Kotak insurance venture faces FIPB hurdle, SEBI may ease ESOP rule; NCLT idea retrograde: Arvind Datar
Kotak insurance venture faces FIPB hurdle, SEBI may ease ESOP rule; NCLT idea retrograde: Arvind Datar
Starting a company law tribunal is a retrograde idea: Arvind Datar
WTO urges India greater tax reform, FDI liberalisation
WTO urges India greater tax reform, FDI liberalisation
Can't direct SEBI to exercise 'discretionary' investigative powers; Acquiring shares 'voluntary' act
HC dismisses writ petition filed by shareholder of M/s Spice Mobility ('Spice') seeking mandamus to direct SEBI to investigate into voluntary delisting of Spice; Petitioner had represented to SEBI to investigate into the matter under Regulation 5 of PFUTP Regulations (which empowers SEBI to investigate), however, there was no action taken by SEBI; HC holds that SEBI has discretionary power under Regulation 5 and the power to investigate is not compulsive, depending on the facts SEBI may chose either to investigate the matter or not to pursue it further; Observes that, "Since the Petitioners have represented to the SEBI, which has not made any order in that regard, it would be inappropriate for this court to assume that the said body would not act, act improperly or act in a manner contrary to the Regulations.";Rejects petitioner's contention that delisting of Spice's shares would cause huge financial loss to them, holds "acquiring shares or divesting their holding from a company is a voluntary act which is carried out at the option of a shareholder":Delhi HC
HC dismisses injunction suit against Ayurveda Herbal, holds it as not maintainable, as plaintiff's design was not novel and was not registered (at the time of filing the suit) with Controller post assignment of designs in plastic bottles/tubes meant for his cosmetic products; Holds that Sec 30 of Design Act mandates a person entitled in a design by assignment to make an application to Controller to register his title and only when change in Register is done, he can claim ownership in such design; Notes that all the designs claimed by plaintiff were either prior publish or trade variant, states that "A slight trivial or infinitesimal variation, from a pre-existing design will not qualify it for registration..."; Also notes that plaintiff did not disclose about previous suit filed before Patiala Court against defendants on same subject matter, holds that, "the plaintiff was duty bound to disclose the material fact before Court. Even on this reason itself the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction"; Relies on co-ordinate bench rulings in Dabur India Limited v. Rajesh Kumar, Satish Khosla vs Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd & foreign rulings in Simmons v. Mathieson & Cold and Phillips v. Barbro Rubber Company :Delhi HC
Govt constitutes Committee for recommendations on Cos Act, 2013
Govt constitutes 8 members Company Law Committee to give recommendations on issues pertaining to implementation of Companies Act, 2013; Y.M. Deosthalee, Chairman, L&T Finance Holdings and Bharat Vasani, Group General Counsel, Tata Sons are industry members on Committee; Committee to also examine the recommendations of other agencies like Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, High Level Committee on CSR, Law Commission; Committee may also invite experts from SEBI, RBI for broad based consultation : MCA
Penalises GSK & Sanofi for 'collusive bidding', irrational business conduct in Hajj supplies
CCI imposes penalty on GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceutical Limited (GSK) & Sanofi at 3% of their turnover for collusive bidding with respect to tenders issued by Govt of India for procuring meningitis vaccines for Hajj pilgrims in 2011; Agrees to Director General's report that GSK & Sanofi colluded to divide entire tendered quantities and to earn super normal profits by quoting significantly higher prices, without making independent & individual bids to offer entire tendered quantity of vaccines; Notes that GSK & Sanofi had habitually bid for entire tendered quantity in response to all the tenders issued by Govt of India to the exception of only 2011 tenders where Informant (vaccine manufacturer) was excluded on account the disqualification relating to turnover, which establishes the collusive conduct in bidding; Observes that, "simultaneous refusals of OP-2 (GSK) and OP-3 (Sanofi) to offer the entire tendered quantity without any rational basis when viewed together with OP-3's voluntary offer to supply the entire tendered quantity upon the withdrawal of OP-2 from the entire tender lead to a singular conclusion that OP-2 and OP-3 were colluding with each other to divide the entire tendered quantity"; Rejects GSK's contention that tender conditions stipulated short supply timelines, states that, "the tender is usually issued in May/ June with scheduled delivery in August/ September in order to ensure that the prospective pilgrims were vaccinated at least 15 days prior to their departure for Hajj (during August/ September every year). Accordingly, it is clear that the tender conditions are known well in advance.."; Observes that such conduct is inconsistent with rational business conduct of any enterprise:CCI
PFA
Association of State Road Transport V D C I T I T A T New Delhi
Scope of proviso to s. 2(15) restricting deduction for charitable institutions explained
The expression "trade", "commerce" or "business", as occurring in the first proviso of section 2(15) of the Act, must be read in the context of the intent in purported of Section 2(15) of the Act and cannot be interpreted to mean any activity which is carried on in an organized manner. the first proviso to section 2(15) of the act does not purported to exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee and the object of introducing first proviso is to exclude organizations which are carrying on regular business from the scope of charitable purpose
(i) The expressions "trade", "commerce" and "business", as occurring in the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, must be read in the context of the intent and purport of section 2(15) of the Act and cannot be interpreted to mean any activity which is carried on in an organized manner. The purpose and the dominant object for which an institution carries on its activities is material to determine whether the same is business or not. The purport of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not to exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee. The object of introducing the first proviso is to exclude organizations which are carrying on regular business from the scope of "charitable purpose". The expressions "business", "trade" or "commerce" as used in the first proviso must, thus, be interpreted restrictively and where the dominant object of an organization is charitable any incidental activity for furtherance of the object would not fall within the expressions "business", "trade" or "commerce".
(ii) After going through the objects and activities of the assessee association it is clear that the assessee association did not carry on any "business", "trade" or "commerce" with the main object of earning profit. The activity of imparting support services to State Road Transport Undertakings without any profit motive are being conducted in furtherance of the object for which assessee association had not constituted by the Government of India. The activities of providing laboratory test services and consultancy to the State Road Transport Undertakings of all over India cannot be held to be "trade", "business" or "commerce" merely because some fee or charges are being received by the assessee association. Accordingly, even if some fees or charges are being charged by the assessee association for providing laboratory test services and consultancy services in accordance with its charitable objects, the activities cannot be held to be rendered in relation to any "trade" , "commerce" or "business" as such activities are undertaken by the assessee association in furtherance of its main objects which are undisputedly of charitable nature and which is not an activity of "trade", "commerce" or "business" with main object of earning profit.
(iii) The first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act carves out and exception which excludes advancement of any object of general public utility from the scope of charitable purpose to the extent that it involves carrying on any activity in the nature of "Trade", "Commerce" or "business" or any activity of rendering certain services in relation to any "trade", "commerce" or "business" for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of the use or obligation or retention of income from such activity. Their lordship also held that the expression "trade", "commerce" or "business", as occurring in the first proviso of section 2(15) of the Act, must be read in the context of the intent in purported of Section 2(15) of the Act and cannot be interpreted to mean any activity which is carried on in an organized manner. Explaining the dominant of object of newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, speaking for Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, their lordship also held that the first proviso to section 2(15) of the act does not purported to exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee and the object of introducing first proviso is to exclude organizations which are carrying on regular business from the scope of charitable purpose. It was also held that expression "business" "trade" or "commerce" as used in first proviso must, thus, we interpreted restrictively and where the dominant object and organization is charitable any incidental activity for furtherance of the object would not fall within the expression "business", "trade" or "commerce".
Related Judgements
- National Horticulture Board vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Even in a situation in which an assessee receives a fees or consideration for rendition of a service to the business, trade or commerce, as long as such a service is subservient to the charitable cause and is not in the nature of business itself, the disability under second…
- Indian Chamber of Commerce vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) (i) The purpose for which the assessee association, i.e. The Indian Chamber of Commerce, was established is a charitable purpose within the meaning of S. 2(15) of the Act. The assessee is carrying out the said activities which are incidental…Read more ›
- India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (E) (Delhi High Court) The expression "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act. It is also clear that if the literal interpretation is given to the proviso…
- Delhi & District Cricket Association vs. DIT (E) (ITAT Delhi) s.12AA(3) has no retrospective effect as it is neither explanatory nor clarificatory in nature and the CIT has no power to rescind the order passed by the CIT prior to 1st Oct.2004. For an assessee to be classified as charitable under the residuary category i.e. "advancement of any other…
- Himachal Pradesh Environment vs. CIT (ITAT Chandigarh) The fact that the assessee is a regulatory body does not mean it cannot pursue an 'object of general public utility' which qualifies to be a charitable activity u/s 2(15). The scope of the expression 'any other object of general public utility' is very wide, though it excludes objects…
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment