Healthy Eating Made Easy
Whether you love cooking or want to make food healthier
and more nutritious, you first need to know what is beneficial and what isn't when it comes to food preparation. This infographic makes healthy cooking clear and simple, saving you time, money and your well-being.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't
matter and those who matter don't mind." ~ Dr. Seuss
Dismisses CLB 'perverse' order holding respondent co. as 'quasi-partnership', without application of mind
Bombay HC dismisses appeal filed by legal heirs ('appellants') of Ex-Chairman (holding 46.71% shares) against CLB order rejecting Section 397/398 petition, also sets aside direction for adequate representation on respondent co.'s board; CLB had observed that appellants had failed to make out a case of harsh, burdensome and wrongful conduct on Respondent's part u/s 397/398 and had held that mere procedural defects / irregularities in shares transfer could not be held 'oppressive', and had also rejected the contention that company's funds were mismanaged; Rejects CLB's conclusion of terming respondent co. as 'quasi-partnership', states that there has been complete non-application of mind / untenable approach on CLB's part, observes that there is no provisions in articles to show that members could participate in co. management, no proof presented to show that respondent co. was formed on basis of mutual confidence between shareholders, no provision in Articles for members' shareholding to be in any particular ratio, also observes that board of directors have changed from time to time; Observes that shareholding is disputed and states that "direction that an adequate representation should be given to Appellants without indicating what is meant by such adequate representation is clearly impermissible and cannot be sustained", terms CLB's such approach as 'perverse':Bombay HC
The ruling was delivered by Justice S.C. Gupte
Advocate V.P. Sawant argued for Appellants, while Advocates Sean Wassodew, Rupesh Mandhare, Inderprakash Tripathi, Bhagyashri Gawas represented the Respondents.
India most attractive FDI destination; Pearl Agrotech promoters move SC; Vodafone IPO on anvil: CEO
India most attractive FDI destination; Pearl Agrotech promoters move SC; Vodafone IPO on anvil: CEO
Dear Professional Colleague,
Please find below the gist of SEBI circular w.r.t. the format of listing agreement for listed companies
SEBI introduces uniform format of Listing Agreement for listed companies
The Securities and Exchange Board of India has issued a circular no. CIR/CFD/CMD/6/2015 dated 13th October, 2015 to provide a uniform format of the listing agreement for the listed companies. A listing agreement is the agreement which is required to be executed with the stock exchange and which will now remain the same across all the listed entities for all types of securities.
A listed entity which has previously entered into agreement(s) with a recognised Stock Exchange(s) to list its securities shall execute a fresh listing agreement with such Stock Exchange within six months of the date of notification of SEBI Listing Regulations i.e. September 2, 2015.
Please click at the link above to access the complete circular.
Happy Learning!!
eMinds Legal
Please find below the gist of SEBI circular w.r.t. the format of listing agreement for listed companies
SEBI introduces uniform format of Listing Agreement for listed companies
The Securities and Exchange Board of India has issued a circular no. CIR/CFD/CMD/6/2015 dated 13th October, 2015 to provide a uniform format of the listing agreement for the listed companies. A listing agreement is the agreement which is required to be executed with the stock exchange and which will now remain the same across all the listed entities for all types of securities.
A listed entity which has previously entered into agreement(s) with a recognised Stock Exchange(s) to list its securities shall execute a fresh listing agreement with such Stock Exchange within six months of the date of notification of SEBI Listing Regulations i.e. September 2, 2015.
Please click at the link above to access the complete circular.
Happy Learning!!
eMinds Legal
Dismisses SEBI's decision rejecting Self-Regulatory Organization registration application, natural justice principle violated
SAT sets aside SEBI's decision of approving Institution for Mutual Fund Intermediaries ('respondent') as Self Regulatory Organization for distributing Mutual Fund products in terms of SEBI (Self Regulatory Organizations) Regulations, 2004 ('SRO Regulations'); Peruses Regulation 10 of SRO Regulations, observes that SEBI had not given opportunity of hearing mandatorily required the Regulation; Rejects SEBI's contention that Regulation 10 had no application in the present case because SRO Regulations were framed in 2004 wherein multiple SROs were envisaged, however, by amending it in 2013, only one SRO was envisaged, holds that since Regulation 10 was not amended, "it is not open to SEBI to contend that regulation 10 of SRO Regulations would not apply while selecting a single SRO for distributors of mutual fund products."; However, SAT rejects appellant's (whose SRO application was rejected by SEBI) contention that since respondent did not have certificate of incorporation, it was not registered u/s 25 of Cos Act, 1956, thus SEBI could not approve its application; Observes that since licence was granted to respondent u/s 25, it was eligible to apply under SRO Regulations, holds that "under Section 25 of the 1956 Act holding license is of paramount consideration and registration under Section 25(2) of 1956 Act follows grant of license under Section 25(1) of the 1956 Act. Therefore, reading various provisions of SRO Regulations together, it becomes abundantly clear that any group or association of intermediaries holding a license under Section 25 of the 1956 Act with a direction for being registered as a company under Section 25(2) of the 1956 Act is eligible to apply under regulation 3 of the SRO Regulations..":SAT
The order was passed by Justice J.P. Devadhar (Presiding Officer) and Shri. Jog Singh (Member, SAT).
Senior Advocate Darius J. Khambata alongwith Advocates Sandeep Parekh, Anil Choudhary and Rajneesh Deka argued for the Appellant. Respondets were represented by Senior Advocates Fredun Devitre and Shiraz Rustomjee alongwith Advocates Nishit Dhruva, Chirag Bhavsar, Khushbu Chajjed, Somasekhar Sundaresan, Paras Parekh and Dhaval Kothari.
Sales-Tax Dept. not 'enterprise', absent economic activity; Dismisses 'abuse of dominance' complaint
CCI rejects Taj Pharmaceuticals & its top officials' ('informants') complaint against Dept. of Sale Tax/ Professional tax (Opposite Party, 'OP'), as OP not 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act; Informant alleged that OP had abused its dominance by asking informants to register their non-operational cos. under Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 ('Professional Tax Act') and by lodging an FIR against it; CCI holds that OP was merely carrying out the sovereign function of Govt. as stated in Article 276 of the Constitution of India which deals with 'taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments'; Observes that no economic activity was carried out by OPs to be covered under 'enterprise', holds that, "the nature of the activities undertaken by OP 1 do not fall within the ambit of section 2(h) of the Act.. the alleged abusive conduct of OP 1 need not be examined under the provisions of section 4 of the Act."; Further observes that grievances of informants arising out of lodging of FIR, etc. do not have any bearing on competition in the market and appropriate forum exists under Professional Tax Act for redressal of such issues:CCI
The Order was passed by Shri. Ashok Chawla (Chairperson), Shri. S. L. Bunker, Shri. Sudhir Mital, Shri. Augustine Peter, Shri. U.C. Nahta, Shri. M. S. Sahoo, Justice (Retd.) Shri. G.P. Mittal (Members)
LSI Note:
CCI in a complaint against Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority ('IRDA') had held that IRDA was not an 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act. [LSI-127-CCI-2014-(NDEL)]. In another case, CCI had held that Registrar of Co-operative Societies discharging statutory & regulatory duties was not an 'enterprise'. [LSI-189-CCI-2014-(NDEL)]. CCI had also rejected a complaint against Public Works (B&R) Department, Government of Haryana holding it to be not an 'enterprise'. [LSI-244-CCI-2015-(NDEL)]
Finance Ministry has made it easier to claim tax benefit on expenditure with regard to serious ailments like thal assaemia, cancer, AIDS and haemophilia by doing away with the requirement of obtaining a certificate from a government hospital.
Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued a notification amending Rule 11DD of the Income Tax Act to facilitate this.
The amended rule relaxes the condition of obtaining the certificate for claiming expenditure under section 80DDB in respect of specified ailments from a specialist working in a government hospital, the Finance Ministry said.
"As per amended Rule 11DD, the prescription can be issued by any specialist mentioned in the amended rule. Henceforth, it will not be mandatory to obtain a certificate from a specialist working in a government hospital," it said.
Under 80DDB, a deduction of up to Rs 40,000 is allowed for treatment of ailments of serious nature.
The deduction is in case of senior citizen is Rs 60,000 and Rs 80,000 for very senior citizen (above age of 80 years). The tax benefit is given to the assessee or dependents. The dependents include spouse, parents, brother and sister.
Under the existing provisions, a certificate in the prescribed form from a specialist working in a government hospital is required. That specialist can be a neurologist, oncologist, urologist, haematologist, immunologist or any other doctor.
The requirement of a certificate from a doctor working in a government hospital was causing undue hardship to the persons intending to claim the deduction.
Government hospitals at many places do not have doctors specialising in such branches of medicine.
"For this and other reasons, it may be difficult for the taxpayer to obtain a certificate from a government hospital.
"In view of the above, it is proposed to amend section 80DDB so as to provide that the assessee will be required to obtain a prescription from a specialist doctor for the purpose of availing this deduction," the Ministry had said in the Union Budget 2015-16.
The tax benefit was announced by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in his last Budget speech.
Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued a notification amending Rule 11DD of the Income Tax Act to facilitate this.
The amended rule relaxes the condition of obtaining the certificate for claiming expenditure under section 80DDB in respect of specified ailments from a specialist working in a government hospital, the Finance Ministry said.
"As per amended Rule 11DD, the prescription can be issued by any specialist mentioned in the amended rule. Henceforth, it will not be mandatory to obtain a certificate from a specialist working in a government hospital," it said.
Under 80DDB, a deduction of up to Rs 40,000 is allowed for treatment of ailments of serious nature.
The deduction is in case of senior citizen is Rs 60,000 and Rs 80,000 for very senior citizen (above age of 80 years). The tax benefit is given to the assessee or dependents. The dependents include spouse, parents, brother and sister.
Under the existing provisions, a certificate in the prescribed form from a specialist working in a government hospital is required. That specialist can be a neurologist, oncologist, urologist, haematologist, immunologist or any other doctor.
The requirement of a certificate from a doctor working in a government hospital was causing undue hardship to the persons intending to claim the deduction.
Government hospitals at many places do not have doctors specialising in such branches of medicine.
"For this and other reasons, it may be difficult for the taxpayer to obtain a certificate from a government hospital.
"In view of the above, it is proposed to amend section 80DDB so as to provide that the assessee will be required to obtain a prescription from a specialist doctor for the purpose of availing this deduction," the Ministry had said in the Union Budget 2015-16.
The tax benefit was announced by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in his last Budget speech.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment