The government is likely to retain various contentious provisions in the new Companies Bill, like fixed term for independent directors and rotation of auditors every five years, despite concerns raised by industry. In the final draft of Companies Bill 2011, the Corporate Affairs Ministry is learnt to have fixed the term for independent directors to […]
Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (Supreme Court)- Ketan Parikh, Kartik Parikh and M/s. Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd, were imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 Crores, 12 Crores and 40 Crores respectively by the Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai for FEMA violations. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50 percent of penalty. The appellants pursued the matter in Delhi and Bombay High Courts. The matter reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be Forum Shopping and that the appellants deliberately concealed the facts relating to financial condition and directed the appellants to deposit the amounts as ordered by the Tribunal.
The indexed cost of acquisition has to be determined with reference to the cost inflation index for the first year in which the capital asset was ‘held by the assessee’. Since the expression ‘held by the assessee’ is not defined under Section 48 of the Act, that expression has to be understood as defined under Section 2 of the Act. Explanation 1(i)(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Act provides that in determining the period for which an asset is held by an assessee under a gift, the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner shall be included.
Under the Constitution of India, the power to levy stamp duty is divided between the Union and the State. The Parliament (Central Government) has the power to levy stamp duty on the instruments specified in Article 246 read with Schedule VII, List I, Entry 91 and the State Government has the power to levy stamp duty on instruments falling under Article 246 read with Schedule VII, List II, Entry 63.
Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Viresh Sangwan & ANR(SC)- The housing development authority cannot be held responsible for the encroachments made after possession of the plot had been delivered to the allottees.. Neither the original allottee nor those who bought the property later, could accuse the development authority of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some villagers had made encroachment on it. The appeal of the authority was against the National Consumer Commission order which confirmed the rulings of the state and district forums that there was deficiency in service of the authority as the plot had been encroached upon. The Supreme Court asserted that encroachments after the allotment and due to the negligence of the allottees cannot be subjected to consumer complaints.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court has stated that though the employer might have violated the retrenchment rules under the Industrial Disputes Act, daily wage employees who have worked for a long time in an establishment are not entitled to regularisation. They can only claim monetary compensation. In this case, the workers were on daily wages since 1984 and their services were terminated in 1991 due to non-availability of work.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha & Ors. (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court last week dismissed National Insurance Company’s appeal against the award of compensation for the death of a youth, stating that the insurer has not proved that he was negligent while driving his motorcycle. It also did not bring evidence on the role of the youth – whether he was owner, agent, employee or representative, which was crucial to the case. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 4.26 lakh to the widow, children and parents as against their claim of Rs 8 lakh. The company moved the Kerala high court and the Supreme Court and failed in each instance.
Union of India Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy & ANR. (SC) – An agreement to refer disputes to arbitration will not be void because a government instruction which makes the deal unprofitable. A contract in such cases will be valid unless it is unlawful. In this case, the government invited tenders for supply of fruits for the army. The successful bidder began the supply but stopped when the prices rose and the deal became unprofitable.
Subash Chand Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh)- In the present case, the AO has found that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 27,90,000/- towards purchase of flat/plot and for meeting household expenses in the year under appeal. The assessee could not have paid the aforesaid amount without having the money with him. No material has been placed before us to establish that the assessee had actually been paid by the buyer any money over and above Rs. 8.00 lakhs or that the assessee has actually received from the buyer of the agricultural land over and above Rs. 8 lakhs.
Union Minister of Corporate Affairs Dr. M. Veerappa Moily today informed the Rajya Sabha that some instances of violations have come to the notice of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) which is examining the same. ICAI is itself competent to decide on these violations without reffering to the Central Government. However, no specific firm-wise violations by multinational firms (stating exactly which sections have been violated by which firm) have been brought to the notice of the Government.
