The new Companies Bill could contain a provision that will make auditors compensate retail investors in cases of corporate fraud, a measure aimed at bringing in more accountability into audit profession.
Tax officials are scrutinising other cross-border mergers like the Vodafone-Hutchison deal for possible tax evasion after the Bombay High Court rejected a petition against imposition of tax on the deal, a key finance ministry official said on Moday.
The Finance Ministry today said safe harbour rules — a set of norms that would enable the income tax (I-T) authorities to accept without scrutiny the tax returns by the Indian units of foreign companies — would be soon put in place. “Safe harbour
The CBI, probing the about Rs 14,000-crore accounting scam in IT firm Satyam Computers today completed its arguments on the charges to be framed against 10 accused in the case. CBI’s Special Public Prosecutor K Surendra who had last week begun argume
With International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) to be made mandatory from April 1 next year, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards have drawn up all but three standards to be f
Notification No. 93 / 2010 – Customs, New Delhi, the 14th September,2010. G.S.R. 753 (E). — In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), specified in column (2) of the Table below, shall be amended or further amended, as the case may be, in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, namely :-
In terms of para 9 of Schedule 1 to the Notification, Indian companies are required to report, the details of the amount of consideration received for issue of FDI instruments, viz. equity shares, fully and mandatorily convertible preference shares and debentures under the FDI scheme, in the Advance Reporting Format along with the KYC report on the non-resident investor, to the Regional Office of the Reserve Bank in whose jurisdiction the Registered Office of the company operates, within 30 days of receipt of the amount of consideration. Further, the Indian company is required to issue the FDI instruments to the non-resident investor within 180 days of the receipt of the inward remittance and report the same in Form FC-GPR, to the Regional Office concerned of the Reserve Bank, within 30 days from the date of issue of shares.
The Direct Code Bill 2010 is in public domain now, after a long debate and discussion on the Draft DTC put on public domain in August 2009. The Chapter of INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION having no space in the Draft DTC and has been made part of Direct Taxes Bill 2010, therefore requires proper public debate and sufficient discussions as to the Chapter XVI of DTC Bill 2010.
In a recent decision, in the case of Entertainment One India Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-210-ITAT-MUM] (“the assessee”), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has held that there is no liability to withhold tax under sections 194C and 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on payments made to producers, directors and actors for financing film production.
The Mumbai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), in its recent ruling in the case of M/s Hinduja TMT Ltd. [2010-T11-18-ITAT-MUM-TP] , has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the arm’s length nature of its international transactions with associated enterprises. In this regard, the uncontrolled comparable data as well as other relevant details submitted by the assessee must be examined by the Revenue. Arm’s length price (“ALP”) must eventually be established with reference to appropriate uncontrolled comparable data and other relevant details, and by applying the methods prescribed in the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. In the same ruling, on a separate ground of appeal, the Tribunal considered whether the sale of investment made by the assessee was in the nature of capital gain or business income. Based on the facts, the Tribunal has, without giving any findings, restored the file back to the assessing officer (“AO”) so that the AO may take a view, consistent with those taken in earlier assessment years on identical issues, after considering the assessee’s contentions and having regard to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582; 188 Taxman 140).
