Join our free webinar on July 4th at 4:00 PM to gain insights into the dematerialization of securities and recent amendments. Register now for key updates.
Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.
In this case the appellant have deposited the amount under protest on differential value of the goods cleared by them to their sister unit/group companies. While adjudication, the show-cause notice demanding the differential duty was dropped and it was subsequently held in the order that the supplementary invoices issued by the assessee under rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is declared void for the purpose of taking MODVAT/CENVAT credit.
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 69 – Performance Guarantees issued by the Indian Party -At present, ‘financial commitment’ of the Indian Party includes contribution to the capital of the overseas Joint Venture (JV) / Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS), loan granted to the JV / WOS and 100 per cent of guarantees issued to or on behalf of the JV/WOS. Keeping in mind the utility and usage of the instrument of performance guarantees in project executions abroad and also considering the risks associated with such guarantees vis-à-vis financial guarantees, it has been decided that only 50 per cent of the amount of the performance guarantees may be reckoned for the purpose of computing financial commitment to its JV/WOS overseas, within the 400 per cent of the net worth of the Indian Party as on the date of the last audited balance sheet. Further, the time specified for the completion of the contract may be considered as the validity period of the related performance guarantee. The Indian Party may report these guarantees in the similar way in which financial guarantees are being presently reported. In cases where invocation of the performance guarantees breach the ceiling for the financial exposure of 400 per cent of the net worth of the Indian Party, the Indian Party shall seek the prior approval of the Reserve Bank before remitting funds from India, on account of such invocation.
The Competition Act, 2002 was enacted to regulate (a) anti-competitive agreements, (b) abuse of dominance, and (c) Combinations. The provisions relating to regulation of combinations (for instance mergers, acquisitions, amalgamations, takeovers etc.) had been in abeyance for some time. These have now been notified Vide Notification No. S.O. 479(E) dated 4 March, 2011 and shall come into effect from 1 June, 2011. On n May, 2011, the CCI has released The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combination) Regulations, 2011 . Consequently, combinations covered by the prescribed monetary thresholds, based on assets or turnover of the parties (or groups) to the combination, shall now require filing and prior approval of the Competition Commission of India effective 1 June, 2011.
RBI has clarified that in case more than one company (irrespective of doing financial activity or not) in the same group of the NBFC wishes to take a stake in the insurance company, the contribution by all companies in the same group shall be counted for the limit of 50 % prescribed for the NBFC in an insurance JV. DNBS.PD.CC.No. 221/03.02.002/2010-11
Bonus benefit under Focus Product Scheme available to silk carpets would also include such silk carpets exported under ITC HS code 57019090 with drawback code 570102 duly endorsed on the respective shipping bills. This will be with effect from 1.4.2010.
The Reserve Bank of India on Friday directed banks to reimburse customers for amounts wrongfully debited from their accounts in failed ATM transactions within seven days of an account holder’s complaint or else pay a Rs 100 per day compensation. “The time limit for resolution of customer complaints by the issuing banks shall stand reduced from 12 working days to seven working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint,” the RBI said in a notification.
Effective from the year ending March 2011, all insurers are required to file a Certificate confirming compliance with the stipulations on public disclosures as under: (1) Compliance with disclosure requirements on the Insurer’s website (Annexure 1) ; and (2) Compliance with the requirements on publication in the Newspapers (Annexure 2).
Export-Import Bank of India (Exim Bank) has concluded an Agreement, dated March 28, 2011 with the Government of the Republic of Mozambique, making available to the latter, a Line of Credit (LoC) of USD 20 million (USD twenty million) for financing eligible goods, services, machinery and equipment including consultancy services to be exported from India for the purpose of enhancing productivity of rice-wheat-maize cultivation in Mozambique.
The contention that under section 80-I(6) the profits derived from one industrial undertaking cannot be set off against loss suffered from another and the profit is required to be computed as if profit making industrial undertaking was the only source of income, has no merit.
CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd. -The Delhi high court last week dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax in a dispute over the deduction claimed by IT return in respect of remuneration/royalty paid by it to other subsidiaries and holding companies. The assessing officer disallowed the claim and the tax appellate tribunal held that the revenue authorities were wrong, leading to the appeal. The company, which makes food products and beverages, had debited a huge amount on account royalty payable to two overseas companies, namely Nestec S.A. and Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., Switzerland. These payments were claimed as business expenditure on account of technical assistance rendered by the two companies to the Indian company. The authorities felt that the deduction was excessive. The high court upheld the ruling of the tribunal, which stated that the revenue authorities have not specified as to how much ordinary profit was supposed to be and the basis of its determination, before treating royalty payment as excessive and unreasonable.
