The Income-Tax department routinely imposes cost on assesses for late filing of returns or delayed tax payment. For a change, it was at the receiving end when the high court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 for retaining books of accounts impounded from a city builder for almost five years. Justice D V Shylendra Kumar, while disposing of the petition filed by Shubha & Prabha Builders Private Ltd, observed that the I-T department couldn‟t flout its own rules and regulations. “The department cannot hold back the books of accounts for such a long period without any tenable explanation or authority of law. They should immediately return those books and pay the cost to the petitioner,” the court observed. Kiran Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, told the court: “The department impounded those books for verification on October 7, 2005. They extended the retention period from time to time, saying the company could file an appeal. On March 16, 2009, the department issued a fresh order seeking to retain those books till 2010.
“Under Section 131(3) of the IT Act, the department at best can retain impounded books only for 15 days. Thereafter, with due permission from the commissioner, that period can be extended by a few days. Only one extension is available under the law.” Even a recent study by ratings agency Crisil noted that while bank NPAs would rise in light of the slowdown, yet, given their healthy capitalisation and cleaner balance sheets, the impact of rising delinquencies was likely to be within the stress tolerance levels. In India, according to Mr Mohan, the main fallout of the crisis was a sell-off by foreign institutional investors in domestic equity markets, leading to a sharp reduction in net capital inflows, which were also affected by slowing external demand. As a result of this, there were pressures in the foreign exchange market because of which the central bank had to sell dollars. Mr Mohan in his analysis of the impact of the crisis pointed that, “While foreign exchange sales attenuated the mismatch in the foreign exchange market, these operations drained liquidity from the rupee market and accentuated pressures on the rupee liquidity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Venkat Dhanyamraju
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(100)
-
▼
May
(20)
- Non-compete right’ acquired by an assessee is elig...
- Mere fact of confirmation of addition cannot per s...
- Contract for sale of goods will not be covered wit...
- Limitation of time
- Analysis of relief provided in Forex accounting no...
- New Pension System : A study in question answer mode
- Can the contents required in ITR (Income Tax Retur...
- SEZ policy set for overhaul after polls
- What Obama’s tax plan means for US, Indian firms
- Inspection Charges - whether forming part of Trans...
- Withholding tax provisions
- HC JUDGMENT ON DELHI RENTING OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY...
- RBI/2008-09/460 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 64 ...
- Income Tax department asked to pay cost for retain...
- CAR won’t come down below minimum required despite...
- SEBI asks companies to declare dividend on per sha...
- Election Commission blocks service tax sops for SE...
- NOTIFICATION NO. 36/2009, DATED 13-4-2009
- Amount excluded from export turnover should also b...
- Legal Updates on 1st Apr-09
-
▼
May
(20)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome users to provide your valuable comments