Agriculture income tax is assigned to the State governments by ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Agriculture income tax is assigned to the State governments by

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->By whom is Agricultural Income Tax assigned to the State Governments?....

QA->Whichstate government has recently abolished agriculture income tax?....

QA->Which bill recently passed by Parliament, seeks to deal with the menace of black money and replace the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the taxation of foreign income?....

QA->Which is the tax that takes away a higher proportion of one’s income as the income rises?....

QA->The GSTcouncil in November 2016 approved four tier tax structure under the Goods andServices Tax (GST). What is that four tier tax structure?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The past quarter of a century has seen several bursts of selling by the world’s governments, mostly but not always in benign market conditions. Those in the OECD, a rich-country club, divested plenty of stuff in the 20 years before the global financial crisis. The first privatisation wave, which built up from the mid-1980s and peaked in 2000, was largely European. The drive to cut state intervention under Margaret Thatcher in Britain soon spread to the continent. The movement gathered pace after 1991, when eastern Europe put thousands of rusting state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on the block. A second wave came in the mid-2000s, as European economies sought to cash in on buoyant markets. But activity in OECD countries slowed sharply as the financial crisis began. In fact, it reversed. Bailouts of failing banks and companies have contributed to a dramatic increase in government purchases of corporate equity during the past five years. A more lasting fea ture is the expansion of the state capitalism practised by China and other emerging economic powers. Governments have actually bought more equity than they have sold in most years since 2007, though sales far exceeded purchases in 2013. Today privatisation is once again “alive and well”, says William Megginson of the Michael Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. According to a global tally he recently completed, 2012 was the third-best year ever, and preliminary evidence suggests that 2013 may have been better. However, the geography of sell-offs has changed, with emerging markets now to the fore. China, for instance, has been selling minority stakes in banking, energy, engineering and broadcasting; Brazil is selling airports to help finance a $20 billion investment programme. Eleven of the 20 largest IPOs between 2005 and 2013 were sales of minority stakes by SOEs, mostly in developing countries. By contrast, state-owned assets are now “the forgotten side of the balance-sheet” in many advanced economies, says Dag Detter, managing partner of Whetstone Solutions, an adviser to governments on asset restructuring. They shouldn’t be. Governments of OECD countries still oversee vast piles of assets, from banks and utilities to buildings, land and the riches beneath (see table). Selling some of these holdings could work wonders: reduce debt, finance infrastructure, boost economic efficiency. But governments often barely grasp the value locked up in them. The picture is clearest for companies or company-like entities held by central governments. According to data compiled by the OECD and published on its website, its 34 member countries had 2,111 fully or majority-owned SOEs, with 5.9m employees, at the end of 2012. Their combined value (allowing for some but not all pension-fund liabilities) is estimated at $2.2 trillion, roughly the same size as the global hedge-fund industry. Most are in network industries such as telecoms, electricity and transport. In addition, many countries have large minority stakes in listed firms. Those in which they hold a stake of between 10% and 50% have a combined market value of $890 billion and employ 2.9m people. The data are far from perfect. The quality of reporting varies widely, as do definitions of what counts as a state-owned company: most include only centralgovernment holdings. If all assets held at sub-national level, such as local water companies, were included, the total value could be more than $4 trillion. Reckons Hans Christiansen, an OECD economist. Moreover, his team has had to extrapolate because some QECD members, including America and Japan, provide patchy data. America is apparently so queasy about discussions of public ownership of -commercial assets that the Treasury takes no part in the OECD’s working group on the issue, even though it has vast holdings, from Amtrak and the 520,000-employee Postal Service to power generators and airports. The club’s efforts to calculate the value that SOEs add to, or subtract from, economies were abandoned after several countries, including America, refused to co-operate. Privatisation has begun picking up again recently in the OECD for a variety of reasons. Britain’s Conservative-led coalition is fbcused on (some would say obsessed with) reducing the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Having recently sold the Royal Mail through a public offering, it is hoping to offload other assets, including its stake in URENCO, a uranium enricher, and its student-loan portfolio. From January 8th, under a new Treasury scheme, members of the public and businesses will be allowed to buy government land and buildings on the open market. A website will shortly be set up to help potential buyers see which bits of the government’s /..337 billion-worth of holdings ($527 billion at today’s rate, accounting for 40% of developable sites round Britain) might be surplus. The government, said the chief treasury secretary, Danny Alexander, “should not act as some kind of compulsive hoarder”. Japan has different reasons to revive sell-offs, such as to finance reconstruction after its devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Eyes are once again turning to Japan Post, a giant postal-to-financial-services conglomerate whose oftpostponed partial sale could at last happen in 2015 and raise (Yen) 4 trillion ($40 billion) or more. Australia wants to sell financial, postal and aviation assets to offset the fall in revenues caused by the commodities slowdown. In almost all the countries of Europe, privatisation is likely “to surprise on the upside” as long as markets continue to mend, reckons Mr Megginson. Mr Christiansen expects to see three main areas of activity in coming years. First will be the resumption of partial sell-offs in industries such as telecoms, transport and utilities. Many residual stakes in partly privatised firms could be sold down further. France, for instance, still has hefty stakes in GDF SUEZ, Renault, Thales and Orange. The government of Francois Hollande may be ideologically opposed to privatisation, but it is hoping to reduce industrial stakes to raise funds for livelier sectors, such as broadband and health. The second area of growth should be in eastern Europe, where hundreds of large firms, including manufacturers, remain in state hands. Poland will sell down its stakes in listed firms to make up for an expected reduction in EU structural funds. And the third area is the reprivatisation of financial institutions rescued during the crisis. This process is under way: the largest privatisation in 2012 was the $18 billion offering of America’s residual stake in AIG, an insurance company.Which of the following statements is not true in the context of the given passage ?
....

MCQ-> The income disparity in the new India is massive: 36 billionaires in India and 800 million people living on less than $2 a day. The challenge for achieving inclusive growth relates to the revival of agriculture. Farming is becoming a non-viable activity. A confluence of factors, from poor rainfall to the new availability of consumer goods which consume much of Indian familie's incomes, has driven many farmers into crushing debt. The agriculture sector has many problems with a growth rate of less than 2% in the last decade. Further scope for increase in net sown area is limited. Disparity in productivity across regions and crops has persisted. Far from benefiting from the economic boom, many complain that banks don't offer the rural poor credit, forcing them to turn to greedy money-lenders, who typically charge up to 20% interest on a four-month loan. Healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, while the global price of cotton has become depressed, largely due to the billions of dollars in subsidies Washington hands out to U.S. farmers. The approach to the revival of Indian agriculture seems to be incremental, rather than a holistic strategy. It is important to stress that growth and equity should be pursued simultaneously rather than following the 'growth first and equity next' approach. What are the challenges for achieving 4% growth and equity in agriculture? Policy makers like the National Commission on Farmers mention cost reduction in agriculture as important to compete in a globalised world. The most important problem for the farmers is output price fluctuations. There is a big gap between producer prices and consumer prices. In order to protect farmers from National and international price volatility, a price stabilization fund is needed. The supply and demand side constraints have to be removed to raise growth. The support systems have to be tuned to improve productivity and incomes of farmers with emphasis on small and marginal farmers and dry land areas. One of the differences between the green revolution in the 1960s / 70s and the present 'second green revolution' is that risk is higher in the latter approach as it has to concentrate more on dry-land areas. Trade liberalisation has also raised the risk and uncertainty. Thus, policymakers have to keep in mind the increasing risk in agriculture. Agriculture policies have to be gender sensitive too since the share of women is increasing. The Government is aware that the crop sector may not be able to grow at 4% per annum but horticulture and allied activities like dairying, poultry and fisheries have to grow at the rate 6 % to 7 % to achieve 4% growth in agriculture. Investment in irrigation and rural infrastructure is important for agricultural growth. It is known that public investment in agriculture is lower than the requirements needed for achieving 4% growth. Bharat Nirman Programme is in the right direction but the progress has to be much fasterWhat does the author view as a challenge for achieving inclusive growth?
....

MCQ-> Based on the following information

Total income tax payable is obtained by adding two additional surcharges on calculated income tax.Education Cess : An additional surcharge called ‘Education Cess’ is levied at the rate of 2% on the amount of income tax.Secondary and Higher Education Cess : An additional surcharge called ‘Secondary and Higher Education Cess` is levied at the rate of 1% on the amount of income tax.Sangeeta is a young working lady. Towards the end of the financial year 2009 - 10, she found her total annual income to be Rs. 3, 37, 425/ -. What % of her income is payable as income tax?
....

MCQ-> Direction : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However, fears of food shortages, a rethinking of antipoverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture. The last time when the world's farmers felt such love was in the '70s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Governments across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early '70s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late '80s from their peak in the mid- '70s. Policymakers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor's other pressing needs, such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004, aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5% and 'Agriculture lost its glitter'. Also, as consumers in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier, they began eating more meat, so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008, panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse, land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the U.S. which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations, to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productivity. This move helped countries become more productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people. Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia, the primary poverty?fighting method favoured by many policymakers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand, with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India's farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report, Goldman Sachs predicted that if this year too receives weak rains, it could cause agriculture to contract by 2% this fiscal year, making the government's 7% GDP-growth target look 'a bit rich'. Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.Direction: Choose the word/group of words which is most similar it meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage. STARVED
....

MCQ-> Study the given information carefully to answer the given questions.M, N, O, P, Q R and S are seven people live on seven different floors of a building but not necessarily in the same order. The lower most floor of the building is numbered 1, the one above that is numbered 2 and so on till the topmost floor is numbered 7. Each one of them have different income i.e., 3500, 15000, 7500, 9000, 11000, 13500 and 5000. (But not necessarily in the same order.) M lives on an odd numbered floor but not on the floor numbered 3. The one who has income of 11000 lives immediately above M. Only two people live between M and the one who has income of 7500. The one who has income of 15000 lives on one of the odd numbered floors above P. Only three people live between 0 and the one who has income of 15000. The one who has income of 7500 lives immediately above 0. R earns 4000 more than Q. The one who has income of 3500 lives immediately above the one who has income of 5000. S lives on an odd numbered floor. Only one person lives between N and Q. N lives on one of the floors above Q. Neither 0 nor M has income of 0000. Q does not has income of 500. How much income M has ?
....