Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Saturday, Jun 19, 2004 |
||
|
|
||
|
Opinion
-
Taxation Columns - Detaxfication Village included in metro is still `rural' D. Murali
Karunya argued that land revenue records were the only evidence to be relied on, and that the same supported the SSI unit's claim for rural area benefit. Mr Chacko George, Karunya's advocate, submitted that no notification had been issued by the State or the Centre notifying Maradu village as an urban area. Mr G. A. Brahma Deva, Judicial Member of the Bangalore CESTA, had this to say: "The term metropolitan area, as per the definitions under Part IXA of the Constitution, means an area having a population of ten lakhs or more, comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two or more Municipalities or Panchayats or other contiguous areas... Hence, metropolitan area may be inclusive of rural area." Accordingly, it is the notification by the Government that decides whether a place is rural or urban area. "In the absence of such notification, it is difficult for us to come to the conclusion that the area can be considered as urban area." Perhaps, such village pockets may contribute a rural touch to our metros too.
E-return made easy
How nice it would be if there were a `REFUND' button too!
Question of jurisdiction
The official was "warned to be careful in future."
Cracks in the shelter
Shocking stuff.
Comma in contention
The Department, however, said the line applied only when the purpose was the manufacture of utensils or handicrafts, and so Sandhu would not qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal gave the benefit of comma to the assessee, rejecting the Revenue's contention that the benefit of Notification was available only for use in the manufacture of handicrafts and utensils. See how precious a comma can be.
Marriage is different in tax
Accordingly, "only married individuals under this definition could elect to file a joint tax return." Even if a state may recognise a union of two people of the same sex as a legal marriage for the purposes within that state's authority, such recognition has no effect for purposes of federal law, clarifies the IRS. "A taxpayer in such a relationship may not claim the status of a married person on the federal income-tax return." Any comments? Tailpiece Barber: "What do you think about VAT?" Customer: "Go ahead, cut."
More Stories on : Taxation | Detaxfication
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|