All concerned may please note that due to administrative reasons beyond our control, the examination of ‘Elements of Business Laws and Management’ Paper of CS Foundation Programme scheduled to be held on 5th June, 2012 has been postponed. Fresh date for conducting the examinations of the above mentioned paper will be intimated separately. For any clarification/information in this regard, please contact the Student Services Section of the Institute at Tel.No. 0120-4522081/ 86 or at E-Mail id [email protected]
Service Tax – Construction of complex service -The Appellants argue that there is no relationship of service provider and service recipient between the Developer and the Land Owner. According to them it is a relationship in a joint venture for profit. Both the parties have joined together in the business of construction of complex and the land owner brings in the capital by way of his land. The Developer by way of his capital and services and they jointly construct the complex and use or sell the flats for profit. He argues that CBEC had clarified the position that no service arises in such context. This clarification dated 29-01-09 is examined later in this order.
Explanation-3 to section 43(1) says that where the AO is satisfied that the main purpose of the transfer of such assets to the assessee was the reduction of liability to income tax by claiming depreciation with a reference to an enhanced cost, then the actual cost to the assessee shall be such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The facts of the case are that the assessee had leased its property at Vidyavihar to Minicon Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. (MIWPL) at Rs. 22,56,000, which in turn was leased out by MIWPL to various other parties, from which it was receiving rents of Rs. 1,59,34,618. The AO, relying on the orders of the preceding years, added the rents received by MIWPL at Rs. 1,59,34,618 in the hands of the assessee, holding that the rent agreement between the assessee and MIWPL was a sham, and the entire rent received by the company actually belonged to the assessee, as assessee and MIWPL are related parties.
I am also pleased to inform the members that the Institute has brought out Guidance Note on Maintenance of Cost Accounting Records. Since the Ministry of Corporate Affairs – Cost Audit Branch has extended to all companies engaged in production, processing manufacturing and mining activities and regulated industries, through a series of notifications, it was necessary for the Institute to explain the extent, scope and methodology of preparation and maintenance of requisite cost accounting records by the companies.
Aviva Life Insurance today announced the launch of its online health plan – Aviva Health Secure. The plan provides the policyholder with a lump sum amount on diagnoses of any critical illness covered by the policy thereby ensuring that the family has adequate funds to meet the unplanned medical expenses and get the best possible treatment. Available exclusively on the online platform, Aviva Health Secure can be bought for a nominal premium starting Rs 2000 per year from www.avivaindia.com. While the minimum sum assured is Rs 5 lakh, the maximum is Rs 50 lakh. The plan can be bought by a person from 18 years to 55 years of age for a minimum policy term of 10 years and a maximum term of 30 years.
The Company Secretaries (Amendment) Regulations, 2012 (Published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4 Dated June 04, 12 vide Notification No. 710/1(M)/2 dated 04.06.12)
2) Period for which the issue may remain OPEN:Rights offer shall be made by Notice specifying the number of shares offered and limiting a time not being less than 15 days from the date of the offer within which the offer, if not accepted, will be deemed to have been declined {Section 81(1)(b)}.
General Circular No. 12/2012 Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide no. 52/26/CAB-2010 dated 2nd May, 2011 had directed that every company to which any of the following rules apply, and wherein, the aggregate value of net worth as on the last date of the immediately preceding financial year exceeds five crore of rupees; or wherein the aggregate value of the turnover made by the company from sale or supply of all products or activities during the immediately preceding financial year exceeds twenty crore of rupees;
We find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee was a ‘resident but not ordinarily resident’ for the relevant assessment year. The mere fact that she relocated to India on 29th May 2005 does not alter her residential status, so far Income Tax Act is concerned, with effect from that date. Quite fairly, learned Commissioner has also not specifically disputed this position even as he has laid lot of emphasis on the fact that she returned to India on 29th May 2005 and the fact that sale was concluded after that date i.e. 31st May 2005, but then nothing really turns on these facts because whether sales took place after assessee’s relocating to India or not, her residential status continues to be of the ‘resident but not ordinarily resident’ throughout the relevant previous year.
