bill, 2014 has brought a very radical and far reaching
amendment, .... The Hon'ble Finance Minister in his budget speech declared that
slum ...
pawansingla
- Expert Member
- Posts: 223
-
Re: 54EC
latest .
BS
Finance Bill may be amended to address retrospectivity
FM Arun Jaitley had proposed in the Budget to double the rate of capital gains tax on debt MFs to 20%
"We will stand by the
finance minister's statement that no decision will be taken
retrospectively."
If so, it is unclear, why the
review need to be confined to the particular Budget proposal in isolation.
As brought out through comments
posted in this, so also other, popular website (s), in one's conviction, certain
other proposals call for like review- for instance, to amend sec 54 and 54 F,
though said to take effect from April 1 2015 (assessment year 2015-16), in essence,
will have retroactive consequence. In that,for example, in a case where having
sold an old asset before 31-3-2014, taxpayer is intending to / in serious
contemplation to purchase or construct a
residential property situate outside India within the allowed time limit, as,- which, on Revenue's own tacit
admission, has been permitted under the erstwhile law.
The point of concern really is
that,there could possibly be anyone or more of such instances, though proposed
to take effect from a prospective date, could still entail 'retro-activity'.
Subject/open to correction,
should there be any other different angle, requiring consideration, to truly
appraise what is fair or otherwise.
Add-on (clarifying own thoughts):
As said, having sold an asset held earlier, in the financial year ended 31-3-2014, tax payer could possibly have, in order to availing of tax exemption as per the THEN law, even taken positive steps to accomplish his intention; such as, entering into/concluding a deal with promoter, and / or seller, for purchase or construction of a new asset. According to a strict reading of the unamended section itself , the time limit allowed for his doing so is 2/3 years; which is to be continued thereafter as well. Imaginably, such a time limit could conceivably expire anytime ONLY later; that is, in no case OR not in all cases, before 31-3-2014. On that premise, the point in mind is this: Will not, because of the proposed amendment, in such cases the effect of the proposed amendment would have a retroactive impact in its legal sense of the concept, seemingly unfair by any logic.
As said, having sold an asset held earlier, in the financial year ended 31-3-2014, tax payer could possibly have, in order to availing of tax exemption as per the THEN law, even taken positive steps to accomplish his intention; such as, entering into/concluding a deal with promoter, and / or seller, for purchase or construction of a new asset. According to a strict reading of the unamended section itself , the time limit allowed for his doing so is 2/3 years; which is to be continued thereafter as well. Imaginably, such a time limit could conceivably expire anytime ONLY later; that is, in no case OR not in all cases, before 31-3-2014. On that premise, the point in mind is this: Will not, because of the proposed amendment, in such cases the effect of the proposed amendment would have a retroactive impact in its legal sense of the concept, seemingly unfair by any logic.
Can there be any scope for a different thinking /line of reasoning, with 'fair play' in the backdrop?!
KEY NOTE (to be edited):
All not said; and crucial and of the utmost importance are these:
(a) the tax exemption pertains to / is of income arising from transfer of asset held in a year anterior to year ending 31032015;
(b) albeit amendments referred to are of section 54 and 54F prospectively from April 1, 2005, those pertain to income from a transaction effected at an earlier point time, that is prior to 31032014;
(c) faulted denial of exemption is, in essence, of income accruing or arising in a year anterior to the one in which exemption is, as per the law, entitled to be allowed; and
(d) thus, consequence of the proposed amendment attaches/dates back to an earlier year- that is, retroactively.
<<<<<
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2014, 02:07:07 pm »
. Amendment Proposed
Section
54EC is proposed to be amended by the Finance Bill 2014 by insertion of
another proviso in sub-section (1), after the first proviso (now
existing) with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015, namely:
Offhand Reactions
(IMPROMPTU):
Almost everyone, including active and proactive professional tax advisers- mainly, lawyers and CAs having something to do or other with the Budget proposals of the newly installed government, have sought to and brought to focus the 'highlights'. Even so, it is sad to observe that, in so doing, in one's conviction, some of the deficiencies, hidden or otherwise, it is noted, have not been even touched upon, for reasons not known. One such aspect that appears to have been simplistically glossed over, despite it being of the most concern to the tax payers relates to 'retrospective' changes in the law. So much so, by and large, the impression floated around, unwittingly or otherwise, in learned circles is that if were to go by the effective dates specified, the empowered ministries in general, and the Revenue in particular, have done their best to live up to the repeated assurance to do away with the age old obnoxious weakness of retrospective legislation - which the towering legal luminary/tax expert of our own times (’Nani’) was never tired of referring to and ridiculing remorsefully as, ‘change mania’, ‘obsessive attitude’, the historical fact of successive governments failure to save the tax payer from being made the victim of ‘palpable injustice’, and so on. But, it seems that is not a well-founded impression.
Anyone, devoutly caring and wishing to know more, may consider it worthwhile to take a note of useful hints available on a ‘silver platter’ in public domain; random samples HERE:
Govt clears confusion on date of debt MF tax hike
Higher tax may not apply to debt funds redeemed before Budget
The inevitable grave doubt taxpayer seems to have been ultimately left to live with, as ever in the past, in the words of judiciary, is whether , at best, the attempts made are tantamount to ‘small repairs’; For a brief but useful discussion, recommended to read:
Web Results
http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.com/2014/07/retrospective-tax-legislation-and-small.html
Now, over to active / proactive tax law experts, for an insightful exploratory exercise, with the objective of serving the common good!
Open to 'EDIT'
THE MODI BUDGET 2014 : DIRECT TAX HIGHLIGHTS
Govt clears
confusion on date of debt MF tax hike
Higher tax may not apply to debt funds redeemed before Budget
Higher tax may not apply to debt funds redeemed before Budget
Retrospective Tax Legislation and 'Small Repairs'
Offhand Reactions (IMPROMPTU):
Almost everyone, including
active and proactive professional tax advisers- mainly, lawyers and CAs having
something to do or other with the Budget proposals of the newly installed
government, have sought to and brought to focus the 'highlights'. Even so, it
is sad to observe that, in so doing, in one's conviction, some of the
deficiencies, hidden or otherwise, it is noted, have not been even touched
upon, for reasons not known. One such aspect that appears to have been
simplistically glossed over, despite it being of the most concern to the tax
payers relates to 'retrospective' changes in the law. So much so, by and large,
the impression floated around, unwittingly or otherwise, in learned circles is
that if were to go by the effective dates specified, the empowered ministries
in general, and the Revenue in particular, have done their best to live up to
the repeated assurance to do away with the age old obnoxious weakness of
retrospective legislation - which the towering legal luminary/tax expert of our
own times (’Nani’) was never tired of referring to and ridiculing remorsefully as,
‘change mania’, ‘obsessive attitude’, the historical fact of successive
governments failure to save the tax
payer from being made the victim of ‘palpable injustice’, and so on. But, it
seems that is not a well-founded impression.
Anyone, devoutly caring and
wishing to know more, may consider it worthwhile to take a note of useful hints
available on a ‘silver platter’ in
public domain; random samples HERE:
Govt clears confusion on date of debt MF tax hike
Higher tax may not apply to debt funds redeemed before Budget
The inevitable grave doubt
taxpayer seems to have been ultimately left to live with, as ever in the past,
in the words of judiciary, is whether , at best, the attempts made are
tantamount to ‘small repairs’;
For a brief but useful
discussion, recommended to read:
Now, over to active / proactive tax
law experts, for an insightful exploratory exercise, with the objective of
serving the common good!
TOI
ICL
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:
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)
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!
BS
| |||||||
- Economy & Policy
The
Sensex lost 938 points or 3.6% and the Nifty slumped 292 points or 3.8%
Govt had
earlier proposed imposing the GAAR from April 1, 2015, for those claiming tax
benefit of over Rs 3 crore
Sensex
loses 348 points to close with biggest weekly fall since December 2011
Union Budget 2014-2015, Indian Budget
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
...
Govt clears confusion on date of debt MF tax hike
Cross Refer >
Union Budget 2014-15 Highlights
More...
@Linkedin
(comment on mrl)
(comment on mrl)
- Swaminathan Venkataraman Take it that these proposed reliefs are applicable for asst. year 2015-16; subject to the ensuing customary 'debate' and President's formal assent. The due date for tax return of 'individuals' being July 31, hopefully, for online filing, the changes ...See More
Swaminathan Venkataraman Is it clear that the changes in sec, 54 and 54 EC are limited only to restricting it the relief to 'residential property' ' ' in India'; otherwise, the scheme of exemption remains same ?- Swaminathan Venkataraman Incidentally, as was not unexpected, the Ministry and the executive have failed to even a take a note of the changes, as brought to focus, called for, to plug in the necessary correctives in inter alia sec 194 IA, on the concept of 'part of a house' ! Sadly, even the active professionals appear to have turned a Nelson's eye ; unless it is, in a crow- eye- view, considered to be of no consequence at all.
