The income-tax department has rationalised the norms for scrutiny of tax returns, to bring it in line with global best practices. As per the norms released by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), all cases where income exceeds Rs10 lakh over the previous year’s will continue to be selected, as well as cases relating to survey, search and seizure and reassessment.
However, the previous requirement of selection of all cases where value of international transactions exceeds Rs15 crore has been dropped.
The CBDT norms said cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year on the issue of transfer pricing in excess of Rs10 crore “on a substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority” will be selected for scrutiny.
The Madras High Court, in a recent order, has held that the restrictive provisions introduced in the Income Tax (I-T) Act, which call for reinvestment in only ‘one’ residential house in India for claiming capital gains tax exemption, apply from fiscal April 2014. The Finance Bill, 2014, had clarified that the benefit of capital gains tax exemption under Sections 54 and 54F was intended only in respect of reinvestment in one residential house in India. Thus, on enactment of the Bill, the relevant Sections of the I-T Act were amended.
Earlier, the words used in the I-T Act were reinvestment in ‘a residential house’. Prior to the amendment, there was ambiguity on whether the term ‘a residential house’ meant a single unit or could include more than one house.
The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by CK Chaturvedi, dismissed the plea filed by a Delhi resident, Neeru Khosla, seeking death claim for her husband from Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India. The Forum noted that while taking the policy the man had hidden the fact that he was suffering from cancer and “suppressing material information is act of bad faith.”
“The contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith and its violation by the insured by suppressing material information is act of bad faith. In our considered view, Opposite Party (LIC) has been able to discharge its burden to prove suppression of facts. In these circumstances the OP cannot be faulted for repudiating the death claim. The complaint is dismissed,” the Forum said.