India Inc has reason to cheer with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs making it mandatory for the competition regulator, the Competition Commission of India, to clear M&A (mergers and acquisitions) proposals in just 180 days compared with 210 days specified earlier.
Twenty-year old Sharma did not know that a small negligence in keeping track of his credit would mean a bill of Rs 18 lakh, especially, since his credit limit was only Rs 55,000. A call, however, to the customer support of the bank confirmed the amount.Sharma swung into action immediately and filed a police complaint. He even informed the issuer about the unfortunate event.
Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers, a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal (96 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)) and the Bombay High Court (310 ITR 421 (Bom)) held that the ‘loss’ incurred by an assessee in ‘dividend-stripping’ transactions cannot be disallowed on the ground that it was ‘tax-planning‘. The department’s SLP against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Supreme Court today, 6th July 2010.
Earlier, when Manjusha Wadhawa, counsel for the petitioner, said the accounts should be audited by the CAG for the transparent functioning of the BCCI as it represented the Indian team, Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia asked her whether at present the board’s accounts were not being audited as per the Companies Act. Counsel said the BCCI did not come under the RTI Act.
The world’s four biggest accounting firms are to appoint non-executive directors after coming under growing pressure from regulators over governance.Ernst & Young, which along with law firm Linklaters has been been accused of providing window dressing for Lehman Brothers’ risky financial structures, today became the first of the big four auditors to announce its intention to appoint in non-executive directors to its global advisory board.
In a ruling affecting the way multinational companies use brand names in India, and the tax demands raised on payments in this regard, the High Court here has laid down some principles in this regard. It did so while setting aside an order by Income Tax authorities to disallow as a deductible expense the royalty paid by Maruti Suzuki India to its Japanese parent, Suzuki Motor Corporation, for using the latter’s ‘S’ logo on cars sold in India.
In a crackdown on offshore tax evasion, American authorities have begun a criminal probe into HSBC individual account holders, who may not have disclosed their accounts in India. Indian Finance Ministry officials admitted that authorities in New Delhi “must have passed on the information to their US counterparts as part of bilateral or multilateral agreements”.
In CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 227 CTR 335 the Karnataka High Court has confined its decision to the issue of responsibility of the assessee u/s 195 in deducting tax at source before making remittances to non-residents. Even though the court held in favour of the Revenue on the application of the TDS provisions, the court made it clear in paragraph 78 that it has not examined the question of tax liability of the non-resident assessees in respect of the payments received from assesses in India.
This decision of the HC reiterates the principle of the binding nature of an AAR ruling and clarifies that a subsequent adverse AAR ruling in respect of another taxpayer, even if given under comparable facts, cannot disturb this position. An AAR ruling continues to be binding unless there is a change in law or facts, which would require the Tax Authority to follow the procedure provided in the ITL. Also, the HC has clarified that the CIT cannot invoke its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by a subordinate tax officer who follows a binding AAR ruling.
For a new listing, at least 25% of each class of equity shares or debentures convertible into equity shares issued by the entity will be offered and allotted to the public. However, for entities with post-issue capital, calculated at offer price, of more than INR 4,000 crores (INR40 billion), this limit has been currently fixed at 10%. Also, the increased threshold of 25% will not currently apply to an entity whose draft offer document is pending with the SEBI on or before the commencement of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules 2010, if it satisfies the conditions prescribed in rule 19(2)(b) of SCRR for applicability of the 10% threshold.
