World Bank’s Forestry Investments NEGLECT TO Address Poverty And Climate Change

4.1 billion (2.6 billion). Regardless of the significant amount spent, new research, complied by its auditors, shows that it has didn’t deliver on its agenda to address climate change, improve forest conservation, reduce poverty and advantage local neighborhoods 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 a number of its procedures. Based on the inspectors, it is continuing to support industrial logging, is not concerning local people in decision-making and it is neglecting rural poverty as a pressing issue to be tackled. The auditors also estimated that the World Bank is only assuming that advantages of these projects would accrue to the indigent rural communities.

600 million (381 million) to its Forest Investment Program (FIP). Without exposing that forestry tasks have been funded by the UK, the IEG -panel said that two-thirds of the World Bank’s forestry funding didn’t achieve its environmental targets. In terms of social advantages to local areas, the auditors found that only two out of 37 inspected forestry projects actually helped alleviate poverty, while three-quarters of the projects forcing local people to relocate against their will. The IEG record is not the first shadow to be cast over the effectiveness of the World Bank’s forestry investments. NGOs have previously accused it of assisting commercial logging and contributing to the devastation of the world’s forests as well as failing to tackle environment change and curb poverty in developing countries.

9. Even though the above submission made on behalf of the assessee is apparently of some potent pressure, on a deeper scrutiny, it is available by us 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 with reference to losing stands on the different pedestal. 10. Arriving at the verdict transferred by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it was, of course, an incident where debentures were issued ‘on superior’.

11. The conversation regarding the said question has been made in ‘paragraphs 6’, wherein the factual factors have been narrated. The stand used by the Assessing Officer was that, the premium which was paid, related to capital payment and hence could not be allowed as an income expenditure. 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, provided that 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 concern now. 7. In your choice of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.

  • Where do you see the market in 5-10 years and what leads you 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 experienced made an open public issue of debentures. The debentures were issued at a discount of 2 % and were redeemable after twelve years. The full total discount on the issue of Rs.15 stores amounted to Rs. 3 lakhs. For Assessment Year 1968-69, the assessee published off Rs.12500 out of a complete discount of Rs. 3 lakhs, being the proportionate amount of the discount. The Assessing Officer disallowed the state of the appellant on the ground that the discount on the debentures had not been allowable as expenses. The AAC however, upheld the state for deduction of Rs.

12,500/-. The Tribunal held that the expenses of Rs.3 lakhs was incurred through the relevant previous or though it was proportionately written off over an interval of twelve years. The Tribunal allowed the whole deduction in the amount of Rs.2,87,500/-. Among the relevant questions that have been referred to the High Courtroom for decision, was if the Tribunal was justified in keeping that the assessee acquired incurred expenses of Rs. 3 lakhs, by way of discount paid to the persons who acquired subscribed to the debentures, year, and whether the same was allowable as revenue expenditure during the relevant previous.

The High Court held that the discount of Rs.3 lakhs didn’t stand for any payment made to anyone so as to constitute expenses. The High Court kept that of the total discount of Rs.3 lakhs, a discount of Rs.12,500/ have been allowed by the Tribunal that your Department had not challenged.

“8…………… The Supreme Court held that whenever the assessee acquired released debentures at a discount, it experienced incurred a responsibility to pay a big 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 correct in saying that it is a responsibility which would happen only on maturity of debentures.