PFA.
Shah D J
INCOME TAX OFFICER vs.KURUHINSHETTY URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.
PANAJI TRIBUNAL
Deduction u/s 80P(2)€ ¢â' '´Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies€ ¢â' '´Assessees had filed return of income after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on grounds that it was a Cooperative Society carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members€ ¢â' '´AO disallowed same on grounds that the assessee was a cooperative bank, and hence, not entitled to claim deduction by virtue of s 80P(4)€ ¢â' '´CIT(A) on appeal allowed assessee€ ¢â' '¹s claim€ ¢â' '´Held, High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha which was followed in the case of General Insurance Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, had clearly held that a co-operative society registered as cooperative society, providing credit facilities to members and not registered with the RBI cannot be denied the exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)€ ¢â' '´Revenue could not point out any specific error in the orders of the CIT(A) who had allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) by following the above mentioned decisions€ ¢â' '´No interference with orders of CIT was warranted€ ¢â' '´Revenue€ ¢â' '¹s appeal dismissed
PANAJI TRIBUNAL
Deduction u/s 80P(2)€ ¢â' '´Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies€ ¢â' '´Assessees had filed return of income after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on grounds that it was a Cooperative Society carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members€ ¢â' '´AO disallowed same on grounds that the assessee was a cooperative bank, and hence, not entitled to claim deduction by virtue of s 80P(4)€ ¢â' '´CIT(A) on appeal allowed assessee€ ¢â' '¹s claim€ ¢â' '´Held, High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha which was followed in the case of General Insurance Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, had clearly held that a co-operative society registered as cooperative society, providing credit facilities to members and not registered with the RBI cannot be denied the exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)€ ¢â' '´Revenue could not point out any specific error in the orders of the CIT(A) who had allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) by following the above mentioned decisions€ ¢â' '´No interference with orders of CIT was warranted€ ¢â' '´Revenue€ ¢â' '¹s appeal dismissed
MAYA GUPTA vs.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
DELHI TRIBUNAL
Revision€ ¢â' '´Orders Prejudicial To Revenue€ ¢â' '´Jurisdiction€ ¢â' '´Search and seizure operation was carried out in € ¢â' '¸X€ ¢â' '¹ group€ ¢â' '´During course of search certain documents belonging to Assessee were found and seized€ ¢â' '´On basis of such documents so seized and after recording satisfaction, proceedings u/s 153C were initiated and notice u/s 153C was issued€ ¢â' '´Assessment u/s 143(3) r/w section 153C was completed by AO€ ¢â' '´Subsequently CIT observed that assessment order passed by AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue to the extent that assessment was completed without proper examination, inquiry and verification on three issues€ ¢â' '´Firstly claim of interest expenses amounting to Rs.6,36,111/ -, secondly issue of transaction of Rs.1 crore with regard to property purchased by Assessee jointly with her husband and lastly issue of capital gain out of which Rs.1 crore was diverted from capital gain to income from other sources€ ¢â' '´CIT invoked provisions of section 263 and set aside assessment order with direction to AO to frame assessment order after proper examination, inquiry and verification on all issues€ ¢â' '´Assessee submitted that CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263€ ¢â' '´Held, under third proviso to section 24(b), Assessee was required to submit certificate for making claim of interest and there was no prescribed form of certificate€ ¢â' '´During assessment proceedings on specific query of AO, Assessee furnished detailed explanation supported by repayment schedule, copy of bank statement to substantiate its claim and amount of interest had not been disputed either by AO or by CIT€ ¢â' '´Merely non-compliance of directory provisions of statute could not make assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, especially when claim of Assessee regarding interest u/s 24(b) was accepted as genuine and no incorrectness or infirmity has been brought out by CIT or any other revenue authorities therein€ ¢â' '´View taken by AO was reasonable and plausible view that could not be said as unsustainable or not in accordance with law€ ¢â' '´Assessee€ ¢â' '¹s Appeal allowed.
DELHI TRIBUNAL
Revision€ ¢â' '´Orders Prejudicial To Revenue€ ¢â' '´Jurisdiction€ ¢â' '´Search and seizure operation was carried out in € ¢â' '¸X€ ¢â' '¹ group€ ¢â' '´During course of search certain documents belonging to Assessee were found and seized€ ¢â' '´On basis of such documents so seized and after recording satisfaction, proceedings u/s 153C were initiated and notice u/s 153C was issued€ ¢â' '´Assessment u/s 143(3) r/w section 153C was completed by AO€ ¢â' '´Subsequently CIT observed that assessment order passed by AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue to the extent that assessment was completed without proper examination, inquiry and verification on three issues€ ¢â' '´Firstly claim of interest expenses amounting to Rs.6,36,111/ -, secondly issue of transaction of Rs.1 crore with regard to property purchased by Assessee jointly with her husband and lastly issue of capital gain out of which Rs.1 crore was diverted from capital gain to income from other sources€ ¢â' '´CIT invoked provisions of section 263 and set aside assessment order with direction to AO to frame assessment order after proper examination, inquiry and verification on all issues€ ¢â' '´Assessee submitted that CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263€ ¢â' '´Held, under third proviso to section 24(b), Assessee was required to submit certificate for making claim of interest and there was no prescribed form of certificate€ ¢â' '´During assessment proceedings on specific query of AO, Assessee furnished detailed explanation supported by repayment schedule, copy of bank statement to substantiate its claim and amount of interest had not been disputed either by AO or by CIT€ ¢â' '´Merely non-compliance of directory provisions of statute could not make assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, especially when claim of Assessee regarding interest u/s 24(b) was accepted as genuine and no incorrectness or infirmity has been brought out by CIT or any other revenue authorities therein€ ¢â' '´View taken by AO was reasonable and plausible view that could not be said as unsustainable or not in accordance with law€ ¢â' '´Assessee€ ¢â' '¹s Appeal allowed.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs.MERCHEM LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Business Income€ ¢â' '´Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI€ ¢â' '´ Assessee, engaged in business of manufacture and sale of Rubber Chemicals, filed return disclosing its income€ ¢â' '´Return was processed and scrutiny was conducted u/s. 143(2)€ ¢â' '´AO held that remittance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI had been delayed beyond due date of payment prescribed and cumulative figure of all defaulted payments was proposed to be disallowed u/s 36(1) (va) r/w section 2(24)(x)€ ¢â' '´CIT(A) held that contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI were made before due date of filing of return and therefore same were entitled for deduction u/s 43B€ ¢â' '´Addition made by AO was deleted€ ¢â' '´ITAT affirmed order of CIT(A) and held that date of remittance of contribution was within due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1)€ ¢â' '´Admittedly, second proviso to section 43B was deleted and entire sub-clauses under section 43B were brought under Explanation (1) to section 43B and therefore all payments including employee' s and employer' s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI paid on or before due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) had to be deducted while computing the taxable income€ ¢â' '´Question arose if Assessee whose contribution towards PF/ESI iwas not in consonance with provisions of Explanation to section 36(1)(va) was entitled to claim deduction u/s 43B€ ¢â' '´Held, any sum received by Assessee from his employees to which provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, when credited by Assessee to employees' Account in relevant Fund or Funds on or before due date prescribed under Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va), would be entitled to deduction€ ¢â' '´section 36(1)(va) covered contribution received on account of employees and credited by Assessee to employees' account in relevant Fund or Funds on or before due date as provided under relevant statute alone would be entitled to get deduction€ ¢â' '´Income of Assessee included any sum received by Assessee from his employee as contribution to any Provident Fund or superannuation fund or funds set up under provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 or any other fund for welfare of such employees€ ¢â' '´Contribution received by Assessee from employee alone was treated as income for purpose of section 36(1)(va)€ ¢â' '´Thus, Assessee was entitled to get deduction for sum received by Assessee from his employees towards contribution to fund or funds so mentioned only if, said amount was credited by Assessee on or before due date to employees account in relevant fund as provided under Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va)€ ¢â' '´Assessee was entitled to get benefit of deduction u/s. 43B(b) only with regard to portion of the amount paid by employer to contributory fund€ ¢â' '´As Assessee admittedly had not paid deduction so made within due date as provided u/s. 36(1)(va), Assessee was not entitled to get deduction of amounts deducted thereunder for and on behalf of employees€ ¢â' '´View taken by ITAT which affirmed decision of CIT(A) that Respondent was entitled to get deduction of contributions received from employees if paid on or before filing of return u/s. 139(1) was not correct€ ¢â' '´Questions of law raised by Revenue was answered affirmatively€ ¢â' '´Appeal allowed.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Business Income€ ¢â' '´Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI€ ¢â' '´ Assessee, engaged in business of manufacture and sale of Rubber Chemicals, filed return disclosing its income€ ¢â' '´Return was processed and scrutiny was conducted u/s. 143(2)€ ¢â' '´AO held that remittance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI had been delayed beyond due date of payment prescribed and cumulative figure of all defaulted payments was proposed to be disallowed u/s 36(1) (va) r/w section 2(24)(x)€ ¢â' '´CIT(A) held that contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI were made before due date of filing of return and therefore same were entitled for deduction u/s 43B€ ¢â' '´Addition made by AO was deleted€ ¢â' '´ITAT affirmed order of CIT(A) and held that date of remittance of contribution was within due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1)€ ¢â' '´Admittedly, second proviso to section 43B was deleted and entire sub-clauses under section 43B were brought under Explanation (1) to section 43B and therefore all payments including employee' s and employer' s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI paid on or before due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) had to be deducted while computing the taxable income€ ¢â' '´Question arose if Assessee whose contribution towards PF/ESI iwas not in consonance with provisions of Explanation to section 36(1)(va) was entitled to claim deduction u/s 43B€ ¢â' '´Held, any sum received by Assessee from his employees to which provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, when credited by Assessee to employees' Account in relevant Fund or Funds on or before due date prescribed under Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va), would be entitled to deduction€ ¢â' '´section 36(1)(va) covered contribution received on account of employees and credited by Assessee to employees' account in relevant Fund or Funds on or before due date as provided under relevant statute alone would be entitled to get deduction€ ¢â' '´Income of Assessee included any sum received by Assessee from his employee as contribution to any Provident Fund or superannuation fund or funds set up under provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 or any other fund for welfare of such employees€ ¢â' '´Contribution received by Assessee from employee alone was treated as income for purpose of section 36(1)(va)€ ¢â' '´Thus, Assessee was entitled to get deduction for sum received by Assessee from his employees towards contribution to fund or funds so mentioned only if, said amount was credited by Assessee on or before due date to employees account in relevant fund as provided under Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va)€ ¢â' '´Assessee was entitled to get benefit of deduction u/s. 43B(b) only with regard to portion of the amount paid by employer to contributory fund€ ¢â' '´As Assessee admittedly had not paid deduction so made within due date as provided u/s. 36(1)(va), Assessee was not entitled to get deduction of amounts deducted thereunder for and on behalf of employees€ ¢â' '´View taken by ITAT which affirmed decision of CIT(A) that Respondent was entitled to get deduction of contributions received from employees if paid on or before filing of return u/s. 139(1) was not correct€ ¢â' '´Questions of law raised by Revenue was answered affirmatively€ ¢â' '´Appeal allowed.
CIRCULAR CIR/ISD/02/2015 September 16, 2015 To, All Recognized Stock Exchanges Dear Sir/Madam, Sub: Revised Disclosure Formats under SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 1. This has reference to Paragraph 1(i) of the SEBI Circular numbered CIR/ISD/01/2015 dated May 11, 2015 whereby the formats for disclosure under Regulation 7 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (€ ¢â' '¼the Regulations€ ¢â' '½) were provided for. 2. Based on various representations received and in view of SEBI Guidance Note dated August 24th, 2015, revised formats (Form A to Form D) are issued as annexed with this circular. The other conditions of the Circular dated May 11, 2015 shall remain unchanged. 3. All stock exchanges are advised to: a. Put in place adequate systems and issue the necessary guidelines for implementing the above decision. b. Make necessary amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations as applicable for the immediate implementation of the above decision. c. Bring the provisions of this circular to the notice of the listed companies/issuers and disseminate the same on their respective websites. 4. This circular is being issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11 (1) of the SEBI Act 1992 and under regulations 4(3) and 11 of the Regulations and to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the securities market. Yours faithfully, Sunil Kadam Chief General Manager Integrated Surveillance Department 022-26449630 sunilk@sebi.gov.in Page 2 of 7 FORM A SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 [Regulation 7 (1) (a) read with Regulation 6 (2) € ¢â' '³ Initial disclosure to the company] Name of the company: ____________ _________ _________ __ ISIN of the company: ____________ _________ _________ __ Details of Securities held by Promoter, Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), Director and other such persons as mentioned in Regulation 6(2) Name, PAN, CIN/DIN & address with contact nos. Category of Person (Promoters/ KMP / Directors/immedi ate relative to/others etc) Securities held as on the date of regulation coming into force % of Shareholding Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warrants, Convertible Debentures etc.) No. 1 2 3 4 5 Note: € ¢â' '¼Securities€ ¢â' '½ shall have the meaning as defined under regulation 2(1)(i) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. Details of Open Interest (OI) in derivatives of the company held by Promoter, Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), Director and other such persons as mentioned in Regulation 6(2) Open Interest of the Future contracts held as on the date of regulation coming into force Open Interest of the Option Contracts held as on the date of regulation coming into force Contract Specifications Number of units (contracts * lot size) Notional value in Rupee terms Contract Specifications Number of units (contracts * lot size) Notional value in Rupee terms 6 7 8 9 10 11 Note: In case of Options, notional value shall be calculated based on premium plus strike price of options Name & Signature: Designation: Date: Place: ******* Page 3 of 7 FORM B SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 [Regulation 7 (1) (b) read with Regulation 6(2) € ¢â' '³ Disclosure on becoming a director/KMP/ Promoter] Name of the company: ____________ _________ _________ __ ISIN of the company: ____________ _________ _________ __ Details of Securities held on appointment of Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) or Director or upon becoming a Promoter of a listed company and other such persons as mentioned in Regulation 6(2). Name, PAN, CIN/DIN & Address with contact nos. Category of Person (Promoters/ KMP / Directors/imm ediate relative to/others etc.) Date of appointment of Director /KMP OR Date of becoming Promoter Securities held at the time of becoming Promoter/appointmen t of Director/KMP % of Shareholding Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warrants, Convertible Debentures etc.) No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Note: € ¢â' '¼Securities€ ¢â' '½ shall have the meaning as defined under regulation 2(1)(i) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. Details of Open Interest (OI) in derivatives of the company held on appointment of Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) or Director or upon becoming a Promoter of a listed company and other such persons as mentioned in Regulation 6(2). Open Interest of the Future contracts held at the time of becoming Promoter/appointmen t of Director/KMP Open Interest of the Option Contracts held at the time of becoming Promoter/appointmen t of Director/KMP Contract specifications Number of units (contracts * lot size) Notional value in Rupee terms Contract specifications Number of units (contracts * lot size) Notional value in Rupee terms 7 8 9 10 11 12 Note: In case of Options, notional value shall be calculated based on premium plus strike price of options Name & Signature: Designation: Date: Place: ****** Page 4 of 7 FORM C SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 [Regulation 7 (2) read with Regulation 6(2) € ¢â' '³ Continual disclosure] Name of the company: ____________ _________ _________ __ ISIN of the company: ____________ _________ _________ __ Details of change in holding of Securities of Promoter, Employee or Director of a listed company and other such persons as mentioned in Regulation 6(2). Name, PAN, CIN/DIN, & address with contact nos. Categor y of Person (Promot ers/ KMP / Director s/immed iate relative to/other s etc.) Securities held prior to acquisition/ dispo sal Securities acquired/Disposed Securities held post acquisition/ disposal Date of allotment advice/ acquisition of shares/ sale of shares specify Date of intimation to company Mode of acquisition / disposal (on market/public/ rights/ preferential offer / off market/ Inter-se transfer, ESOPs etc.) Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warrants , Converti ble Debentur es etc.) No. and % of shareh olding Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warran ts, Convert ible Debent ures etc.) No. Valu e Transact ion Type (Buy/ Sale/ Pledge / Revoke/ Invoke) Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warrants , Converti ble Debentur es etc.) No. and % of shareholdi ng From To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Note: € ¢â' '¼Securities€ ¢â' '½ shall have the meaning as defined under regulation 2(1)(i) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. Page 5 of 7 Details of trading in derivatives of the company by Promoter, Employee or Director of a listed company and other such persons as mentioned in Regulation 6(2). Trading in derivatives (Specify type of contract, Futures or Options etc) Exchange on which the trade was executed Type of contract Contract specifications Buy Sell Notional Value Number of units (contracts * lot size) Notional Value Number of units (contracts * lot size) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Note: In case of Options, notional value shall be calculated based on Premium plus strike price of options. Name & Signature: Designation: Date: Place: ****** Page 6 of 7 FORM D (Indicative format) SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 Regulation 7(3) € ¢â' '³ Transactions by Other connected persons as identified by the company Details of trading in securities by other connected persons as identified by the company Name, PAN, CIN/DIN, & address with contact nos. of other connected persons as identified by the company Connect ion with compan y Securities held prior to acquisition/ dispo sal Securities acquired/Disposed Securities held post acquisition/ disposal Date of allotment advice/ acquisition of shares/ sale of shares specify Date of intimation to company Mode of acquisition/ dispos al (on market/public/ rights/ Preferential offer / off market/Interse transfer, ESOPs etc. ) Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warrants , Converti ble Debentur es etc.) No. and % of shareh olding Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warran ts, Convert ible Debent ures etc.) No. Valu e Transa ction Type (Buy/ Sale/ Pledge / Revoke /Invoke ) Type of security (For eg. € ¢â' '³ Shares, Warrants, Convertible Debentures etc.) No. and % of shareholding From To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Note: € ¢â' '¼Securities€ ¢â' '½ shall have the meaning as defined under regulation 2(1)(i) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. Page 7 of 7 Details of trading in derivatives by other connected persons as identified by the company Trading in derivatives (Specify type of contract, Futures or Options etc) Exchange on which the trade was executed Type of Contract Contract specifications Buy Sell Notional Value Number of units (contracts * lot size) Notional Value Number of units (contracts * lot size) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Note: In case of Options, notional value shall be calculated based on premium plus strike price of options. Name: Signature: Place: ********
Cus - Role of appellants in smuggling of diamonds under seizure is not established even on preponderance of probability, therefore, penalties set aside: CESTAT
MUMBAI : 623.13 carats of cut and polished diamonds valued at Rs. 31.65 lakhs were absolutely confiscated and penalties were imposed on Ms. Supaporn Vibbonwetwanich@ Ms.Kanchana, Mr. Nilesh B. Patel & Mr. Bhargav B. Patel of Rs.1 lakh, Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs respectively.
The appellants are before the Tribunal.
The sum and substance of the decade old case can be understood from the contents of the following application made before the Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise by Ms. Kanchana while admitting her duty liability of Rs. 2,11,415/- towards these seized goods and seeking immunity from imposition of any fine, penalty and prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962.
"1. One Courier parcel was sent by me, vide Fedex flight No. FX 0003 at C.S.I. Airport, Mumbai, in the name of one 'Shilpa Ben', vide Airway Bill NO. 8471 0932 6270.
2. In this courier parcel, declared as documents (of no commercial value), Cut & Polished diamonds (623.14 carats) worth FOB US $ 96,757.60 were neatly packed inside a Thai Directory, by making a cavity.
3. I wanted the diamonds to be cleared from Indian Customs without declaration.
4. I agree that i have deliberately mis-declared the goods covered vide the said courier parcel, for my own benefit. However, the said act was to encash the diamonds in the vast Indian Market, for licit importation of which I was not having any infrastructure in India.
5. I categorically say that though I work in M/s Bhargava Gems at Bangkok, neither Shri Nilesh B. Patel, nor Shri Bhargava Patel were aware of the fact that I had sent a courier parcel which contained diamonds. Nor any of them or any of the other noticees in the Show Cause Notice, is concerned with the seized diamonds.
6. I could not even inform them about having sent the parcel, as while I was about to make a call to India, I came to know that the courier parcel was seized by the Customs Authorities in India and that Shri Bhargava Patel was therefore inquiring from Shri Nilesh Patel, about the mis-declared courier parcel containing the diamonds. When Shri Nilesh Patel furiously inquired from me, I denied having any knowledge about the parcel, in the fear of loosing the good job, for having mis-utilised the Indian residential address of Shri Nilesh Patel and the name of Mrs. Shilpaben.
7. Several persons including their family and the courier people faced a lot of problems, which I regret.
8. I say that I have not conspired with M/s FEDEX or M/s Jeena & Company or any Customs officer.
9. A summons bearing no AKS/229/05 was received by me for appearance before the office of AIU, in connection with the said import of diamonds in a fraudulent manner. Vide letter dated 26-09-2005, I replied to the summons and informed the factual position to the AIU. A copy of the said letter is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-' A'. I claimed the diamonds and I also informed that I had invested my savings in these diamonds. I made efforts to recall the consignment, but I failed. I also informed that I chose to send the parcel at the Mumbai address of Shri Patel, in the name of "Shilpa Ben", as I knew them.
10. I say that I could have collected the parcel through "Mr. Jimmy" immediately upon delivery of the parcel at their residence, or could have even collected the same at the office of the courier company itself.
11. Vide this letter dated 26-09-2005, I categorically informed the officers of the Customs department that it was the first courier consignment sent by me.
12. A Show Cause Notice bearing F. No. SD/INT/AIU/UNI- 2/2005/STF dated 29/09/2005 has been received by me. The said Show Cause Notice is not annexed and marked as Exhibit - 'B' is a copy of the Show Cause Notice bearing F. No. SD/INT/AIU/UNI- 2/2005/STF dated 29/09/2005.
13. The imported diamonds have not been released, till the filing of the present Application, and continue to remain in seizure, since filing of the Bill of Entry no. 001330 dated 12-04-2005 filed by Jeena & Co. In form Courier Bill of Entry-III.
14. I say that I am owner of the seized diamonds and I am claiming the release of the diamonds, by accepting my true duty liability before this Hon'ble Commission. I say that I am not a habitual offender and I undertake that I will never indulge in such fraudulent practice in future.
15. I further say that in the true spirit of settlement I have disclosed my duty liability, which was not disclosed before the proper officer, I also say that the application fulfils all the parameters of section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore this Hon'ble Commission can consider this application for settlement of the issues mentioned herein."
Incidentally, the Settlement Commission dismissed the application filed for settlement of the case by Ms. Kanchana as not sustainable.
Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid admission made, the Bench while deciding the appeal filed by Ms. Kanchana observed thus -
+ We do not find any merit in her challenge to the imposition of penalty alleging it to be excessive.
+ Since the import of 'cut and polished diamonds' is not expressly prohibited under Section11of the Customs Act, 1962 or by any other statutory notification, we find merit in the ground that an option to redeem them on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation was mandatory. However, after conclusion of the hearing, on instructions, Advocate for Ms. Kanchna informed that now she will not avail the option of redemption even if granted. Therefore, we are not interfering with the order of absolute confiscation.
In the matter of appeals filed by Bhargava Patel and Nilesh Patel, the Tribunal observed -
"€ ¢â' ¦Although, the Adjudicating Authority observed that Bhargav Patel made conflicting and contradictory statements, however, there is no dispute on the fact that the parcel from which the diamonds under seizure were recovered was booked in the name of his sister Smt. Shilpaben without her knowledge, and was sent from Bangkok by Ms. Kanchana. Ms. Kanchana admitted in her Settlement Application that she could not even inform the Mr. Bhargav Patel or Mr. Nilesh B. Patel about having sent the parcel by courier which contained diamonds. The adjudicating authority has recorded that Ms. Kanchana appears to have been pressurized to file an affidavit giving untenable grounds such as non dutiability of the seized diamonds and conflicting reasons for sending concealed diamonds for collection by Jimmy who was not even known to Shri Bhargav Patel or his parents in India. We find that on the contrary she admitted her duty liability not only before Settlement Commission but also during the adjudication proceedings. There is no cogent evidence to show that she was so pressurized and this finding is based only on suspicion. There is no document or material or circumstantial evidence showing that Bhargava Patel had placed any order either verbal or written, or made compensatory payment, for the seized diamonds. In view of the above, we find that role of Mr. Bhargav Patel and Nilesh Patel in the smuggling of the diamonds under seizure is not established even on preponderance of probability and penalties imposed on them are set aside."
In fine, the appeal filed by Ms. Kanchana was dismissed and those filed by Bhargav B. Patel and Mr. Nilesh Patel were allowed.
(See 2015-TIOL-1951- CESTAT-MUM)
Income-Tax Department investigations had earlier revealed that between 2008 and 2014, during which Yadav Singh held several sensitive posts with the Noida, Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway authorities, contracts valued at Rs.2,551.03 crore were awarded to builders and contractors. The CBI has obtained the Income-Tax report, contents of which have been accessed by The Hindu .
Mr. Singh was given important portfolios during the Bahujan Samaj Party government. Though he was suspended in 2012 on corruption charges after the Samajwadi Party came to power in Uttar Pradesh, he was re-instated within months. The Noida police closed the case against him.
Based on the findings in the income tax report, the IT Department has pegged an undisclosed amount of about Rs.130 crore allegedly amassed by Mr. Singh only through commission.
Contents of a spiral-note seized from an assistant project engineer, Ramendra Kumar, who allegedly worked for Yadav Singh and managed his records of illegal transactions, revealed that the commission amounts were also being distributed among other senior officials of the authorities in the Project, Maintenance and Account divisions.
Illegal commissions
Ramendra and accountant Pradeep Sharma, in their statement to the Income-Tax Department, have allegedly accepted receiving illegal commissions in collusion with the main accused. The CBI is probing their role in the case.
The CBI has obtained a copy of the spiral-note, in which names of some suspected officials, contractors, their phone numbers and detail of several transactions were given.
The agency suspects that the amount obtained through commission was used to acquire properties, including purchase of large parcels of agricultural land in the name of Yadav Singh's wife Kusum Lata in Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Delhi, Agra and other places. Financial experts have been roped in to study the property documents.
A dozen such agriculture land valued at about Rs.25 crore, although shown on paper to have been bought for only Rs.90 lakh, have been identified. The CBI suspects that most of the payments were made in cash.
Besides, it is alleged that Yadav Singh and his wife acquired properties through a charitable trust, in which she is a trustee.
The CBI is probing if € ¢â' '¼illicit€ ¢â' '½ money was also invested in several companies in the form of share capital and share premium through chartered accountants.
Given that the IT Department had conducted searches against Maaconns Group and Meenu Group for alleged links with Yadav Singh and his wife, the CBI has also initiated investigations to ascertain the nature of their involvement.
There are allegations that he charged five per cent commission for allotting a project
Blaming advisors for grave lapses in offer document, untenable; Management guilty
SEBI prohibits Brooks Laboratories Ltd. and its senior management (Managing Director, CEO, CFO, Company Secretary, 'Noticees') from raising any further capital / dealing in securities market for 5 years, observes grave disclosure lapses in its IPO's Offer Document amounting to non-compliance of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations & SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations; Observes that company's board of directors had approved raising of money through Inter Corporate Deposits ('ICD'), however such material fact was not disclosed in Offer Document, holds that "this clearly reveals that liability arising from repayment of ICDs was effectively tagged to IPO proceeds thereby indicating that ICDs were nothing but a bridge loan taken by the Noticees"; Rejects Noticees' contention that Book Running Lead Manager's ('BRLM') advised against disclosing these facts , holds that Noticees cannot absolve themselves of their responsibility from making prompt, true and fair disclosure of all material developments in RHP/Offer Document; Rejects noticees contention that there was adequate disclosure / no misstatement of material information in RHP/Offer Document and all acts were bona-fide in nature and under supervision of company management, holds that "Brooks, though a legal entity, cannot act by itself. It can act only through its Board/Management/Key Managerial Personnel etc. In respect of allegation of siphoning off funds, the persons in charge of day to day affairs of the Company viz. Directors/Management/Key Managerial Personnel are indeed responsible for the fraudulent activities"; SEBI relies on SAT ruling in HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs SEBI, V. Natarajan Vs SEBI and SC ruling in N. Narayanan v. Adjudicating Officer SEBI:SEBI
The order was passed by S. Raman, Wholetime Member, SEBI
LSI Note:
SEBI had prohibited Merchant Banker from taking new assignments / involvement for 5 years, for his failure to exercise "professional judgment" and "diligence". SEBI had held that the Merchant Banker failed to seek clarification about improper disclosure in financial statements which showed lapses in discharging its legal obligations and conducting proper due diligence exercise [LSI-86- SEBI-2014-(MUM)]. SEBI had penalised Brooks Laboratories Ltd., its top management for non-disclosure of material information in IPO Offer Document, siphoning off IPO proceeds and 'wrong declaration' in Offer Document [LSI-282- SEBI-2015-(MUM)].
SEBI : Associate co's employee not 'employee' under SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations
SEBI amends SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations, 2014, alters definition of 'employee'; Omits 'a permanent employee' & 'director' of an 'associate co.' from the purview of 'employee'; Separately, clarifies that when a employee benefit scheme is being implemented through trust, the trust shall be required to hold the shares acquired through secondary acquisition for a minimum period of six months except where they are required to be transferred "whether off-market or on the platform of stock exchange"; Further amends the repeal clause, states that trust holding shares under any scheme which are shown either as 'promoter' or 'public' shareholding, shall be permitted to continue to be shown as such for a further period of only 'three' years instead of 'five' years earlier; Inserts a clause that trustees of a trust may continue to vote in respect of shares held by such trust for a period of three years, commencing from October 28, 2014 (date of enactment of SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations, 2014) : SEBI
Click here to read more.
SEBI repeals SEBI (Procedure for Search and Seizure) Regulations, 2014
SEBI repeals Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Search and Seizure) Regulations, 2014 : SEBI
Click here to read more.
Recent Articles
- Understanding of CSR
- Stop procrastinating - Ahh later !!
- Age of digital connect. Are we slowly losing the emotional one
- Loan to companies in which directors are interested
- How to incorporate a Private Company in India?
- Professional involvement in preparation of annual return
- 4 weird facts about the Chinese stock market
- Basic about income tax department
- Quick tips and inspiration for CA students
- Section 8 Company
Online Classes
- You can view all the demo videos here
- CCI online coaching faculty details
- View Details of subjects available in online mode
- Become a Microsoft Excel Ninja
- Winning ways-Skill set to crack CA exams
- Information Systems Control Audit
- Certified Information Systems Auditor(CISA) Program
- Financial Modeling
- Indirect Tax Laws
- Strategic Financial Management
- Direct Tax Laws
- New Income Tax,Service tax and VAT
- CPT Accounts
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Recent Jobs
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment