REQUIRED FOR TAKE OVER
NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY
( AS PER RBI GUIDELINES )
OR
CO-OPERATIVE BANK
CONTACT:
A.K. JAIN
NEW DELHI
TELEPHONE: 98-100-46108
EMAIL: caindia@hotmail.com
__._,_.___
Sunday, May 31, 2015
[aaykarbhavan] REQUIRED FOR TAKE OVER - NBFC OR CO-OPERATIVE BANK - URGENT
__._,_.___
Posted by: "TJA INDIA" <tjaindia@yahoo.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
__,_._,___
[aaykarbhavan] source Business standard
| Getting insider trading norms right |
|
The new insider trading norms, which replaced the prohibition of insider trading norms of 1992, kicked in on May 15. These mandate every listed firm, registered intermediary, law firm and audit firm to have their own model code of conduct to prevent insider trading. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) guidelines clearly state companies have to come out with specific customised codes of conduct, based on guiding principles provided by the regulator. The regulations stipulate a company draft a minimum standard and principle- based code of conduct and have fair disclosures to prevent insider trading by employees or the management. "It is a very important departure from the prevention of insider trading regulations of 1992. In the earlier regime, the regulator had defined the model conduct of conduct. Now, however, Sebi has defined minimum standards that need to be followed to regulate insider trading, as well as principles to be followed for fair disclosure of material information," says Lalit Kumar, partner, J Sagar Associates. This ensures companies have to follow the model code of conduct guidelines devised by them, against a tick- the- box approach earlier. "Unlike the previous insider trading regulatory regime wherein the vast majority of listed companies and market intermediaries would simply replicate the model code of conduct prescribed in the regulations, the new regulations require them to be more creative in drafting their own codes, while following certain basic standards and governance principles," says Tejesh Chitlangi, partner, IC Legal. But even after 15 days of the new norms kicking in, many listed firms and other entities are yet to have a code of conduct with the new insider trading regulations in place. While some claim ignorance of the fact that they need to have a company- specific code, others are waiting for contemporaries to start the process. "Out of ignorance or due to lack of deterrence in the absence of precedents wherein strict actions have been taken for violation of non- maintenance of such codes of conduct, the number of listed companies and market intermediaries that have already complied with the new requirements seems to be low," said Chitlangi. A consultant who interacts with companies on insider trading regulations pointed to the fact that companies largely in line with the new regulations might not want to revisit their code of conduct to prevent insider trading. Vaneesa Abhishek, advocate in the Bombay High Court, says, " As a good corporate governance practice, companies should revisit their code of conduct and tailor these according to the new requirements and profile of the company. This will help minimise the risk of individuals inadvertently indulging in insider trading." Some privy to the developments say companies are yet to realise the importance of complying with the new regulations and having a code of conduct in place. For instance, the recent order by the markets regulator against the Murugappa Group chief and three others on charges of insider trading was an ex- parte order — it didn't require all parties to be present. "The regulator is going to increase its enforcement action against cases of insider trading. It won't only attach assets equivalent to the trade, but also include penalties," said a source. At a recently concluded Sebi international advisory board meeting, it was sought the regulator step up enforcement on cases of insider trading. With stringent regulations in place and the regulator's intent to boost enforcement, it is imperative that companies tailor- make their codes of conduct. Companies could also consider roping in lawyers to brief employees on what construes as insider trade, as well as the disclosures needed to prevent such practices. The new insider trading regulations do not consider mutual funds as securities. However, the regulator will charge any purchase and sale of a security on prior knowledge that an asset management company intends to trade in the same security under front running, as part of mutual fund regulations. " To ascertain that the employee had no prior knowledge of the mutual fund's intended transactions, the compliance officer may take a declaration in this regard from the employee," the mutual fund regulations state. MUTUAL FUNDS TO BE CHARGED UNDER FRONT- RUNNING |A compliance officer has to be designated; he will report to the board of directors |The compliance officer will put in place policies and enforce these to preserve price- sensitive information |He will formulate and publish ( on the company's official website), a code of practices and procedures for fair disclosure of unpublished price- sensitive information |He will define all the relevant terms in conformation with new prohibition of insider trading norms; these terms include securities, insiders and unpublished price- sensitive information |The officer has to ensure the senior management reports transactions in securities SEBI'S INSIDER TRADING CODE OF CONDUCT CHECKLIST New Sebi guidelines seek customised codes of conduct, doing away with a tick- the- box approach In the earlier regime, the regulator had defined the model conduct of conduct. Now, Sebi has defined minimum standards that need to be followed to regulate insider trading |
| BRIEF CASE N M J ANTONY |
|
Developers of housing projects with commercial complexes imbedded in them can claim deduction of 100 per cent of profits subject to certain conditions. The income tax authorities have been denying this benefit so far though several high courts had granted it to the builders. The tax authorities appealed against each of the high court judgment to the Supreme Court. In one sweep, the court has dismissed all the appeals and upheld the high court decisions in the judgment, CIT vs Sarkar Builders. The tax authorities denied the benefit arguing that they were not " housing projects" inasmuch as some commercial activity was also undertaken there, like shops, clinics, offices of lawyers and chartered accountants. The benefit of the judgment will go to builders who finished their projects on or after April 1, 2005, though the local authorities might have sanctioned them much earlier, and the construction started before that date. The relevant provision, section 80IB ( 10)( d) of the Income Tax Act, was amended prospectively on that date. The dispute was over a condition inserted in 2005 stipulating that the built- up area of commercial establishments in the housing projects would not exceed three per cent of the aggregate built- up area of the housing project or 5,000 sq feet, whichever was higher. The court ruled that the housing projects with commercial elements could claim the deductions prospectively. Claim of back- to- back contract rejected The contract between an authority and its contractor cannot be linked "back- to- back" with the subcontractors of the contractor, Supreme Court has stated in its arbitration judgment, Ircon International Ltd vs Vinay Heavy Equipment. In this case, Ircon was a successful tenderer for building roads in an industrial complex in Tamil Nadu. It sub- contracted two packages of work to Vinay firm. The latter did not complete its part, leading to two arbitration cases, Ircon wanted the authority to make the payment to it while the subcontractor wanted its payment from Ircon. The latter said it would pay the dues when it received payment from Ircon, arguing that it was a back- to- back contract. The arbitrator did not agree with it and gave the award in favour of the sub- contractor. He ruled that Ercon, was primarily liable to its sub- contractor, rejecting the argument of back- to- back liability. Ercon appealed to the Madras High Court, but both the single judge and the division bench dismissed its petition. Supreme Court affirmed the high court view starting that " in the absence of a covenant in the main contract to the contrary, the relationship between the employer and the main contractor on the one hand and between the sub- contractor and the main contractor on the other will be quite distinct and separate." Road victim can choose who will pay When a person suffers injuries in a road accident due to the combined negligence or wrong- doing of others, the victim can sue any one of the guilty persons and that person is bound to pay the full compensation. The victim can choose the person against whom he wants to make the claim, weighing that person's capacity to pay. This rule of torts was reiterated by Supreme Court last month in its judgment, Khenyei vs New India Assurance. This was a group of appeals by victims. In one typical case, the victim was injured in a collision between a bus, insured by New India, and a trailer truck. The liability for compensation was disputed by all the parties including the insurer. The judgment summed up the law on the subject thus: i) the owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or anyone of them. ( ii) There cannot be apportionment of liability of the guilty persons. In case all of them are sued, the claims tribunal shall decide the issue. After satisfying the demand of the victim, the guilty persons can sue each other and recover their entitlements. Taxmen lose case against Lufthansa The Delhi High Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Director of Income Tax against Lufthansa Cargo India Ltd which had paid for technical services from a German firm. The firm wet- leased four jets and it was granted the licence by the DGCA to operate them on international routes only. The aircraft were not used by any other airline in India. Consequently, there were no facilities in India for their overhaul and repairs. However, according to DGCA directives various components and the aircraft themselves had to undergo periodic overhaul in workshops authorised for the purpose by the manufacturer as well as duly approved by the DGCA. The overhaul was done by another firm in Germany. The revenue authorities noticed that no tax was deducted at source on payments to the German unit though the payments were in the nature of " fees for technical services" defined in section 9( 1)( vii)( b) of the Income Tax Act. They rejected the firm's plea that the payments for repairs were incurred for earning income from sources outside India and therefore exempted. The tax tribunal and the high court ruled that the firm was right stating that " the operations were abroad, and the expenses towards maintenance and repairs payments were for the purpose of earning abroad."> Insurer to pay forwrong weatherdata The National Consumer Commission, last week, directed ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co to settle the claims of 73 farmers of Durg district of Chhattisgarh who had suffered wheat crop damage due to reliance on wrong weather data. They were covered by the Pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The insurance premium is paid in equal proportion by the central and state governments. The scheme was devised to protect farmers from the vagaries of the weather, especially the availability of the requisite moisture and ambient temperature, all through the agricultural operations from sowing to harvest. Under the scheme, ICICI is responsible for establishing and operating weather centres for monitoring of the temperature and rain parameters for the purposes of determination of loss. The farmers complained that the insurer gave them a " manipulated chart" relating to temperature and they suffered losses. The response of the company was scant, " except bland denials". It did not even explain the basis of calculations adopted by it for rejection of the claims of these farmers. So the commission directed the authorities to settle the claims within three months on the basis of the Indian Meteorological Department data of the relevant period. A weekly selection of key court orders |
__._,_.___
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
__,_._,___
[aaykarbhavan] Business Standard
__._,_.___
Posted by: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.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
__,_._,___
[aaykarbhavan] Judgments and Infomration , C L I G S T R , C L I I T R Tribunal. C L I I T R
INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)
Capital gains --Transfer--Transaction not regarded as transfer--Effect of section 47--Meaning of “sole proprietary concernâ€--Proprietary concern carrying on systematic activity of holding investment--Sale of all its assets and liabilities to a company--Gains not assessable as capital gains--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 45, 47-- CIT v. Vikram Vishwanath (Karn) . . . 419
Collection of tax at source --Timber--Meaning of timber obtained “by any mode other than under a forest leaseâ€--Expression includes importers of timber--Section 206C applicable to importers--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 44AC, 206C-- Hillwood Furniture P. Ltd. v. ITO (Ker) . . . 399
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal --Administration of justice--Expression of opinions must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint--Adverse remarks against assessee and his representative and imposition of costs--Not justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254(2)-- Madhukar B. Thakoor v. ITAT (Bom) . . . 1
Appeal to High Court --Maintainability of appeal--Monetary ceiling limits--Instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes only regulating monetary limits and not restricting right to file an appeal--Scope of section 268A--Instructions mandatory and binding on Revenue--National Litigation Policy, 2011--Instruction No. 3 apply pending cases also--Appeal not falling within exception provided--No cascading effect involved in appeal--Appeal only filed because tax effect above monetary limit--Appeal not maintainable--Instruction No. 1979, dated 27-3-2000--Instruction No. 3 of 2011, dated 9-2-2011--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 260A, 268A-- CIT v. Shyam Biri Works (All) . . . 68
----Maintainability--Rectification of order by Tribunal--Order passed by Tribunal on application under section 254(2)--Not an order passed in appeal--Not appealable--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 254(1), (2), 260A-- CIT v. Saroop Tanneries Ltd. (P&H) . . . 20
Assessment --Gross profit rate--Estimation merely on basis of figure for preceding year--Quantitative tally of all raw materials consumed in making of final marketable product available on record--Commissioner (Appeals) should have addressed himself to issue and rendered clear findings--Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh examination--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 145(2)-- R. L. Traders v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 22
Association of persons --Finding that joint venture formed only to secure contract--Each partner’s task distinctly outlined--Entire work split between two partners--Partners completing task through sub-contracts--Partners responsible for satisfaction of contract--Joint venture not to be treated as association of persons liable to tax--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 2(31)-- CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers P. and KMC Construction P. Ltd.--JV (Delhi) . . . 35
Business expenditure --Capital or revenue expenditure--Business of selling mobile hand sets and other electronic items and accessories--Advertisement expenditure--Unless assessee made its products known to market its business would suffer--Expenditure revenue in nature--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v. Spice Distribution Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 30
----Deduction only on actual payment--Loan availed of by assessee for one year--Interest not payable--No question of disallowance of claim--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 43B-- CIT v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 101
----Scientific research expenditure--Expenditure recognised by competent authority--Provision not warranting capitalisation of amount in books of account--Allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 35-- CIT v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 101
Capital or revenue expenditure --Amount paid to sister concern of assessee for use of intranet facility--Principle of consistency--Department accepting consistently payments made for use of intranet facility as revenue expenditure--Actual payments in respect of service availed of by assessee--Revenue expenditure--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Denso India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 62
----Business expenditure--Expenditure for technical services--Revenue expenditure--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37(1)-- CIT v. Denso India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 62
----Expenditure on royalty--Principle of consistency--Department accepting consistently payments towards royalty as revenue expenditure--No new fact or development--Revenue expenditure--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Denso India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 62
----Expenditure on technical know-how--Depreciation available in respect of that amount--Not a reason to deny--Assessee entitled to deduction--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 35AB-- CIT v. Denso India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 62
Donation to charitable institutions --Special deduction--Renewal of approval denied to institution on ground objects religious in nature--Tribunal finding training, medical care and concession provided to all persons irrespective of their caste, creed or religion--Findings not shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner--Assessee entitled to exemption--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80G(5)-- CIT v. Christian Medical College (P&H) . . . 17
Fringe benefit tax --Employer and employee relationship is a pre-requisite for levy of fringe benefit tax--Subscription to Tata brand equity contribution under contractual agreement between assessee and group companies--No employer-employee relationship exists between them--Assessee not liable to pay fringe benefit tax--Circular No. 8 of 2005, dated 29-8-2005--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 115W, 115WA-- CIT (LTU) v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (Bom) . . . 112
Income --Computation--Expenditure not incurred in relation to total income--Disallowance of expenditure relating to non-taxable income--Assessing Officer has to adopt average value of investment of which income is not part of total income--Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to work out tax effect--Income-tax Rules, 1962 r. 8D--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 14A-- ACB India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 108
Industrial undertaking --Special deduction--Mercantile system of accounting--Profits of business--Transport subsidy--Not direct source of profit--Assessee cannot raise a new plea that it had received part of subsidy and not the whole--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IB-- Maken Cement Industries v. CIT (P&H) . . . 25
Non-resident --International transactions--Transfer pricing--Scope of provisions--Computation of arm’s length price--Difference between section 37 and transfer pricing--Methods of computing arm’s length price--Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses--Is international transaction--Transfer pricing applicable--Power of Transfer Pricing Officer to make adjustment in absence of specific reference--Guide lines for making adjustments--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 92, 92B, 92C, 92CA--Income-tax Rules, 1962, r. 10B-- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 118
Penalty --Concealment of income--Wrong deduction--No concealment of particulars--No inaccuracy in particulars of income--Not to be equated with concealment--Penalty not to be imposed--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- CIT v. Hongo India P. Ltd. (All) . . . 48
----Failure to file audit report in time--Assessing Officer failing to record his satisfaction in assessment order--No penalty leviable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271B-- CIT v. E. C. C. Project Pvt. Ltd. (All) . . . 44
Reassessment --Notice--Change of opinion--Depreciation--Mere description of depreciation claimed as terminal depreciation--Not a ground for reopening assessment on ground that there was no provision to allow terminal depreciation--Nothing to show that Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment--Reassessment not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 32, 147-- CIT v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (Bom) . . . 104
Refund --Interest--Delayed payment of interest--No amount over and above statutory interest payable to assessee--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 244A-- CIT v. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 56
Search and seizure --Block assessment--Undisclosed income--Assessment of third person--Limitation--Notice issued to assessee after lapse of enormous and unexplained delay--Proceedings vitiated--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 158BD-- CIT v. Apna Organics P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 55
----Block assessment--Undisclosed income--Assessment of third persons--Police recovering cash from possession of three persons--Persons stating cash belonging to assessee who in reply to query stating cash belonging to firm--No search warrant in name of assessee--No assets requisitioned from assessee--No warrant or requisition issued either in name of firm or assessee--No notice could be issued in name of assessee--Block assessment against assessee not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 158BC, 158BD-- CIT v. Anil Kumar Chadha (All) . . . 10
Tea development allowance --Investment of surplus funds in short-term deposits--Interest--Business income--To be taken into account for purposes of benefit--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 33AB-- Warren Tea Ltd. v. CIT (Cal) . . . 6
S. 2(31) --Association of persons--Finding that joint venture formed only to secure contract--Each partner’s task distinctly outlined--Entire work split between two partners--Partners completing task through sub-contracts--Partners responsible for satisfaction of contract--Joint venture not to be treated as association of persons liable to tax-- CIT v. Oriental Structural Engineers P. and KMC Construction P. Ltd.--JV (Delhi) . . . 35
S. 14A --Income--Computation--Expenditure not incurred in relation to total income--Disallowance of expenditure relating to non-taxable income--Assessing Officer has to adopt average value of investment of which income is not part of total income--Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to work out tax effect-- ACB India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 108
S. 32 --Reassessment--Notice--Change of opinion--Depreciation--Mere description of depreciation claimed as terminal depreciation--Not a ground for reopening assessment on ground that there was no provision to allow terminal depreciation--Nothing to show that Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment--Reassessment not valid-- CIT v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (Bom) . . . 104
S. 33AB --Tea development allowance--Investment of surplus funds in short-term deposits--Interest--Business income--To be taken into account for purposes of benefit-- Warren Tea Ltd. v. CIT (Cal) . . . 6
S. 35 --Business expenditure--Scientific research expenditure--Expenditure recognised by competent authority--Provision not warranting capitalisation of amount in books of account--Allowable-- CIT v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 101
S. 35AB --Capital or revenue expenditure--Expenditure on technical know-how--Depreciation available in respect of that amount--Not a reason to deny--Assessee entitled to deduction-- CIT v. Denso India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 62
S. 37 --Business expenditure--Capital or revenue expenditure--Business of selling mobile hand sets and other electronic items and accessories--Advertisement expenditure--Unless assessee made its products known to market its business would suffer--Expenditure revenue in nature-- CIT v. Spice Distribution Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 30
S. 37(1) --Capital or revenue expenditure--Business expenditure--Expenditure for technical services--Revenue expenditure-- CIT v. Denso India Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 62
S. 43B --Business expenditure--Deduction only on actual payment--Loan availed of by assessee for one year--Interest not payable--No question of disallowance of claim-- CIT v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 101
S. 80G(5) --Donation to charitable institutions--Special deduction--Renewal of approval denied to institution on ground objects religious in nature--Tribunal finding training, medical care and concession provided to all persons irrespective of their caste, creed or religion--Findings not shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner--Assessee entitled to exemption-- CIT v. Christian Medical College (P&H) . . . 17
S. 80-IB --Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Mercantile system of accounting--Profits of business--Transport subsidy--Not direct source of profit--Assessee cannot raise a new plea that it had received part of subsidy and not the whole-- Maken Cement Industries v. CIT (P&H) . . . 25
S. 92 --Non-resident--International transactions--Transfer pricing--Scope of provisions--Computation of arm’s length price--Difference between section 37 and transfer pricing--Methods of computing arm’s length price--Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses--Is international transaction--Transfer pricing applicable--Power of Transfer Pricing Officer to make adjustment in absence of specific reference--Guide lines for making adjustments--Matter remanded-- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 118
S. 92B --Non-resident--International transactions--Transfer pricing--Scope of provisions--Computation of arm’s length price--Difference between section 37 and transfer pricing--Methods of computing arm’s length price--Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses--Is international transaction--Transfer pricing applicable--Power of Transfer Pricing Officer to make adjustment in absence of specific reference--Guide lines for making adjustments--Matter remanded-- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 118
S. 92C --Non-resident--International transactions--Transfer pricing--Scope of provisions--Computation of arm’s length price--Difference between section 37 and transfer pricing--Methods of computing arm’s length price--Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses--Is international transaction--Transfer pricing applicable--Power of Transfer Pricing Officer to make adjustment in absence of specific reference--Guide lines for making adjustments--Matter remanded-- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 118
S. 92CA --Non-resident--International transactions--Transfer pricing--Scope of provisions--Computation of arm’s length price--Difference between section 37 and transfer pricing--Methods of computing arm’s length price--Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses--Is international transaction--Transfer pricing applicable--Power of Transfer Pricing Officer to make adjustment in absence of specific reference--Guide lines for making adjustments--Matter remanded-- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 118
S. 115W --Fringe benefit tax--Employer and employee relationship is a pre-requisite for levy of fringe benefit tax--Subscription to Tata brand equity contribution under contractual agreement between assessee and group companies--No employer-employee relationship exists between them--Assessee not liable to pay fringe benefit tax--Circular No. 8 of 2005, dated 29-8-2005-- CIT (LTU) v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (Bom) . . . 112
S. 115WA --Fringe benefit tax--Employer and employee relationship is a pre-requisite for levy of fringe benefit tax--Subscription to Tata brand equity contribution under contractual agreement between assessee and group companies--No employer-employee relationship exists between them--Assessee not liable to pay fringe benefit tax--Circular No. 8 of 2005, dated 29-8-2005-- CIT (LTU) v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (Bom) . . . 112
S. 145(2) --Assessment--Gross profit rate--Estimation merely on basis of figure for preceding year--Quantitative tally of all raw materials consumed in making of final marketable product available on record--Commissioner (Appeals) should have addressed himself to issue and rendered clear findings--Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh examination-- R. L. Traders v. ITO (Delhi) . . . 22
S. 147 --Reassessment--Notice--Change of opinion--Depreciation--Mere description of depreciation claimed as terminal depreciation--Not a ground for reopening assessment on ground that there was no provision to allow terminal depreciation--Nothing to show that Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment--Reassessment not valid-- CIT v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (Bom) . . . 104
S. 158BC --Search and seizure--Block assessment--Undisclosed income--Assessment of third persons--Police recovering cash from possession of three persons--Persons stating cash belonging to assessee who in reply to query stating cash belonging to firm--No search warrant in name of assessee--No assets requisitioned from assessee--No warrant or requisition issued either in name of firm or assessee--No notice could be issued in name of assessee--Block assessment against assessee not valid-- CIT v. Anil Kumar Chadha (All) . . . 10
S. 158BD --Search and seizure--Block assessment--Undisclosed income--Assessment of third person--Limitation--Notice issued to assessee after lapse of enormous and unexplained delay--Proceedings vitiated-- CIT v. Apna Organics P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 55
----Search and seizure--Block assessment--Undisclosed income--Assessment of third persons--Police recovering cash from possession of three persons--Persons stating cash belonging to assessee who in reply to query stating cash belonging to firm--No search warrant in name of assessee--No assets requisitioned from assessee--No warrant or requisition issued either in name of firm or assessee--No notice could be issued in name of assessee--Block assessment against assessee not valid-- CIT v. Anil Kumar Chadha (All) . . . 10
S. 244A --Refund--Interest--Delayed payment of interest--No amount over and above statutory interest payable to assessee--Matter remanded-- CIT v. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 56
S. 254(1), (2) --Appeal to High Court--Maintainability--Rectification of order by Tribunal--Order passed by Tribunal on application under section 254(2)--Not an order passed in appeal--Not appealable-- CIT v. Saroop Tanneries Ltd. (P&H) . . . 20
S. 254(2) --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Administration of justice--Expression of opinions must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint--Adverse remarks against assessee and his representative and imposition of costs--Not justified-- Madhukar B. Thakoor v. ITAT (Bom) . . . 1
S. 260A --Appeal to High Court--Maintainability--Rectification of order by Tribunal--Order passed by Tribunal on application under section 254(2)--Not an order passed in appeal--Not appealable-- CIT v. Saroop Tanneries Ltd. (P&H) . . . 20
----Appeal to High Court--Maintainability of appeal--Monetary ceiling limits--Instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes only regulating monetary limits and not restricting right to file an appeal--Scope of section 268A--Instructions mandatory and binding on Revenue--National Litigation Policy, 2011--Instruction No. 3 apply pending cases also--Appeal not falling within exception provided--No cascading effect involved in appeal--Appeal only filed because tax effect above monetary limit--Appeal not maintainable-- CIT v. Shyam Biri Works (All) . . . 68
S. 268A --Appeal to High Court--Maintainability of appeal--Monetary ceiling limits--Instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes only regulating monetary limits and not restricting right to file an appeal--Scope of section 268A--Instructions mandatory and binding on Revenue--National Litigation Policy, 2011--Instruction No. 3 apply pending cases also--Appeal not falling within exception provided--No cascading effect involved in appeal--Appeal only filed because tax effect above monetary limit--Appeal not maintainable-- CIT v. Shyam Biri Works (All) . . . 68
S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Concealment of income--Wrong deduction--No concealment of particulars--No inaccuracy in particulars of income--Not to be equated with concealment--Penalty not to be imposed-- CIT v. Hongo India P. Ltd. (All) . . . 48
S. 271B --Penalty--Failure to file audit report in time--Assessing Officer failing to record his satisfaction in assessment order--No penalty leviable-- CIT v. E. C. C. Project Pvt. Ltd. (All) . . . 44
R. 8D --Income--Computation--Expenditure not incurred in relation to total income--Disallowance of expenditure relating to non-taxable income--Assessing Officer has to adopt average value of investment of which income is not part of total income--Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to work out tax effect-- ACB India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 108
R. 10B --Non-resident--International transactions--Transfer pricing--Scope of provisions--Computation of arm’s length price--Difference between section 37 and transfer pricing--Methods of computing arm’s length price--Advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses--Is international transaction--Transfer pricing applicable--Power of Transfer Pricing Officer to make adjustment in absence of specific reference--Guide lines for making adjustments--Matter remanded-- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 118
ITR'S TRIBUNAL TAX REPORTS (ITR (Trib)) HIGHLIGHTS
F Determination of arm's length price : Calculation of transfer pricing adjustment to be confined to international transactions and not on total cost of entity : Asst. CIT v. Kehin Panalfa Ltd. (Delhi) p. 492
F Appellate Tribunal cannot comment on choice of comparables on basis of new pleas : Steelcase Asia Pacific Holdings India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) p. 519
F Collecting samples from patients for testing desirability of introducing new drug amounts to commercial activity not research, not entitled to benefit of exemption u/s. 12A : Devki Devi Foundation v. DIT (Exemptions) (Delhi) p. 1
F Notice for reassessment served before recording reasons to believe escapement of income, not valid : Asst. CIT v. Blue Star Ltd. (Mumbai) p. 35
F Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass stay order for year in respect of which appeal not filed before it : Jay Pee Infratech Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) p. 46
F Where two months left for completing assessment, not appropriate to grant stay of assessment proceedings : Jay Pee Infratech Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) p. 46
F Where total amount of purchase consideration capitalised in books of account, refund of purchase price to be considered as akin to original amount : Sandvik Mining and Construction Tools India P. Ltd. v. ITO (Pune) p. 54
F Provisions of section 194L or 194LA not applicable to payment of compensation for removal of encumbrance : ITO (TDS) v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (Mumbai) p. 60
F Payments for annual maintenance contract relating to minor repairs, replacement of spare parts, oiling and greasing of machinery, payment for work and not technical services : ITO (TDS) v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (Mumbai) p. 60
F Client code modification executed on same day of transaction, no mala fide intention, deletion of addition sustainable : Asst. CIT v. Kunvarji Finance P. Ltd. (Ahd) p. 64
F Income from undisclosed sources : Statement made at odd hours cannot be considered voluntary : Asst. CIT v. Kunvarji Finance P. Ltd. (Ahd) p. 64
F Revision : Opinion of Assessing Officer cannot be substituted by Commissioner : Khushi Ram and Sons Foods P. Ltd. v. CIT (Chandigarh) p. 92
F International transactions : Functionally dissimilar companies to be excluded in selection of comparables : Nortel Networks India P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Delhi) p. 102
F Working capital adjustment cannot be denied only on ground that assessee had not made claim in transfer pricing study : Nortel Networks India P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Delhi) p. 102
F Assessing Officer had no powers to go beyond directions of Dispute Resolution Panel : Nortel Networks India P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Delhi) p. 102
F Business expenditure : Tax deducted and deposited in later year, disallowance justified : Nortel Networks India P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (Delhi) p. 102
F Quantum of management and licence fees to be determined with reference to agreement : TNS India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Hyd) p. 125
F Other income to be included as part of operating income while computing arm's length price : TNS India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Hyd) p. 125
F Companies having super normal profit, enormous turnover, brand value and being functionally dissimilar cannot be treated as comparables : TNS India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Hyd) p. 125
F Revised return : Where assessee's petition pending before Assessing Officer, matter remanded : TNS India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Hyd) p. 125
F Where software licence fee paid towards operation as well as application software, assessee entitled to higher rate of depreciation at 60 per cent. : TNS India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Hyd) p. 125
| 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
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX REPORTS (GSTR) HIGHLIGHTS
F Appeals : Exclusion of period on abortive action taken in good faith before wrong forum : Applicability of provisions of Limitation Act to proceedings before quasi-judicial Tribunals : M. P. Steel Corporation v. CCE p. 260
F Service tax : Agent appointed by cement industries for supervising and liaisoning with coal company and railways to ensure coal required loaded according to schedule is not clearing and forwarding agent : Coal Handlers P. Ltd. v. CCE p. 306
F Finding of fact that two kinds of goods were not comparable with each other and the assessee admitting some variations in two types of goods, finding not interfered with : Nirlon Ltd. v. CCE p. 319
F Where entire exercise revenue -neutral and assessee not achieving any purpose in evading payment of duty, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked : Nirlon Ltd. v. CCE p. 319
F Where intellectual content in discs produced by assessee not exploited by way of sale, royalty charges incurred by distributor/copyright holder cannot be loaded on to duplicate compact discs produced by assessee : K. R. C. D. (I) P. Ltd. v. CCE p. 324
F In absence of identical goods samples of similar goods of same period taken to enhance value of imported goods, proper : Commissioner of Customs v. Aryan Electronics p. 334
F Goods used captively in turnkey projects meant for third party cannot be treated as "such goods" sold in loose form and best judgment assessment to be used determine value : UTC Fire and Security India Ltd. v. CCE p. 340
F Valuation of Imported goods : Costs and services actually paid or payable for imported goods pre-import to be included and post-importation costs and services to be excluded : Commissioner of Customs v. Essar Steel Ltd. p. 349
F Acts :
Finance Act, 2015 p. 165
F Notifications :
Central Excise Act, 1944 : Notification under section 5A(1) : Concessional rate of duty on specified goods : Amendments p. 164
Customs Act, 1962 : Notification under section 25(1) : Effective rates of basic duties for specified goods : Amendments p. 164
Exemption for imports against credit scrip to status holder : Amendments p. 161
Exemption to goods cleared against service export from India scheme p. 162
| 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
__._,_.___
Posted by: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.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
__,_._,___
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)