Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
Profile

About Section not updated!

0 Records Found

No issues posted by the user yet!

0 Replies on 0 Issues

No replies have been made yet!

Showing 1 to 3 of 3 Results
Like0Bookmark
Beneficial ownership transparency requires legal persons to disclose ultimate owners and enable timely, need based international cooperation.
Amendments to Recommendation 24 require jurisdictions to ensure adequate, accurate and up to date information on beneficial ownership of legal persons, obliging registered entities to collect and make that information available to competent authorities and to establish registries or equivalent mechanisms; the changes also strengthen controls on bearer shares and nominee arrangements and mandate need based international sharing of beneficial ownership information under anti money laundering cooperation. (AI Summary)
Author
Date 11 Mar 2022
Like0Bookmark
Interest on delayed refunds: entitlement begins from original receipt of the refund application under fiscal law, not defect cure date.
The operative legal principle is that statutory interest on delayed refunds is computed from the expiry of the prescribed period counted from the date of receipt of the refund application, not from the date defects are removed; departments may not avoid interest liability by treating only defect-free re-submission as the operative filing date, and fiscal timelines must be strictly construed against such procedural tactics. (AI Summary)
Author
Date 07 Dec 2021
Like0Bookmark
Mandatory deposit requirements can functionally operate as parallel levy, disadvantaging taxpayers and encouraging state litigation.
The article explains that mandatory deposit, interest on duty demands and the imposition of multiple penalties functionally operate as parallel revenue mechanisms: differential interest treatment, characterization of interim refunds as wrongful, cumulative treatment of penalties, bifurcated adjudications and extended period demands compel repeated deposits and payments, advantaging the State's cash position during litigation and undermining settlement rights and procedural fairness for taxpayers. (AI Summary)
Author
Date 14 Oct 2021
Salil Arora
Organization
Organization

amicusrarus

Connected
Connected

August 2018