ACT-Math test Questions - ACT Section Two: Math Updated: 2023

The fall testing season will come to a close next month for both the ACT and SAT. Seniors hoping to top their previous scores and juniors planning to get a test in before the start of the spring semester are the students most likely to take advantage of the December test dates. For the SAT, the December test is significant for another reason: It’s the last time the current test will be administered.

Come spring 2024, the College Board will launch an all-new, computer-based SAT that tests the same concepts but clocks in at about two hours instead of three.

There’s still time to sign your child up for both the Dec. 8 ACT or the Dec. 2 SAT, although you may have to pay a late-registration fee. And students still have time to prepare, but with less than a month to go, they need to be strategic.

If your child has yet to take either test, know this: While most students perform equally well on both exams, some have strengths and challenges that might dictate focusing on one test over another.

For example, students who are slow readers will probably find the ACT studying section – which gives students only 35 minutes to read four texts and answer 40 questions – a challenge. In contrast, the SAT allows students 65 minutes to read five passages and respond to 52 questions. For such students, the SAT might be a better fit.

As for the math section, the SAT has some questions that are no-calculator-allowed as well as some that require students to solve a problem on the page. On the other hand, the ACT math section has only multiple-choice questions, and calculators are allowed for all of them. So students who like the predictability of multiple-choice questions might prefer the ACT for this reason.

• Get a study guide. The ACT’s officially sanctioned study guide is published by Wiley. The College Board publishes its own study guide, but it’s pointless to buy the current one since it will be obsolete after Dec. 2, 2023. Instead, check out this free pdf
• Regardless of what test you take, review grammar and punctuation rules. Both tests include grammar and punctuation questions; they appear in the ACT English section and the SAT Writing and Language section. The most commonly tested rules include those for commas, pronouns, subject-verb agreement and idioms. Check out a free website called grammarbytes.com for a variety of interactive and printable worksheets.
• Get points on the board by doing the easy questions first.
• Circle answers in the booklet as you go, then transfer them to the bubble sheet one passage or section at a time. This method is less disruptive than going back and forth between the test booklet and answer sheet.
• Wear a watch as long as it’s not a “smart” one. Given how little time students get, it’s important that they keep a close eye on the time, down to the second.
• For the ACT studying section, students who are much stronger in STEM than in reading/English might consider doing the studying section passages out-of-order. This would mean doing the final passage, which is always science-related, first, and the first passage - which is always an excerpt from a short story or novel - last.
• For the SAT studying section, be on the lookout for the two-part question. The second question of the pair asks students to identify the sentence(s) that contain the best “evidence” to support the previous question. It’s often necessary to do the two questions together, or even address the second one first. Since there are a minimum of 10 such questions, getting one or both of them wrong can significantly impact a student’s score.
• Never leave blank answers. There are no deductions for wrong answers on either the SAT or ACT

(Gray News) – The average Composite score on the ACT test for the class of 2023 has fallen to 19.5 out of 36, according to a report.

The decrease in scores marks a decline of 0.3 points from 2022, when the average score was 19.8, data released by ACT in October shows. ACT is the nonprofit organization that administers the college readiness exam.

The average scores in three of the four subjects featured on the test - mathematics, studying and science - were below the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks. The benchmarks are the minimum ACT test scores required for students taking the test to have a high probability of success in college.

ACT said students who meet a benchmark on the test have about a 50% chance of getting a B score or better in college courses and about a 75% chance of earning a C or better in the same course or courses.

ACT CEO Janet Godwin said this is the sixth consecutive year of declines in average scores.

Godwin also said the number of seniors leaving high school without reaching the college readiness benchmarks is also rising.

“These systemic problems require sustained action and support at the policy level,” she said in a release. “This is not up to teachers and principals alone - it is a shared national priority and imperative.”

The graduating class of 2023 began their high school careers when the COVID-19 pandemic took place, according to the ACT report.

The graduating seniors who met none of the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks climbed to historic highs in 2023, with only 21% of students meeting all four benchmarks.

Copyright 2023 Gray Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Introduction: In a latest judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of making additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act based on charging a high premium. The case, ACIT Vs Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., for Assessment Year 2007-08, highlights the importance of adhering to specific criteria when questioning additions under Section 68.

Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the court raised two main issues. Firstly, the sustainability of the deletion of an addition made under Section 68 concerning the investment made in shares issued at a high premium by Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Secondly, the erroneous inclusion of CENVAT Credit in the profits of the company for determining the deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act.

On the first issue, the court emphasized the triple test that an assessee needs to satisfy: identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. In this case, the investor, Adhyay Equi Pref Private Limited, was identified, and the investment amount of Rs. 20 crores was made through banking channels. The company justified the premium by providing a valuation certificate based on the Net Asset Value Method. The court criticized the Assessing Officer for focusing on the high premium without conducting further inquiries into the details of cheque payments. The court reiterated that charging a high premium is not the correct test for making additions under Section 68.

On the second issue, the court affirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. It distinguished between CENVAT Credit and Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) certificates, stating that the former could be considered as income derived from an industrial undertaking for the purpose of claiming a deduction under Section 80IB. The court referred to precedents, including the judgment in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, to support its interpretation of the expression “derived from” in Section 80IB.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court concluded that the Assessing Officer asked the wrong question and proceeded on the wrong path by focusing on the high premium. It emphasized that the triple test for additions under Section 68 was not only satisfied but also supported by the net worth of Adhyay. The court found no substantial question of law on both issues and upheld the Tribunal’s decision. The judgment highlights the importance of a comprehensive examination of the facts and adherence to legal principles in tax assessments.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08.

2. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated

14.01.2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”].

3. Mr Shailendera Singh, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that there are two issues which have been raised in the instant appeal filed before this court.

4. First, the sustainability of the deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] with regard to the investment made in shares issued at premium by the respondent/assessee.

4.1 It is pointed out that the shares which bore a face value of Rs.10/- per share carried a premium of Rs.190/- per share.

4.2 The amount invested in the share capital of the respondent/assessee was Rs.20 crores.

5. Second, the erroneous inclusion of CENVAT Credit in the profits of the respondent/assessee for the purposes of arriving at the deduction available under Section 80IB of the Act.

6. In support of his submission with regard to the first issue, Mr Singh sought to place reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment order dated 31.12.2009.

6.1 In particular, Mr Singh highlighted the fact that although an amount of Rs.20 crores was invested by Adhyay Equi Pref Private Limited [in short, “Adhyay”] via cheques in the period spanning between 20.02.2007 and 13.03.2007, on 19.02.2007, the credit balance in the account of Adhyay was “NIL”.

6.2 This amount, as per the AO, ballooned to Rs.3 crores on 21.02.2007, albeit without a clue as to the source, and thereafter, the amounts were channeled by way of investment to the respondent/assessee.

7. It was also emphasized that after Rs.20 crores was invested, the credit balance in the bank account of Adhyay fell to a nominal figure.

7.1 It is pointed out that on 14.03.2007, the credit balance was Rs.7,200/-, which stood enhanced to Rs.82,200/- on 26.03.2007 and thereafter, to Rs.6,82,200/- on 31.03.2007.

7.2 In sum, the argument advanced by Mr Singh was that the state of affairs represented that the investment made in the shares of the respondent/assessee was, in effect, undisclosed income.

8. As regards the second issue, Mr Singh submitted that the CENVAT credit availed by the respondent/assessee could not be construed as income derived from an industrial undertaking so as to entitle the respondent/assessee to claim a deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 1 The submission was that the expression “derived from” in the said provision includes that income which has a direct nexus with the profits and gains of an industrial entity.

8.2 In other words, according to Mr Singh, although the self-CENVAT credit availed by the respondent/assessee would otherwise be income of the respondent/assessee, it was not a profit which was derived from the industrial undertaking.

8.3 In support of his plea, Mr Singh sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 9 SCC 328.

9. Mr M.P. Rastogi, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, submitted that no interference was called for with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In this behalf, Mr Rastogi sought to place reliance on the findings returned by the Tribunal.

10. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. As regards the first issue, it is crucial to bear in mind that the addition under Section 68 of the Act can only be made if the respondent/assessee fails to come through vis-a-vis the triple test enunciated by the court. The triple test requires an assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the subject transaction.

11. In this case, concededly, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the investor. As indicated above, Adhyay was the investor.

12. The fact that Rs.20 crores have been invested via banking channels is not in dispute.

13.It is also not disputed that the respondent/assessee justified the premium that it had charged qua the shares by producing a valuation certificate of the Chartered Accountant. The valuation was made based on the Net Asset Value Method (NAVM). The valuation revealed that the shares of the respondent/assessee were worth Rs.200.52 per share.

14. We find from the assessment order that the AO has taken note of the fact that if other methods were used, the valuation would have been much Therefore, there was on record a justification concerning the premium that the respondent/assessee received for its shares.

15. The issue, as noticed above, emphasised by Mr Singh was with regard to the credit balance available in the bank account qua Adhyay, before and after the investment.

16. That said, what has come through on perusal of the record is that the respondent/assessee has furnished the details of the cheque payments and therefore, there was enough and more material available with the AO to make further inquiry into the matter.

17. The AO, instead of making further inquiries, seems to have been burdened by the fact that the premium charged was high, which, according to us, was not the correct test for making an addition under Section 68 of the Act.

18. This aspect has been repeatedly emphasised by the courts including a coordinate bench of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-III vs. Anshika Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2015] 62 taxmann.com 192 (Delhi). The said judgment was cited with approval by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in its judgment dated 07.08.2018 in ITA No.112/2018, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (1) Indore vs. Chain House International (P.) Ltd.

19. Therefore, according to us, the AO asked himself the wrong question and proceeded thereafter on the wrong path.

20. It is important to highlight, something which the Tribunal has noted, that in a query put by the AO to the representative of Adhyay, what was revealed is that it had a net worth of more than Rs. 100 crores.

20.1 This assertion has remained undisputed. If this assertion is accepted, then one cannot doubt the creditworthiness of the investor i.e., Adhyay. We may, therefore, for the sake of convenience note the query directed to the investor, and the response received vis-a-vis the same:

“12. What is the net worth of your Company? Was any cash deposited in the bank account before depositing the share application money to M/s Montage Enterprises Pvt .Ltd.?

Ans. The net worth of our Company is more than Rs. 100.00 Crores. No, there is no cash deposit in the Bank Account before making the payment for Share Application Money to M/s Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.”

21. Thus, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration as far as the first issue is concerned.

22. As regards the second issue, in our view, the record shows that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee; a finding which was affirmed by the Tribunal.

22.1 The CIT(A) went into a detailed analysis of the issue at hand and correctly drew a distinction between the CENVAT credit, which is made available to a manufacturer against the duty drawback, and the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) certificates issued to an exporter. DEPB are “incentive profits” which are made available to an exporter who may not necessarily be a manufacturer and therefore, possibly, being ineligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act.

23. Both CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have taken note of the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court rendered in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 353 (Delhi). 1 This judgment was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon’ble Mr Justice Swatanter Kumar [as they then were] dismissed the SLP i.e., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24055/2009 via the order dated 22.02.2010.

23.2 Noticeably, the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax was also rendered by Hon’ble Mr Justice S.H. Kapadia [as he then was] on 31.08.2009.

24. Therefore, even as regards the second question, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

25. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we find that it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned order.

26. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for

27. The instant appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

WHY DO COMPANIES HAVE TO REPORT BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY?

In 2021, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act on a bipartisan basis. This law creates a new beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting requirement as part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures.

WHEN WILL THE CTA GO INTO EFFECT?

The CTA becomes effective on January 1, 2024.

CAN I GET AHEAD AND SUBMIT MY INFORMATION NOW?

No, FinCEN is not accepting submissions until January 1, 2024.

HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST?

FinCEN is not charging a fee to submit these reports.

WHAT FILING TIMELINE DO I NEED TO BE worried ABOUT?

When was your company formed?

1. Prior to 01/01/24 means you have one year to comply with the filing requirements, before 01/01/25
2. Between 01/01/24 and 01/01/25 means you must file within 30 calendar days of formation. (FinCEN issued a latest notice stating they may change the 30-day requirement to 90 days. This time frame remains uncertain as of publication of this FAQ.)
3. After 01/01/25 you have 30 calendar days to file.

WHAT IF I MAKE CHANGES AFTER FILING?

If there are any changes to the information about your company or its beneficial owners in the BOI report that your company filed, your company must file an updated BOI report within 30 days of the date on which the change occurred.

NOTE: The changes include information submitted by you to obtain a FinCEN identifier which allows someone to file the BOI on behalf of a regulated entity.

WHAT IF I MAKE A MISTAKE IN MY FILING?

Your company must correct any mistake or inaccuracy in information no later than 30 days after your company has detected the incorrect information or should have known of the error or inaccuracy.

IS THIS AN ANNUAL FILING?

No. The final rule imposes a rolling obligation on reporting companies to update information as it changes or becomes inaccurate. An annual filing is not appropriate as a standard for CTA compliance.

WHAT EXACTLY IS BOI?

BOI includes information about the individuals who hold significant control over a business. It encompasses data such as the individual’s name, date of birth, address, and government-issued identification. Both domestic and foreign entities registered with any secretary of state or formed under the laws of any state are mandated to report their BOI to FinCEN.

CAN A NON-US ENTITY BE CONSIDERED A REPORTING COMPANY?

Yes. It is important to note that non-US entities will fall under the definition of a Reporting Company if they are registered to do business with a US secretary of state (or a similar office).

WHAT IS A FINCEN IDENTIFIER AND HOW CAN I GET ONE?

A “FinCEN identifier” is a unique identifying number that FinCEN will issue to individuals upon request after the individual provides information such as their name, date of birth, address, unique identifying number and an acceptable government issued identification document. A reporting company may also request a FinCEN identifier by checking the required box on the reporting form

CAN FINCEN SHARE THIS INFORMATION?

Yes, in limited circumstances. Given the sensitivity of the reportable information, the CTA imposes strict confidentiality, security, and access restrictions on the data. However, FinCEN is authorized to disclose reportable beneficial owner information to a defined group of governmental authorities and financial institutions, in limited circumstances.

FinCEN’s website: www.fincen.gov

The inclusion of a ‘media pluralism test’ is a very welcome innovation in the proposal for a European Media Freedom Act, but to succeed, some changes at the Board level are needed, write Karim Ibourki and Mark Dempsey.

Karim Ibourki is a board member of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) and president of the Conseil supérieur de l’Audiovisuel. Mark Dempsey is a senior EU advocacy officer at the free speech organisation ARTICLE 19.

In September 2022, the European Commission took an important step towards safeguarding media independence and pluralism in the European Union by proposing a Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Heralded as the first of its kind, it is a regulation which provides “common safeguards to protect media freedom and pluralism in the EU”. The EMFA presents a unique opportunity to address many of the mounting challenges faced by the media across the EU – from threats to editorial independence to media capture by powerful political and economic interests.

In latest years, the concentration of media ownership has been an increasing problem across many countries of the EU. Without proper supervision to ensure editorial independence and media freedom, concentration presents a serious challenge for media plurality and independence: as the number of diverse and independent outlets decreases, media capture becomes more likely.

Uniting the free speech organisation ARTICLE 19 and Karim Ibourki, Board Member of the European Regulators’ Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) and President of the Conseil supérieur de l’Audiovisuel  is a shared interest to ensure the best possible outcome of the current negotiations with regards to the media pluralism test for media mergers, one of the main novelties of the EMFA. The concentration of economic power in the hands of a small number of players has already proven dangerous for freedom of expression and media freedom in several countries in the EU. At it currently stands, national rules that govern media mergers vary greatly. About half of the EU member states do not consider the public interest element in their assessment of mergers, and only a handful of those refer specifically to media plurality. This fragmentation harms the internal market, the business models of media outlets and EU citizens. Article 21 of the EMFA aims to change this. The introduction of a media pluralism test for media mergers lists three criteria that must be used in the assessment: the effects of the merger on the formation of public opinion and on the diversity of media players, the extent to which safeguards for editorial independence are in place and whether there are alternative avenues available to ensure the economic sustainability of the entities involved.

The media pluralism test is a welcome and much-needed move; it acknowledges the fundamental role that diversity, independence and sustainability of the media play in a functioning democracy. It will increase the legal certainty for economic operators and create a level playing field across member states. Most importantly, it will allow citizens to benefit from access to similar quality media services, regardless of where they are in the EU, ensuring that even in smaller and less resilient media markets, the diversity and plurality of media will be the fundamental objectives that the regulators will have to consider.

Article 21 is up for discussion in the inter-institutional negotiations (‘trilogues’) at the end of November, and we believe that there is room for some improvements. For example, we call for increased independence of the European Board of Media Services (‘the Board’), the successor body of ERGA. The Board must be able to issue opinions on mergers that may significantly affect media pluralism and editorial independence on its own initiative and not only upon request of the European Commission, as the current proposal states. This is vital to ensure the full independence of the Board and maintain its credibility as a body acting in the interest of the EU internal market.

The Board will have several important roles, not least to produce guidelines to ensure the three criteria outlined in Article 21 are well understood and applied consistently across borders. It will be crucial that the guidance is clear in instances of conflicts between the criteria when not all can be achieved at once.

We sincerely hope that the EMFA is concluded before the end of this current legislative term and recognise that the media pluralism test will take time to ‘bed in’. Some level of experimentation and learning will be required, but working together with independent national regulatory authorities, it is paramount that transparency is a key characteristic in what will be initially a novel exercise.

Lastly, it is important that the future European Board for Media Services is provided sufficient resources and an effective independence to properly fulfil its new duties under the EMFA. In this context, the consultations with civil society organisations like ARTICLE 19 and others will be relevant and highly valued for its members.