SEBI speeds-up IPO clearance, Govt. considers bringing e-commerce cos. under competition laws; Patent trolls on rise
SEBI speeds-up IPO clearance, Govt. considers bringing e-commerce cos. under competition laws; Patent trolls on rise
COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS
F CLB refusing to grant interim reliefs on specific findings after considering pleadings and documents, no interference : S. Natarajan v. S. V. Global Mills Ltd. (Mad) p. 150
F Where petitioners failing to establish that their names removed by company without sufficient cause, petition seeking rectification dismissed : Naresh N. Shah v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. p. 138
F Bills :
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 p. 118
F Rules :
Companies (Declaration and Payment of Dividend) Second Amendment Rules, 2015 p. 122
Companies (Registration of Charges) Amendment Rules, 2015 p. 122
Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Second Amendment Rules, 2015 p. 123
F Notifications :
Companies Act, 2013 : Notification under section 462(1)(a), (b) : Certain provisions of Act shall not apply and shall apply to companies with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations p. 124, 128
F A study relating to prevention of sexual harassment of women as part of corporate governance-G. S. Dubey p. 33
F Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 : A welcome step forward-Chitwan Deep Singh and Raghunath Seshadri p. 40
| COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. No. 2, Vaithyaram Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017. Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55 Fax: (044) 24322015 info@cliofindia.com |
To Unsubscribe : Reply back with "Unsubscribe" in subject followed by the key word "ITR" or "CC" or "VST" or "ITR (Trib)" or "GSTR", respectively or "All" if you do not want any Email. ITR : Income Tax Reports, CC : Company Cases, VST : VAT and Service Tax Cases, GSTR : Goods and Service Tax Reports, ITR (Trib) : ITR'S Tribunal Tax Reports. Also send your feedback or comments to info@cliofindia.com
Cabinet approves introduction of composite FDI caps for attracting foreign investments
Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi, approves to review the existing FDI policy on various sectors, by introducing composite caps for attracting foreign investments; States that FII/FPI/QFI may invest in Indian company under Portfolio Investment Scheme which limits individual holding of an FII/FPI/QFI below 10% and aggregate limit for FII/FPI/QFI investment to 24%, whereby now 24% can be increased to sectoral cap, as applicable, by the Indian company through board and shareholders' approval and prior RBI intimation; States that foreign investment shall include all types of foreign investments (direct / indirect), regardless of whether the said investment is made as FDI / FII / FPI / NRI / FVCI / QFI / LLPs / Depository Receipts, clarifies that any equity holding by person resident outside India resulting from conversion of any debt instrument under any arrangement shall be reckoned as 'foreign investment': PIB Release
SEBI notifies Regulations for issue & listing of debt securities by Municipalities
SEBI notifies Issue & Listing of Debt Securities by Municipalities, Regulations, 2015; Prescribes applicability of the Regulations to public issue and listing of debt securities; Lays down eligibility criteria's for municipalities for issuing debt securities, states that an issuer making public issue of debt securities shall only issue revenue bonds and comply with certain conditions: (i) Application is made to one or more recognised stock exchanges for listing, (ii) In-principle approval for listing of revenue bonds is obtained, (iii) Credit-rating is obtained from at least one SEBI-registered credit rating agency and the same is disclosed in Offer Document, (iv) Agreement is entered with SEBI-registered Depository for dematerialization of the revenue bonds: SEBI
Click here to read more.
Commerce Ministry notes significant FDI-growth post 'Make in India' launch, acknowledges overseas investors' faith
Ministry of Commerce & Industry states that FDI growth has been significant after launch of 'Make in India' initiatives, with 48% increase in FDI equity inflows during Oct. 2014 – April 2015 over the corresponding period last year; States that increased FDI inflow in India, especially in climate of contracting worldwide investments, indicates the faith that overseas investors have imposed in Indian economy and reforms initiated by Govt. towards ease of doing business; Further states that outreach of 'Make in India' initiatives to all investors has created positive investment climate for India which is evidenced in results for the last FY; Reiterates the amendments, states that Govt. amended FDI policy for enabling positive investment climate, wherein construction development sector was allowed easy exit norms, FDI cap in insurance and pension sector was raised to 49%, 100% FDI was allowed in railway infrastructure & medical devices sector and the definition of NRI was expanded to include OCI cardholders as well as PIO cardholders: PIB Release
Click here to read more.
SEBI issues detailed FAQs on Merchant Bankers' registration
As part of SEBI Investor Education programme, SEBI issues FAQs on Merchant Bankers, which includes procedure for obtaining SEBI registration, amount of registration fees, capital adequacy requirements, validity of SEBI certificate etc.; SEBI also prescribes form for application for grant of certificate of initial / permanent registration and documents required / detailed information required at the time of obtaining registration: SEBI
Click here to read more.
Govt. approves 10 FDI proposals worth Rs. 1675.15 Crore
Debunks developer's copyright claim over software, rejects plea to ignore client MoU
HC rejects grant of interlocutory injunction claimed by plaintiff for copyright infringement by defendant of its software customized for defendant co, absent plaintiff's ownership over the software; Notes that parties signed an MoU which contained a provision that defendant would own this software and IPR over it, thus, holds defendant to be the first & complete owner of copyright u/s 17(c) of Copyright Act; Rejects plaintiff's contention that MoU was not valid as it was signed under defendant's assurance that it would not have any legal effect, holds that such claim is "opposed to the common course of events and conduct between two independent contracting parties operating at arm's length"; Dismisses plaintiff's contention of breach of confidential information (source code), observes that there was no proof to show that such source code was divulged, refers to co-ordinate bench ruling in Beyond Dreams; Also rejects plaintiff's contention that defendant might obtain source code by the process of reverse engineering and misuse the same, infringing plaintiff's copyright, terms it as "highly speculative":Bombay HC
The ruling was delivered by Justice S.C. Gupte
Mr. Rahul Ajatshatru argued on behalf of the plaintiffs while respondent was represented by Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Ms. Mahua Roy Choudhari and Ms. Nidhi Tandon
G. Indhirani vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
S. 234E: Prior to the amendment to s. 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fee for default in filing TDS statements cannot be recovered from the assessee-deductor while processing the s. 200A statement. However, the AO is entitled to pass a separate order u/s 234E to levy the fee within the limitation period
The Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement and make adjustment under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under Section 234E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy has not expired
G. Indhirani vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
| COURT: | ITAT Chennai |
| CORAM: | A. Mohan Alankamony (AM), N.R.S. Ganesan (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 200A, 234E |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS : | Recovery of tax, TDS deduction |
| COUNSEL | S. Sridhar |
| DATE: | July 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | July 16, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2013-14 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 234E: Prior to the amendment to s. 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fee for default in filing TDS statements cannot be recovered from the assessee-deductor while processing the s. 200A statement. However, the AO is entitled to pass a separate order u/s 234E to levy the fee within the limitation period | |
(i) The Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustment other than the one prescribed above in Section 200A of the Act. By Finance Act, 2015, with effect from 01.06.2015, the Parliament amended Section 200A by substituting sub-section (1) of clauses (c) to (e). It is obvious that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section 234E of the Act. Parliament for the first time enabled the Assessing Officer to make adjustment by levying fee under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the assessees, while processing statement under Section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustment by levying fee under Section 234E prior to 01.06.2015. In the case before us, the Assessing Officer levied fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the fee levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source is beyond the scope of adjustment provided under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, such adjustment cannot stand in the eye of law.
cannot make any adjustment other than the one prescribed above in Section 200A of the Act. By Finance Act, 2015, with effect from 01.06.2015, the Parliament amended Section 200A by substituting sub-section (1) of clauses (c) to (e). It is obvious that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section 234E of the Act. Parliament for the first time enabled the Assessing Officer to make adjustment by levying fee under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the assessees, while processing statement under Section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustment by levying fee under Section 234E prior to 01.06.2015. In the case before us, the Assessing Officer levied fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the fee levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source is beyond the scope of adjustment provided under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, such adjustment cannot stand in the eye of law.(ii) However, the contention of the assessee that as Section 234E of the Act says that the assessee "shall be liable to pay" by way of fee, therefore, the assessee has to voluntarily pay the fee and the Assessing Officer has no authority to levy fee has no substance. When Section 234E clearly says that the assessee is liable to pay fee for the delay in delivery of the statement with regard to tax deducted at source, the assessee shall pay the fee as provided under Section 234E(1) of the Act before delivery of the statement under Section 200(3) of the Act. If the assessee fails to pay the fee for the periods of delay, then the assessing authority has all the powers to levy fee while processing the statement under Section 200A of the Act by making adjustment after 01.06.2015. However, prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer had every authority to pass an order separately levying fee under Section 234E of the Act. What is not permissible is that levy of fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement of tax deducted at source and making adjustment before 01.06.2015. It does not mean that the Assessing Officer cannot pass a separate order under Section 234E of the Act levying fee for the delay in filing the statement as required under Section 200(3) of the Act.
(iii) The contention of the counsel that merely because the Parliament has used the language "he shall be liable to pay by way of fee", the assessee has to pay the fee voluntarily and the Assessing Officer has no authority to levy fee could not be accepted. No one would come forward to pay the fee voluntarily unless there is a compulsion under the statutory provision. The Parliament welcomes the citizens to come forward and comply with the provisions of the Act by paying the prescribed fee before filing the statement under Section 200(3) of the Act. However, if the assessee fails to pay the fee before filing the statement under Section 200(3) of the Act, the assessing authority is well within his limit in passing a separate order levying such a fee in addition to processing the statement under Section 200A of the Act. In other words, before 01.06.2015, the assessing authority could pass a separate order under Section 234E levying fee for delay in filing the statement under Section 200(3) of the Act. However, after 01.06.2015, the assessing authority is well within his limit to levy fee under Section 234E of the Act even while processing the statement under Section 200A and making
adjustment.
adjustment.
(iv) In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement and make adjustment under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under Section 234E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy has not expired. Accordingly, the intimation under Section 200A as confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) in sofar as levy of fee under Section 234E is set aside and fee levied is deleted. However, the other adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned intimation shall stand as such.
See also Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) on the same point
Related Judgements
- Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) Section 200A was amended by the Finance Act 2015 with effect from 1st June 2015 to provide that in the course of processing of a TDS statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the fee computed…
- Adithya Bizorp Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court) Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 234E of the income Tax Act and a notice to the petitioner levying fee vide annexure A1 to A21 and Annexure – B. Pending consideration of the grounds in the writ petition, it is desirable that enforcement of…
- M/s Shree Builders vs. UOI (Madhya Pradesh High Court) S. 234E: High Court grants ad-interim stay against operation of notices levying fee for failure to file TDS statementIssue notice to the respondents on interim relief. Additionally issue notice to Attorney General of India as the validity of the Central enactment is put in issue.By way of ad…
- Rashmikant Kundalia vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) S. 234E: High Court grants ad-interim stay against operation of notices levying fee for failure to file TDS statementS. 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 provides for levy of a fee of Rs. 200/- for each day's delay in filing the statement…
- Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI (Kerala High Court) S. 234E: High Court grants interim stay on levy of fee for failure to file TDS statementS. 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 provides for levy of a fee of Rs. 200/- for each day's delay in filing the statement…
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment