IFCI Ltd. Versus TFCI Ltd.- Delhi High Court – Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as ‘IFCI’) owns 37.85% of shares of respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as ‘TFCI’). On 26th November, 2010 IFCI sent a requisition to TFCI for convening an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (for short ‘EOGM’) with the objective of appointing four new directors and removal and replacement of one director on the Board of TFCI. However, TFCI vide letter dated 2nd December, 2010 questioned the validity of the requisition on the ground that though it was signed by the Company Secretary of IFCI, but specific authorisation/board resolution to file such requisition had not been annexed and it requested IFCI to send the said board resolution within a period of one week. Subsequently, on not getting the said information, TFCI through its board meeting held on 14th December, 2010 decided not to convene EOGM of TFCI. On receiving this information, IFCI on 15th December, 2010 initiated the process under Section 169(6) of the Act for convening an EOGM on 17th January, 2011. IFCI then filed the present Company Petition No. 124(ND) of 2010 under Sections 398 and 402 of the Act on the same day.
Circular No. 945/06/2011-CX Exemption is limited to pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the water treatment plant and from there to the first storage point and that the duty concession was not available for pipes required to supply the treated water from its storage place to the place of consumption. This was the correct reflection of the scope as it existed at the relevant time. However, the scope of this notification was widened by inserting entry (3) to this notification thereby extending the benefit of excise duty exemption also to the pipes of outer diameter exceeding 20 cm when such pipes are integral part of water supply projects by amendment vide Notification No. 6/2007 dated 1-3-07 and subsequently vide Notification No. 26/2009 dated 4-12-09, the outer diameter exceeding 10 cm was prescribed for exemption.
The phrase Minimum Export Price(MEP) of US$ 600 per Metric Ton F.O.B. or as notified by DGFT from time-to-time as appearing in para 2(b) of Notification No 36(RE – 2010)/2009-2014 dated 23.03.2011 for the item described at Serial Number 44.02 is replaced by the phrase Minimum Export Price(MEP) of US$ 350 per Metric Ton F.O.B. or as notified by DGFT from time-to-time.
In view of the representation received from the industry associations and as AS 30/32 standards are yet to be notified by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, it has been decided to amend the eligibility criteria for the users of cost reduction structures as contained under para B I (1)(v) of A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 32 dated December 28, 2010 as indicated below:
According to Section 69, every person liable to make payment of service tax or any other person notified by the central govt through a notification is required to get the registration under the service tax act .
Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land. As the assessee transferred lease right for sixty years in the Plot and not land itself, the provisions of sec.50C cannot be invoked. A distinction has been drawn between ‘land or building’ on one hand and ‘or any rights in land or building’ on the other. Considering the fact that we are dealing with special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases u/s.50C, which is a deeming provision, the fiction created in this section cannot be extended to any asset other than those specifically provided therein.
The Supreme Court last week ruled that the criminal trial of directors of a company accused of forging documents to get loan from a bank could not be quashed merely because the loan has been repaid with interest. In this case, Sushil Suri vs CBI, some directors of a pharmaceutical firm, Morpen Laboratories Ltd of Delhi, were charge-sheeted for fabricating false invoices to obtain a hire purchase loan from Punjab & Sind Bank. On information, CBI investigated and charged the directors with fraud, forgery, conspiracy and other criminal offences. Some directors moved the Delhi high court seeking to quash the charge sheet. They argued that they had repaid the loan with interest and therefore the bank or anyone else has not suffered any loss. The high court dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court stated that the high court was justified in doing so as a prima facie case for trial has been made out despite the repayment of the loan.
The Supreme Court last week set aside a Delhi high court judgment holding that the high court had no power to entertain an international arbitration petition in the appeal case, Videocon Industries Ltd vs Union of India. A production sharing contract was entered into between the government and a consortium of four companies consisting of […]
OHM Limited v. DIT (AAR No. 935 of 2010) – Foreign firms operating in the country will have to pay tax at the existing rate of 4.223 per cent on revenue earned under seismic data acquisition and processing contracts, says a tribunal. In a ruling, the Authority of Advanced Rulings (AAR) held that foreign firms would not enjoy any leeway even if their income falls under the label of royalties or is considered as fees for technical services.
DCIT v. Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Delhi Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for business promotion and advertisement based on commercial expediency should not be considered for disallowances even if it incidentally benefits the other party. This judgement is in line with the judgement of Nestle India Ltd Vs DCIT. However, in this case, the Tribunal has not considered when the taxpayer is mandatorily required to use the trademark of the JV partner and creation of marketing intangibles.
