The Central Board of Direct Taxes withdraws Circular No 23 dated 23rd July, 1969, Circulars No. 163 dated 29th May, 1975 and No. 786 dated 7th February, 2000.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes withdraws Circular No 23 dated 23rd July, 1969, Circulars No. 163 dated 29th May, 1975 and No. 786 dated 7th February, 2000.
The jurisdiction of Commissioners of Income-tax (Appeals) in the Income-tax department, Mumbai, has changed with effect from 1st September 2009. The relevant details are available in the attached file.
The Direct Taxes Code Bill 2009 & Discussion Paper released by the Ministry of Finance today is available: The salient features of the Direct Taxes Code 2009 is also gi
Local postings & transfers of Commissioners of Income-tax
The following two Orders are available: Source: https://irsofficersonline.org
Under sub-section (10) of section 80-IB an undertaking developing and building housing projects is allowed a deduction of 100% of its profits derived from such projects if it commenced the project on or after 1.10.1998 and completes the construction within four years from the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority.
My view, albeit prima facie, is that the soft-pedaling policy followed by the Madras High Court Judges has led to the present piquant situation. The lawyers appear to have been encouraged by the wrong ‘signals sent out and seemed to think that they could do anything and get away within the Court premises. Regretfully, far from being the upholders of the rule of law, the lawyers seem to have behaved as hooligans and miscreants. The incidents that transpired over a last month or so make it clear that the lawyers seemed to be under the impression that, because they are officers of the Court, they are immune from the process of law and that they could get away with any unlawful act without being answerable to the law enforcing agency. It is most unfortunate that the soft policy adopted by the Acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court and its administration sent out clearly
a wrong message that encouraged and emboldened the lawyers into becoming law breakers.
Therefore, where industry or trade associations claim both to be charitable institutions as well as mutual organizations and their activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of only their members, these would not fall under the purview of the proviso to section 2(15) owing to the principle of mutuality. However, if such organizations have dealings with non-members, their claim to be charitable organizations would now be governed by the additional conditions stipulated in the proviso to section 2 (15).
Recent Comments