Case Law: Joshi Technologies International Inc vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
S. 42: Scope of deduction available in the context of a Production Sharing Contract entered into with the Govt explained
First and foremost aspect which has to be kept in mind while answering this issue is that the Income Tax Authorities while making assessment of income of any assessee have to apply the provisions of the Income Tax Act and make assessment accordingly. Translating this as general proposition contextually, what we intend to convey is that the Assessing Officer is supposed to focus on Section 42 of the Act on the basis of which he is to decide as to whether deductions mentioned in the said provision are admissible to the assessee who is claiming those deductions
Joshi Technologies International Inc vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
Case Law: Coal India Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
by Santosh Kumar AgarwalS. 42: Scope of deduction available in the context of a Production Sharing Contract entered into with the Govt explained
First and foremost aspect which has to be kept in mind while answering this issue is that the Income Tax Authorities while making assessment of income of any assessee have to apply the provisions of the Income Tax Act and make assessment accordingly. Translating this as general proposition contextually, what we intend to convey is that the Assessing Officer is supposed to focus on Section 42 of the Act on the basis of which he is to decide as to whether deductions mentioned in the said provision are admissible to the assessee who is claiming those deductions Read more of this post
S. 192 vs/ 194-J: Tests to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship explained
Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or contract for service and whether the employees concerned are employees of the contractors has never been an easy task. No decision of this Court has laid down any hard-and-fast rule nor is it possible to do so. The question in each case has to be answered having regard to the fact involved therein. No single test – be it control test, be it organisation or any other test – has been held to be the determinative factor for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee Read more of this post
CCI probing online cab cos.; Basmati unites India, Pak in 'joint heritage' claim; Govt./RBI proposes easing of IDR norms
CCI probing online cab cos.; Basmati unites India, Pak in 'joint heritage' claim; Govt./RBI proposes easing of IDR norms
Annual turnover not subject-matter but measure of broker registration-fee levy; Quashes SEBI's demand
SC set-aside SAT's order, quashes SEBI's demand for registration fee from a stock-broker ('Appellant'), as contrary to law; Notes the fact that appellant paid registration fee based on previous year's turnover under Schedule III till F.Y. 2005-06 (i.e., till Sept 30, 2006) and after introduction of Schedule IIIA (wef Oct 1, 2006) appellant exercised option under Schedule IIIA clause 2 and started paying fees on basis of monthly turnover on monthly basis, however, SEBI demanded further payment for October 2006 to March 2007 on previous year's turnover; Observes that Clause IV to Schedule III excludes its applicability to stock brokers to whom Schedule III-A applied, and holds "SEBI's demands was illegal.. based on a misconception that entire annual turnover regardless of formula accepted under Schedule III must be subject matter of levy even after Schedule IIIA became applicable."; Clarifies that annual turnover is not the subject matter of levy, and only a measure of levy, relies on 3 Judge Bench SC ruling in B.S.E. Brokers' Forum v. Securities and Exchange Board of India; Observes that "After Schedule IIIA became applicable, the Registration fee for any future period since 1.10.2006 could not be levied or demanded on the basis of Schedule III", and directs SEBI to refund amount paid with interest to appellant :SC
The ruling was delivered by Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued on behalf of Appellant while Senior Advocate C.U. Singh represented respondent (SEBI).
BSE introduces facility for entering orders in specialised contracts of Straddle/Paired options
BSE introduces new facility for entering orders in specialised contracts of Straddle and Paired options in its Currency Derivatives segment w.e.f. Monday December 07, 2015; States that Straddle and Paired option contracts are specialised two-legged option contracts, which enable a trader to take positions across two different option contracts – call option & put option, belonging to the same underlying product having the same strike price and expiry, by entering a single order; Provides for detailed FAQ documents on Straddle and Paired option contract functionality: BSE
Click here to read more.
Govt. does not fix FDI inflow targets, FDI is private business decision: Nirmala Sitharaman
Minister of Commerce & Industry, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, in Lok Sabha presents the statistics of FDI inflow in India; States that total FDI (including NRI investments) during FY 2012-2013 was USD 34,298 million, FY 2013-2014 was USD 36,406 million, FY 2014-2015 was USD 44,291; States that Govt. does not fix targets for FDI inflows as FDI is a matter of private business decisions and investment by foreign cos. in India is governed by FDI policy and sectoral laws/regulations/policies; States that Govt. has put in place a liberal and transparent FDI policy, where most of the sectors are open to FDI under automatic route and the extant policy allows special dispensation for NRI investments in construction development and civil aviation sector; States that investment by NRIs under FEMA Regulations is deemed to be domestic investment at par with the investment made by residents: PIB
Click here to read more.
Govt. authorizes other Patent Offices to accept documents/fees on Chennai Patent Office's behalf
Taking into account flood situation in Chennai, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks authorizes Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata Patent Offices to accept documents and payment of fees on behalf of Chennai Patent Office for the period December 3, 2015 to December 7, 2015 or till restoration of normal functioning of Patent Office, Chennai (whichever is earlier): Public Notice
Click here to read more.
Protects Cyrus Mistry's well-known personal name from extortion attempt; Orders domain name transfer
HC directs owner/registrant (defendant) of domain names – www.cyrusmistry.co.uk & www.cyrusmistry.co to transfer the domain names to Mr. Cyrus Mistry, Chairman of Tata Group co. (plaintiff), as it used plaintiff's 'well-known name'; Holds that the name "Cyrus P. Mistry" fell within the category of personal names "that besides being a personal name has attained a distinctive indicia, connotation, character or identity of their own. Therefore, the said name.. has become a \'well-known personal name\'"; Observes that defendant had registered the domain names with mala-fide and ulterior motive of extorting huge amounts of money from plaintiffs and to induce consumer/ members of trade to falsely believe that he had a direct nexus/ affiliation with TATA Group/ plaintiff; Holds that such acts of defendant amount to invasion of plaintiff's right to publicity/privacy and passing off in right to protect his name, persona as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, states, "if such commercial value in a personality was appropriated by persons like the defendant, then the said personality, (i.e. Mr. Mistry) should be granted right to sue for such embezzlement"; Further observes that trademark law extends to cover internet and domain names deserve protection just like trademark and personal names forming part of domain names should also be protected, relies on Delhi HC ruling in Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Private Limited, DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v Baby Gift House and Titan Industries Limited v. Ramkumar Jewellers:Delhi HC
Penalizes promoter-director for non-compliance of Insider Trading Regulations; Rules on directors' continual disclosures
SEBI penalizes listed co.'s promoter-director ('Noticee') for non-compliance of Reg. 13(4) of Insider Trading Regulations, 1992, holds that director has an obligation to make continual disclosure only under sub-regulation (4) and not under sub-regulation (3) of Reg. 13; Notes that Noticee had pledged his entire shareholding (1,53,387 shares, constituting 6.55%) for availing financial facility and on invocation, the shareholding was Nil, and the Noticee failed to make requisite disclosures under Insider Trading Regulations; SEBI peruses Reg. 13(3), observes that disclosure is required to made by 'any person' which include all persons including director or officer, however states "Since Directors and officers have been singled out as a class apart from other persons and treated differently under Regulation 13(4) of PIT Regulations, 1992 with more onerous responsibilities, it has to be assumed that by necessary implications they are excluded from the requirements of Reg. 13(3)"; States that directors holds an important position in senior management and are responsible for the policy making and control of the business and are to be treated differently as more onerous responsibility has been cast on them in respect of continual disclosures, observes "separate provision for continual disclosure by directors and officer of listed co. have been carved out under Regulation 13(4)"; Peruses Reg. 13(3) and (4) together, observes "it becomes clear that disclosure requirements are more detailed on the Directors under sub-regulation (4) than for those governed under sub-regulation (3)" and opines "directors are not only required to disclose on continuous basis change of 1% in total shareholding or voting rights as against 2% in sub-regulation (3) but also required to disclose change relating to value or number of shares if the change exceeds the limit stipulated under sub-regulation (4) of Reg. 13":SEBI
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment