4.1 billion (2.6 billion). Regardless of the significant amount invested, a new study, complied by its own auditors, demonstrates it has didn’t deliver on its agenda to address environment change, improve forest conservation, reduce poverty and advantage local communities in developing countries. July 2011 In the decade to, the global world Bank or investment company funded 345 forestry projects in 75 countries.
The IEG -panel, which visited a few of these sites and interviewed local neighborhoods, criticized the bank for many of its procedures. According to the inspectors, it is carrying on to support industrial logging, is not regarding residents in decision-making, and is neglecting rural poverty as a pressing concern to be tackled. The auditors also estimated that the World Bank is assuming that advantages of these projects would accrue to the indigent rural communities.
600 million (381 million) to its Forest Investment Program (FIP). Without revealing that forestry projects have been funded by the UK, the IEG panel said that two-thirds of the World Bank’s forestry financing failed to achieve its environmental targets. In terms of social benefits to local communities, the auditors discovered that only two out of 37 inspected forestry tasks actually helped relieve poverty, while three-quarters of these projects forcing locals to relocate against their will. The IEG record is not the first shadow to be cast over the potency of the World Bank’s forestry investments. NGOs have previously accused it of supporting industrial logging and adding to the devastation of the world’s forests as well as failing to tackle climate change and curb poverty in developing countries.
9. Despite the fact that the above-mentioned submission made with respect to the assessee appears to be of some potent force, on a deeper scrutiny, we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to accept the said proposition. The discussion created by the Apex Court with regard to the issuance of debentures and the liability incurred by the assessee in regard to the loss stands on a different pedestal. 10. Arriving at the verdict handed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it was, of course, a complete case where debentures were released ‘on superior’.
11. The discussion regarding the said question has been made in ‘paragraphs 6’, wherein the factual points have been narrated. The stand taken by the Assessing Officer was that, the high quality which was paid, related to capital payment and could not be allowed as an income expenditure hence. Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of TAX Vs. The Commissioner aimed the Assessing Officer to permit the deduction for premium actually paid during the previous year, so long as no part of the same was allowed as a deduction on pro-rata basis in the last years. “6. Question E is taken up for thought now. 7. In your choice of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.
- Where do you start to see the market in 5-10 years and what leads one to believe so
- Deadbeat tenants
- 15% +5% Surcharge # + 3% Cess
- Guarantor loan (difficult with a default)
- Claims on government sponsored entities (GSEs)
- About IIB
225 ITR 802 the assessee got made a public issue of debentures. The debentures were issued at a discount of 2 per cent and were redeemable after twelve years. The total discount on the pressing issue of Rs.15 stores amounted to Rs. 3 lakhs. For Assessment Year 1968-69 the assessee wrote off Rs.12500 out of a complete discount of Rs. 3 lakhs, being the proportionate amount of the discount. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the discount on the debentures had not been allowable as expenditure. The AAC however, upheld the claim for deduction of Rs.
12,500/-. The Tribunal held that the costs of Rs.3 lakhs was incurred through the relevant previous season though it was proportionately written off over a period of twelve years. The Tribunal allowed the whole deduction in the amount of Rs.2,87,500/-. Among the questions that have been referred to the High Court for decision, was if the Tribunal was justified in keeping that the assessee acquired incurred costs of Rs. 3 lakhs, by way of discount paid to the individuals who had subscribed to the debentures, year and whether the same was allowable as revenue expenditure during the relevant previous.
The High Court kept that the discount of Rs.3 lakhs didn’t symbolize any payment made to anyone in order to constitute costs. The High Court kept that of the full total discount of Rs.3 lakhs, a discount of Rs.12,500/ have been allowed by the Tribunal that the Department had not challenged.
“8…………… The Supreme Court held that whenever the assessee acquired released debentures at a discount, it experienced incurred a liability to pay a huge amount than what it had borrowed, at a future date. As such, the said reasoning will not support the finding rendered by the Tribunal. The assessee is not appropriate to say that it is a responsibility which would happen only on maturity of debentures.