[aaykarbhavan] Source Business standard

​

A proposal  to  introduce    new  slab  rates  of  MAT  to   MSME's   and  SEZs    Let  us wait  for  Budget  announcement  It  will  definitely   boost  domestic  manufacturing.   Regards         MAT revision likely in Budget

JAYSHREE P UPADHYAY New Delhi, 1 February In a move aimed at giving a push to its ' Make in India' programme, the government could introduce in the coming Union Budget a differential minimum alternate tax (MAT) rate for certain segments of domestic manufacturing. According to those privy to the development, the Budget makers are looking to give an impetus to Indian manufacturers, particularly the micro, small and medium enterprises ( MSMEs), special economic zones ( SEZs) and those in the infrastructure sector. "We are considering bringing in the Budget a differential rate of MAT for MSMEs and SEZs. But nothing has been finalised yet," said an official. MSMEs account for eight per cent to India's gross domestic product. MAT for key sectors was under review, said another. " MAT for all sectors that are crucial to development of the nation, such as infrastructure, SMEs and SEZs, is under review, and is likely to be part of the Budget," he said. The government had introduced MAT to ensure no profit- earning company used exemptions and incentives to avoid tax liability. The current rate for MAT is 18.5 per cent; the effective rate goes up to 20 per cent after including surchange and cess. The rate for corporation tax, 30 per cent at present, nearly touches 33 per cent with cess and surcharge. Though the differential MAT has not yet been finalised, it is believed to be set in the range of five per cent to 10 per cent. Looking at ways to incentivise and promote domestic manufacturing, the commerce & industry ministry had earlier this year made a pitch for lowering of MAT for domestic manufacturing. So far, there is no specific provision in the income- tax Act to incentivise domestic manufacturing, though certain relief is given to SEZs. The pitch is for restoring relief for SEZs and providing SMEs with some leeway. "A separate and lower rate of MAT for manufacturing companies could help showcase the (Narendra) Modi government's clear mindset and focus on promoting and incentivising India's manufacturing sector. Such companies could also be allowed to claim MAT credit for an indefinite period, as against the existing time limit of 10 years," said Naveen Agarwal, partner, KPMG in India. MAT credit can be carried forward for only 10 years— almost corresponding with the holiday period for SEZs. This 10- year restriction, coupled with the way MAT set off is allowed under the existing tax provisions, results in permanent loss of asignificantportion ofthe MATpaid. "This is a significant dampener and goes against the spirit of treating SEZ units as tax- free zones. With the government planning to give a boost to the manufacturing sector, the industry needs to see relaxation on levy of MAT and probably DDT ( dividend distribution tax) on SEZ units," said Rajesh HGandhi, partner, Deloitte Haskin &Sells LLP. The proposal to impose MAT on book profits — of both SEZ developers and units in these enclaves — was announced in Budget 2011- 12 by the then finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee. Besides, DDT at almost 20 per cent was also imposed for dividend distributed to shareholders. MAT came into effect from April 2012, amid severe protest from SEZ developers and units. It was introduced through a proposal in the Finance Act, even as the SEZ Act specifically mentioned a stipulated tax holiday be given to these zones. Another measure specific to manufacturing companies, pressed for by industry and being considered by the government, is allowing deduction of investment allowance for MAT computation purposes. Turn to Page 16 > 'MAKE IN INDIA' PUSH Differential rates could be introduced for small firms, SEZs and the infra sector TWEAKS ON THE CARDS |Differential MAT could be introduced in the Budget for SMEs and SEZs; revision could be in the range of 5- 10% |MAT was introduced to ensure no profit- earning company used exemptions and incentives to avoid tax liability |The current rate for MAT, at 18.5%, goes up to 20% with surcharge and cess |The pitch for differential MAT rate for various sectors came from the commerce ministry, which has been looking at ways to promote domestic manufacturing |The government is also considering deduction on investment allowance for MAT computation purposes

 

BRIEF CASEN M J ANTONY Row over choice of arbitrators One of the initial wrangles in arbitration is over the choice of arbitrators. Two judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in recent days highlighted this hurdle. Since the parties could not agree on the choice of arbitrators, the Supreme Court itself had to name ex- judges in both cases. The first case was Walter Bau AG vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Disputes arose over a works contract and the foreign firm invoked the arbitration clause. After appointing its arbitrator, it asked the Corporation to name its candidate. Since the latter did not respond, the matter was referred to the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution in India ( ICADR). It asked the corporation to choose one from three names furnished to it. However, the corporation appointed an ex- judge, leading to the appeal by the foreign firm to the Supreme Court. It ruled that choosing a person beyond the panel submitted by ICADR was contrary to the rules. So the court appointed another retired judge of the Bombay High Court as arbitrator for the corporation. The second case involved China Railway Shisiju Corporation and New Delhi Municipal Council ( NDMC). The foreign firm invoked the arbitration clause while the NDMC did not respond. Later it suggested two names instead of one in the arbitration clause, " in view of the sensitivity of the case". The Supreme Court ruled that insisting on two arbitrators was contrary to the contractual terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SC upholds transfer levy on lessee firms The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and allowed the appeal of the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation against several companies, which were granted long- term lease of industrial plots. The corporation found that the companies had changed their shareholders and directors. Some of them were sold to foreign entities. Therefore, it demanded transfer levy according to the lease deed and guidelines pertaining to reconstitution and transfer. That demand was challenged by four companies, one of them being Monsanto Manufactures Ltd. They filed suits in different civil courts. The courts took the view that a company is alegal entity and change of shareholders did not change its character. They barred the corporation from levying the charges. The corporation moved the high court, which dismissed its appeal. However, the Supreme Court accepted the corporation's appeal. It went into the transfer deeds of each company and found that they had not only changed hands but also incurred liabilities. Therefore, there was " larger public interest" involved in incorporating rules regarding alteration in capital structure. " There are many instances where the company takes loan from third parties on the security and land and structure allotted to them in lease keeping in dark the lessor which amounts to incurring liabilities on the property without the knowledge of the lessor." In one case, there was huge amount of debt on the company as it took loan on land . There have been instances in which the lessee gets allotment of huge industrial plots and thereafter sold them for huge gains. " This adversely affects the aims and objectives of corporation i. e. the planned development of industrial area," the judgment emphasised. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Order to allot alternative plot The Supreme Court has ordered the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation to allot aplot to Ashok Kumar, who had paid the full amount demanded with interest. The corporation had allotted the plot but cancelled the allotment later alleging delay in payment. It pleaded that its officer had made a bona fide mistake in accepting the delayed payment. The Supreme Court did not accept this argument and stated that the corporation retained the amount for more than half a decade without returning it to the industrialist, leading him to believe that he would get the plot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deliberate delay by public official If the court is convinced that a government official had delayed filing an appeal to defeat justice, the court would be justified in pardoning the delay and proceeding with the case. In this case, Executive Engineer vs G Arumugam, a person filed a suit against the town panchayat claiming possession of a piece of land. The panchayat claimed that it owned the land. The civil court rejected the panchayat's claim. It filed its appeal after a delay of 1,373 days, which was barred by the Limitation Act. Its excuse was that the officer who was handling the case earlier was suspended for corruption and he delayed the case. The court was convinced about the reason for the delay and asked the Madras High Court to proceed with the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foreign subsidiaries entitled to benefit The Delhi High Court last week set aside the decision of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) denying the benefits of the " Served from India Scheme" (SFIS), as framed under the foreign trade policy, to subsidiaries of foreign companies operating in India. The Policy Interpretation Committee and DGFT had held that the SFIS is not applicable to subsidiaries of foreign companies. According to DGFT, benefits available under the SFIS are given to create a powerful and a unique served from India brand. The companies, including Nokia Solutions and Networks India and EI Dupont India, disputed that. According to them, the SFIS is applicable to all " Indian service providers" who fulfil the specified criteria; no distinction can be drawn on the basis of nationality of their constituent shareholders. Accepting this contention, the high court stated that these companies were registered in India under the Companies Act and they cannot be distinguished from other companies in India. A weekly selection of key court orders

 

​

--

A.Rengarajan
Practising  Company  Secretary
Chennai

Mobile 93810  11200

"

​​

​LET  US  PROUD  TO  BE   A  MEMBER  OF  CSBF​

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@gmail.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

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use