U/S 138 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Disclosure of information about taxpayers to media - Circular - Dated 1-1-2015 - Income Tax
OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 1-1-2015
Instances have come to the notice of the Board where information pertaining to individual taxpayers has been published in the print media with specific reference to departmental sources. In some cases, even details contained in departmental documents seem to have been shared with the representatives of media.
Attention of all the officers and officials of the Department is drawn to the provisions of section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with notifications issued under that section, which obligates that no public servant shall produce before any person or authority any such document or record or any information or computerised data or part thereof as comes into his or her possession during the discharge of official duties unless specifically authorised to do so in accordance with the notifications issued under section 138 from time to time.
I am also directed to draw attention to the provisions contained in section 280 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provide that if a public servant furnishes any information or produces any record in contravention of the provisions of section 138(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he or she will be punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to six months and shall also be liable to fine.
Privacy of taxpayer must be respected as the information respecting an assessee is held in fiduciary capacity and maintaining its confidentiality is a statutory obligation of the Department.
The above legal position is brought to the notice of all officers and officials of the Department for strict compliance. Any breach of the aforesaid statutory obligation will be viewed seriously by the Board and necessary action will be initiated.
All supervisory authorities must sensitise their subordinates about the statutory position and ensure that the Board's directions are complied with both in letter and spirit.
This issues with the approval of Chairperson, CBDT.
CBI Files a Charge Sheet against Then DCIT & Four Others in a Bribery Case
CBI Files a Charge Sheet against Then DCIT & Four Others in a Bribery Case of Rs. 10 Lakhs (Approx)
The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) U/s 120-B IPC and Section 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act against then Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and four private persons including her husband in a bribery case of Rs. 10 lakhs (approx).
A case was registered U/s 120-B of IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 on 23.08.2014 on the basis of complaint against then Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bhopal on the allegation that the accused person demanded an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs through her husband (a private person) from the complainant (resident of Bhopal) for settling his assessment matter. The accused was arrested while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs (approx) from the complainant through the other accused persons.
After thorough investigation, CBI filed a charge sheet.
The public is reminded that the above findings are based on the investigation done by CBI and evidence collected by it. Under the Indian Law, the accused are presumed to be innocent till their guilt is finally established after a fair trial.
In another case, CBI has arrested an official working in the Regional office of Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (Govt. of India), Bhopal for demanding & accepting a bribe of Rs. 8000/- from the Complainant.
A case was registered U/s 7 of PC Act 1988, on the basis of complaint alleging therein that the official of Regional Office, Western Region, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Ravishankar Nagar, Bhopal has demanded a bribe of Rs. 8000/- for providing copies of approval for projects of a Gas Company situated at Bharuch and Jadeshwar (Gujarat). CBI laid a trap and the accused was caught red handed on while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 8000/- from the complainant on 02.01.2015.
CBI Press Release – New Delhi, 08.01.2015
Section 63 deals with issue of bonus shares by a company. Clause (b) to sub-section (2) of Section 63 read with Rule 12 (6) of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 (the Rules) requires a company to pass shareholder's resolution for the purpose of capitalising its profits or reserves, amongst other conditions prescribed under the sub-section.
Anomaly in PAS 3 for issue of bonus shares U/s. 63 of Companies Act, 2013
CS Aditi Jhunjhunwala
"We're all human and we all goof. Do things that may be wrong, but do something." This expression goes well with our Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), who in its attempt for speedy implementation of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act) and its allied rules committed errors and omissions, some of it being apparent on the face while others creep at the time of specific implementation by the companies. One such slip is in case of filing with respect to section 63 of the Act.
Section 63 deals with issue of bonus shares by a company. Clause (b) to sub-section (2) of Section 63 read with Rule 12 (6) of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 (the Rules) requires a company to pass shareholder's resolution for the purpose of capitalising its profits or reserves, amongst other conditions prescribed under the sub-section.
Form no. PAS 3 deals with return of allotment of securities and therefore, allotment pursuant to issue of bonus shares under section 63 will require filing under PAS 3. The section read with the rules nowhere requires that the shareholder's resolution will be a special resolution, however, on perusal of the form under point 5 (e), we find that the date of "special resolution" is required. Further, such special resolution shall also be attached to the form. The blunder is now very apparent that the provision of law does not require any special resolution, but surprisingly form PAS 3 suggests that special resolution shall be passed. Can the information filing document at all override the law? What if a company has already passed the ordinary resolution and only at the time of filing the form, company finds that there is requirement of "special resolution" by the form. Not only the form, but also the help kit contains similar guidance. What should the companies do under such circumstances? Either the company passes a special resolution at the inception itself or attached a note to the form with respect to the anomaly. Since, law is very clear on the passing of ordinary resolution, therefore, there should at all be no need to pass a special resolution at all.
Such clerical issues leading to big corporate blunders will continue to occur unless the department gives a serious re-look at the provisions and takes immediate steps for necessary rectification. Overall, MCA seems to make the process much more complicated than needed.
General Anti Avoidance Rules
Introduction- India as a developing economy is in dire need of the funds to boost its development. Tax is one of the major sources of Indian government revenue. Direct Taxes are contributing more than the Indirect taxes. To secure the Direct Tax collection and to curb its avoidance; the GAAR was first introduced in the […
PFA
Buy Back of Shares means the purchase by the Company of its own shares. Buy Back of equity shares is an imperative mode of capital restructuring. It is a corporate financial strategy which involves capital restructuring and is prevalent globally with the underlying objectives of increasing Earnings per Share, averting hostile takeovers, improving returns to the stakeholders and realigning the capital structure. Buy Back is an alternative way of Reduction of Capital.
PFA
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment