Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
With the experience of looking at the litigation before the Company Law Board and the Company Court, with the privilege of looking at various judgments under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 while writing a commentary on Company Law and with what I have heard from few shareholders when they have grievance against the Company or the majority, I would like to express my views on the dispute resolution mechanism under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with “oppression” and “mismanagement” by the majority in a Company against the Minority Shareholders. How to construe “minority” for the purpose of section 397/398 is dealtwith under section 399 which prescribes qualification to approach the Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Act. What amounts to “oppression” and is oppression completely different from “mismanagement” as dealwith under section 398; is another interesting issue to look into.
Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Standards/Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT). Please refer to our letter RPCD.CO.RRB.No.5451/03.05.28-A/2009-10 dated November 16, 2009 on risks arising from the deficiencies in AML/CFT regime of Iran,Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Sao Tome and Principe.
M/s. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd. (“assessee/SMMP Ltd.”), engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery. While on one hand, SMMP Ltd. capitalized the said expenditure in its books of account and in its return of income, on the other, the same was claimed as revenue expenditure on the basis that such expenditure was merely incurred on replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system.
As a first step towards simplifying and bringing about structural changes in direct taxes, the new Direct Taxes Code („Code?) Bill 2009 has been released for public debate. This is expected to be presented in the winter session 2009 of the Parliament. The Code, once enacted, is proposed to be effective from 1st of April 2011.
The concept of Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”) was introduced in the Indian tax regime to widen the tax net. Often there were situations where companies declared both profits and dividends but were not liable to taxation on account of various incentives and exemptions provided under the income tax legislation. MAT ensured that such companies were liable to pay some tax. As per the existing provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961, certain companies are liable to pay a fixed percentage of book profit as MAT.
The definition of Capital asset continues in DTC. However the DTC classifies assets into two broad categories i.e. investment assets, and business assets. DTC envisages taxing income from transfer of investment assets as capital gains. Under the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”), income from transfer of capital assets even if used for business purposes was taxed as capital gain. DTC proposes to tax income from transfer of business capital assets as “business income” and the scope of definition of transfer is expanded to include business assets also.
Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that Outright purchase of plant knowhow in the form of technical / engineering data, design, drawings etc. is not royalty / fee for technical service, subject to withholding taxes
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had earlier issued a circular (Circular No. 23 dated July 23, 1969) clarifying the India tax liability of non-residents in respect of income accruing or arising through or from, a business connection in India. As per the aforesaid Circular 23, even if a business connection existed under section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), only so much of the profit which can be reasonably attributed to the operations of the business carried out in India could be subject to tax in India. Circular 23 also provided clarifications on the taxability of non-residents in specific situations.
A person earning over Rs 30,000 per month may have to pay a ‘professional tax’ of Rs 100-200 under new tax proposals unveiled by the MCD in its 2010-11 budget, which also envisaged a hike of five per cent in property tax rates. The civic agency will focus on Commonwealth Games 2010 related infrastructure and parking projects in the coming year, for which an additional Rs 1,005 crore has been allocated, Municipal Commissioner K S Mehra said.
