Saturday, January 10, 2015

[aaykarbhavan] JUdgments and Infomration [4 Attachments]






FEM (TRANSFER OR ISSUE OF SECURITY BY A PERSON RESIDENT OUTSIDE INDIA) (SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2014 - AMENDMENT IN SCHEDULE 1
NOTIFICATION NO.FEMA.329/2014-RB/GSR 906(E), DATED 8-12-2014
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 6 and section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), the Reserve Bank of India hereby makes the following amendments in the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (Notification No. FEMA. 20/2000-RB, dated 3rd May 2000), namely:—
1. Short title and Commencement
(i) These Regulations may be called the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) (Sixteenth Amendment) Regulations, 2014.
(ii)  They shall be deemed to have come into force from December 3, 2014.@
2. Amendment of Schedule 1
In the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (Notification No. FEMA 20/2000-RB, dated 3rd May 2000), in the existing Annex B, for the existing entry 11, 11.1 and 11.2, the following shall be substituted, namely:—
Sl. No. Sector/Activity % of Equity/ FDI Cap Entry Route
11Construction Development: Townships, Housing, Built-up infrastructure
11.1Construction-development projects (which would include development of townships, construction of residential/commercial premises, roads or bridges, hotels, resorts, hospitals, educational institutions, recreational facilities, city and regional level infrastructure, townships)100%Automatic
11.2
Investment will be subject to the following conditions:
(A) Minimum area to be developed under each project would be as under:
i.  In case of development of serviced plots, no minimum land area requirement.
ii.  in case of construction-development projects, a minimum floor area of 20,000 sq. meter.
(B) Investee company will be required to bring minimum FDI of US$ 5 million within six months of commencement of the project. The commencement of the project will be the date of approval of the building plan/layout plan by the relevant statutory authority. Subsequent tranches of FDI can be brought till the period of ten years from the commencement of the project or before the completion of project, whichever expires earlier.
(C) (i) The investor will be permitted to exit on completion of the project or after development of trunk infrastructure i.e. roads, water supply, street lighting, drainage and sewerage.

 (ii) The Government may, in view of facts and circumstances of a case, permit repatriation of FDI or transfer of stake by one non-resident investor to another non-resident investor, before the completion of project. These proposals will be considered by FIPB on case to case basis inter alia with specific reference to Note (i).
(D) The project shall conform to the norms and standards, including land use requirements and provision of community amenities and common facilities, as laid down in the applicable building control regulations, bye-laws, rules, and other regulations of the State Government/Municipal/Local Body concerned.
(E) The Indian investee company will be permitted to sell only developed plots. For the purposes of this policy "developed plots" will mean plots where trunk infrastructure i.e. roads, water supply, street lighting, drainage and sewerage, have been made available.
(F) The Indian investee company shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals, including those of the building/layout plans, developing internal and peripheral areas and other infrastructure facilities, payment of development, external development and other charges and complying with all other requirements as prescribed under applicable rules/bye-laws/regulations of the State Government/Municipal/Local Body concerned.
(G) The State Government/Municipal/Local Body concerned, which approves the building/development plans, will monitor compliance of the above conditions by the developer.
Note:
(i) It is clarified that FDI is not permitted in an entity which is engaged or proposes to engage in real estate business, construction of farm houses and trading in transferable development rights (TDRs).

 "Real estate business" will have the same meaning as provided in FEMA Notification No. 1/2000-RB dated May 03, 2000 read with RBI Master Circular i.e. dealing in land and immovable property with a view to earning profit or earning income there from and does not include development of townships, construction of residential/commercial premises, roads or bridges, educational institutions, recreational facilities, city and regional level infrastructure, townships.
(ii) The conditions at (A) to (C) above, will not apply to Hotels & Tourist resorts; Hospitals; Special Economic Zones (SEZs); Educational Institutions, Old Age Homes and Investment by NRls.
(iii) The conditions at (A) and (B) above, will also not apply to investee/joint venture companies which commit at least 30 per cent of the total project cost for low cost affordable housing.
(iv) An Indian company, which is the recipient of FDI, shall procure a certificate from an architect empanelled by any Authority, authorized to sanction/building plan to the effect that the minimum floor area requirement has been fulfilled.
(v) 'Floor area' will be defined as per the local laws/regulations of the respective State governments/Union territories.
(vi)  Completion of the project will be determined as per the local bye-laws/rules and other regulations of State Governments.
(vii) Project using at least 40% of the FAR/FSI for dwelling unit of floor area of not more than 140 square meter will be considered as Affordable Housing Project for the purpose of FDI policy in Construction Development Sector. Out of the total FAR/FSI reserved for Affordable Housing, at least one-fourth should be for houses of floor area of not more than 60 square meter.
(viii) It is clarified that 100% FDI under automatic route is permitted in completed projects for operation and management of townships, malls/shopping complexes and business centres.
■■

Regards
Prarthana Jalan

Posted by: Prarthana Jalan <prarthanajalan@ymail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


Losses under the head capital gains won't be set-off and carry forward in case of amalgamation and demerger

January 10, 2015[2015] 53 taxmann.com 39 (Mumbai - Trib.)
IT : Benefit of set-off and carry forward of losses under head 'capital gains' is not available in case of amalgamation and demerger
IT : Payment of membership entrance fee to club is an allowable expenditure
IT : Since in assessment year 2006-07, rule 8D was not applicable, disallowance on exempt income was to be worked out on some reasonable basis
IT : Expenditure incurred for purchase of software that helped to do work effectively, was revenue expenditure
IT : Where assessee paid remuneration to its managing director, etc. and clearly explained nature and purpose of said payment, which was not considered by Commissioner (Appeals), matter was to be re-examined

Sec. 54: Booking of unconstructed flat in housing project to be deemed as investment for construction of house

January 10, 2015[2014] 52 taxmann.com 527 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2014] 35 ITR(T) 205 (Mumbai - Trib.)
IT : Booking of a flat which is going to be constructed by a builder has to be considered as a case of 'construction of flat' and not purchase of flat for purpose of section 54

PFA
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- Is the State vicariously liable for negligence of its officers in discharge of their statutory duties, was answered in the negative by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ratio laid down by this Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P


Ram Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others – Allahabad High Court

by CA Sandeep Kanoi
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.
CA Sandeep Kanoi | August 11, 2000 at 10:12 pm | Tags: high court judgments | Categories: GST | URL: http://wp.me/p3ulce-gMw
Comment    See all comments

PFA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AIR 1994 SUPREME Court 787 (from: National Commission, New Delhi) LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  Vs. M.K. GUPTA   Civil Appeal No. 6237 of 1990 (with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 659 of 191 and 16842 of 1992; C.A. Nos. 3963 of 1989, 5534, 6236 and 5257 of 1990 and 2954 – 59 of 1992) DATE […]



__._,_.___
View attachments on the web

Posted by: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>


receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com





__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment