Monday, March 30, 2015

Circular clarification on Deposit by Ministry of Company affairs


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Desai Seksaria <desaiandseksaria@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: Circular clarification on Deposit by Ministry of Company affairs


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: CA PRIYAM Shah <ca.priyamrshah@gmail.com>
Date: 30 March 2015 at 15:50
Subject: Circular clarification on Deposit by Ministry of Company affairs
To:


Respected  Members,

Amounts received by Private Limited Companies  prior to 1st April 2014 shall not be treated as deposit under new Companies Act 2013.

 circular of Ministry of Company Affairs is attached herewith.


Regards


Friday, March 27, 2015

Exemption from stamp duty, in case transfer of property to relative

महाराष्ट्र सरकारचा एक चांगला निर्णय अभिनंदन सरकारचे रक्ताच्या नातेवाईकांसाठी स्टॅम्पड्युटी माफ, महसूलमंत्र्यांची महत्वपूर्ण घोषणा
गुरूवार, 26 मार्च 2015
मुंबई : आपल्या रक्ताच्या नातेवाईकाला स्थावर मालमत्तेची मालकी हस्तांतरित करताना आता स्टँम्पड्युटी द्यावी लागणार नाही. राज्य सरकारने मालकी हस्तांतरणाच्या नियमात बदल करुन ही स्टँम्पड्यूटी रद्द करण्याचा महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय घेतला आहे.
स्टँम्प ड्यूटी रद्द करण्याच्या या निर्णयामुळे अवघ्या पाचशे रुपयांच्या स्टँम्प पेपरवर वडिलांची मालमत्ता मुलाला किंवा मुलाची मालमत्ता वडिलांना हस्तांतरित करणं शक्य होणार आहे.
आतापर्यंत या हस्तांतरणावर पाच टक्के स्टँम्प ड्यूटी महसूल विभागात जमा करावी लागत होती. पण या निर्णयाने आता रक्ताच्या नात्यांतलं हस्तातरण जवळपास मोफत होणार आहे.

-Regards
CA. C. V. PAWAR

Bank Branch Audit Update 2014-15 allotment status

(update shared on whatsapp)
FYI - Bank Branch Audit Update:-

List of auditors released by RBI and mail received in few banks and in remaining it will reach today itself.
�� �� ��
http://www.casansaar.com/news-Bank-Branch-Audit/News-about-Bank-Branch-Audit-Allotment-of-Branches/6685.html

-Regards
CA. C. V. PAWAR

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Link follow Format for Auditors certificate DPT4



 



 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
Google
Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.
Preview by Yahoo
 

__._,_.___

Posted by: Dipakkumar Shah <cadjshah@yahoo.com>

Judgments and Information [4 Attachments]


 
[Attachment(s) from Dipakkumar Shah cadjshah@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] included below]

PFA

E-voting rules change – A new mess a new day !

by CA Sandeep Kanoi
CS Nidhi Bothra, CS Vinita Nair Metamorphosis of Company law rules that went bad, changed a caterpillar into an ugly frog. Under the erstwhile (read outdated) system of holding general meetings where the resolutions were put to vote by way of show of hands or a poll could be demanded. Since only such members who […]

PFA

List of Implementation Agencies for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

by CA Sandeep Kanoi
List Of Implementation Agencies For Corporate Social Responsibility Available On Website Of Indian Institute Of Corporate Affairs , Ministry Of Corporate Affairs. The Companies Act 2013 makes it mandatory for corporate houses to spend 2% profit on CSR activities. The government has prepared a list of sanitized Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), free of any terrorist links […]


PFA

Analysis of SEBI Board meeting held on 22.03.2015

by CA Sandeep Kanoi
SEBI has approved SEBI (International Financial Services Centres) Guidelines, 2015. ♥ As per this guidelines, Indian as well as foreign stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories are permitted to set up subsidiaries to undertake the same business in IFSC subject to certain relaxed norms on shareholding and net worth, etc

PFA

S. 36(1)(iii)/ 37(1): Normally revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year has to be allowed in that year and if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the Department cannot deny the same. Fact that assessee has deferred the expenditure in the books of account is irrelevant. However, if the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can be allowed only if the principle of 'Matching Concept' is satisfied
The assessee issued debentures in which two options as regards payment of interest were given to the subscribers/debenture holders. They could either receive interest periodically, that is every half yearly @ 18% per annum over a period of five years, or else, the debenture holders could opt for one time upfront payment of Rs. 55 per debenture. In the second alternative, 55 per debenture was to be immediately paid as upfront on account of interest. At the end of five years period, the debentures were to be redeemed at the face value of Rs. 100. The assessee paid to the debenture holder the upfront interest payment and claimed the same as a deduction. In the accounts, the interest expenditure was shown as deferred expenditure. However, the AO, CIT(A), ITAT and High Court rejected the assessee's claim and held that though the amount was paid, the same was only allowable as a deduction over the tenure of the debentures. On appeal by the assessee to the Supreme Court HELD allowing the appeal:
(i) U/s 36(1)(iii) when the interest was actually incurred by the assessee, which follows the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of full amount in the assessment year in which it is paid. While examining the allowability of deduction of this nature, the AO is to consider the genuineness of business borrowing and that the borrowing was for the purpose of business and not an illusionary and colourable transaction. Once the genuineness is proved and the interest is paid on the borrowing, it is not within the powers of the AO to disallow the deduction either on the ground that rate of interest is unreasonably high or that the assessee had himself charged a lower rate of interest on the monies which he lent;
(ii) The High Court wrongly applied the "Matching Concept" to deny the deduction of the upfront interest payment in the first year. As per the terms of issue, the interest could be paid in two modes. As per one mode, interest was payable every year and in that case it was to be paid on six monthly basis @ 18% per annum. In such cases, the interest as paid was claimed on yearly basis over a period of five years and allowed as well and there is no dispute about the same. However, in the second mode of payment of interest, which was at the option of the debenture holder, interest was payable upfront, which means insofar as interest liability is concerned, that was discharged in the first year of the issue itself. By this, the assessee had benefited by making payment of lesser amount of interest in comparison with the interest which was payable under the first mode over a period of five years. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in order to be entitled to have deduction of this amount, the only aspect which needed examination was as to whether provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) read with Section 43(ii) of the Act were satisfied or not. Once these are satisfied, there is no question of denying the benefit of entire deduction in the year in which such an amount was actually paid or incurred;
(iii) The moment second option was exercised by the debenture holder to receive the payment upfront, liability of the assessee to make the payment in that very year, on exercising of this option, has arisen and this liability was to pay the interest @ Rs. 55 per debenture. In Bharat Earth Movers v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2000] 6 SCC 645, this Court had categorically held that if a business liability has arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed even if such a liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. The present case is even on a stronger footing inasmuch as not only the liability had arisen in the assessment year in question, it was even quantified and discharged as well in that very accounting year;
(iv) The principle that emerges from Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1997] 4 SCC 666 is that normally the ordinary rule is to be applied, namely, revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the IT Department cannot deny the same. However, in those cases where the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can be allowed only if the principle of 'Matching Concept' is satisfied, which upto now has been restricted to the cases of debentures. In the instant case, the assessee did not want spread over of this expenditure over a period of five years as in the return filed by it, it had claimed the entire interest paid upfront as deductible expenditure in the same year. In such a situation, when this course of action was permissible in law to the assessee as it was in consonance with the provisions of the Act which permit the assessee to claim the expenditure in the year in which it was incurred, merely because a different treatment was given in the books of account cannot be a factor which would deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that entries in the books of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See – Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta [1972] 3 SCC 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1997] 6 SCC 117; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta [1978] 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta [1999] 8 SCC 338;
(v) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to claim the entire expenditure in the year in which it was spent/paid by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Once a return in that manner was filed, the AO was bound to carry out the assessment by applying the provisions of that Act and not to go beyond the said return. There is no estoppel against the Statute and the Act enables and entitles the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it is claimed.

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from Dipakkumar Shah cadjshah@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] | View attachments on the web

4 of 4 File(s)


Posted by: Dipakkumar Shah <cadjshah@yahoo.com>

Important Judgement Of Supreme Court On 'Matching Concept' And Deferred Revenue Expenditure

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.


Taparia Tools Ltd vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)

S. 36(1)(iii)/ 37(1): Normally revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year has to be allowed in that year and if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the Department cannot deny the same. Fact that assessee has deferred the expenditure in the books of account is irrelevant. However, if the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can be allowed only if the principle of 'Matching Concept' is satisfied

U/s 36(1)(iii) when the interest was actually incurred by the assessee, which follows the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of full amount in the assessment year in which it is paid. The High Court wrongly applied the "Matching Concept" to deny the deduction of the upfront interest payment in the first year.


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Transfers Of Two More Hon'ble Members Of The ITAT (March 2015 -II)



CBDT Takes Stern View Of Laxity By Counsel And CIT In Court Matters

 

Dear Subscriber,

CBDT Takes Stern View Of Laxity By Counsel And CIT In Court Matters

The CBDT has issued two letters, both dated 20th March 2015, in which it has referred to an incident in the Delhi High Court where the Court had sought information relating to a case. Though the Standing Counsel communicated the directions of the Court to the concerned CIT, this was done in a "routine manner" and without any "follow up". The result is that the Court issued directions and possibly strictures against the department.

In the first letter, the CBDT has made it clear that it is the responsibility of the Standing Counsel to obtain the information called for from the concerned CIT and to communicate the same to the Court. If the issue is not resolved, the Counsel is required to bring the issue to the attention of the CCIT. It is sternly stated that "The Counsel can not absolve himself from his responsibility to get the directions of High Court complied with under any circumstances".

In the other letter, the CBDT has made it clear that it is the responsibility of the CIT to ensure that whenever the Departmental Counsel seeks Instructions/ clarifications in a case the same are attended to by the officers concerned promptly. It is also stated that the Counsel should be briefed properly to strengthen Revenue's case and that the CIT should personally involve himself in cases involving intricate issues of facts/law having wide ramifications or involving high revenue stake.

The letters end with the grim warning that "Any laxity in adherence to this instruction will be viewed adversely against the erring officers".


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Sardar Balbir Singh vs. ITO (ITAT Lucknow)

S. 147/ 151: Sanction of CIT instead of JCIT renders reopening void. The error cannot be saved u/s 292BB