In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1),(2),(5) and (8) of section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Companies Regulations, 1956, namely:- 1. (1) These regulations may be called the Companies (Amendment) Regulations, 2011.(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.2. In the Companies Regulations, 1956 (herein after referred to as the said regulations), in Part B, in regulation 3, 5, 7, 9 and 14, for the word “Regional Director”, the word “Registrar of Companies” shall be substituted.
Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran vs The State Of Maharashtra – The Bombay high court has ruled that when a bank account is sought to be seized during criminal investigation, the account-holder need not be given prior notice. In this case, Essar Logistics vs Vinoskumar, the account holder argued that natural justice demanded that he should be given notice before freezing his account. The division bench of the high court rejected his contention and remarked: It would indeed be absurd to suggest that a person must be told that his bank account, which is suspected of having been used in the commission of an offence by himself or even by another, is being frozen to allow him to have it closed or to have its proceeds withdrawn or transferred upon such notice.
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Allahabad high court, stating that the high court had inserted words in a Uttar Pradesh notification which it had no power to do. The court should only interpret provisions of tax laws; it should not take over the role of the supervisor or legislator, the court stated in the judgment, State of UP vs Mahindra & Mahindra. The case arose when the tractor manufacturer moved the high court seeking exemption in the sale/excise duty for tractor engines specifying cubic capacity not exceeding 1800 cc. The high court allowed the writ petition. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. It remitted the matter to the excise tribunal for reconsideration, asking it not to alter the scope of the state notification.
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.- All disputes are not capable of settlement through arbitration; some by nature have to be adjudicated by courts, according to the Supreme Court. A suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of mortgaged property should be tried by a court and not by arbitral tribunal, the court stated in the judgment, Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. Vs SBI Home Finance Ltd. In this case, two firms took loan from SBI to buy flats in Mumbai and they entered into leave and licence agreements with Booz. The borrowers did not repay the loan and so SBI filed a mortgage suit before the Bombay high court. Booz moved the high court for arbitration which was dismissed. Its appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. It stated that a court where the mortgage suit is pending should not refer the parties to arbitration as it is not an “arbitrable” issue. This is so because only a court can protect the interests of third parties. Arbitration deals with only disputes between parties to the arbitration agreement. The court gave similar instances where arbitration should not be attempted, like insolvency and winding up matters, tenancy, wills, criminal offences, matrimonial disputes and guardianship issues.
Download Appeal Forms under Customs Act, Central Excise Act, Finance Act (Service Tax) and under Customs Tariff Act 1975 (Anti Dumping Duty). Form No. S.T.-5, Form No. S.T.-6, Form No. S.T.-7, Form No. E.A.-3, Form No. E.A.-4, Form No. E.A.-5, Form No. C.A.-3, Form No. C.A.-4, Form No. C.A.-5
Carriages which run under public transport system fall under category of stage carriages where passengers have a right to board or alight according to their choice and convenience and pay fares for the journey individually, do not fall under definition of ‘tourist vehicle’ under Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
As many as 85 lakh tax payers will benefit from the government’s decision to exempt persons earning less than Rs 5 lakh a year from filing I-T returns, a finance ministry official said. The decision, which will come into effect from June 1, 2011, will reduce the compliance burden about 85 lakh small taxpayers, he said.
Desperate to curb the flow of blackmoney into the country’s economy, the Income Tax department has now begun to track all fliers and visitors who travel to tax havens like Switzerland, Virgin Islands and Bahamas for personal or business purposes secretly. The department has focussed its intelligence and investigation scanner on all such travellers who have visited tax haven nations last year and have not disclosed the expenditure and instances of such tours in their Income Tax returns.
The new company law will make it mandatory for companies to disclose details of social sector initiatives, called CSR, in addition to money spent, to shareholders in their annual reports. Not just how much, but companies will also have to disclose to their shareholders where they have spent the 2 per cent of net profit earmarked for corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, once the Companies Bill 2009 is passed by Parliament.
Sapient Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – When loss making companies have been taken out from the list of comparables by the TPO, Zenith Infotech Ltd. which showed super profits should also be excluded. The fact that assessee has himself included in the list of comparables, initially cannot act of estoppel particularly in light of the fact that the AO had only chosen the companies which are showing profits and had rejected the other companies which showed loss (Quark System vs. DCIT 38 SOT 307 (SB) followed).
