Even before the PoTR, 2011 see the light of the day, a major surgery was carried out wherein the whole focus for the events determining PoT was shifted to issue of invoice. Notification No. 25/2011 dt. 31st March, 2011 made many changes in the PoTR making it necessary for the SP to sit down and re-do the whole exercise once again. As if the confusions were not enough, Notification No. 26/2011 dt. 31st March, 2011 added few more. This analysis incorporates these amendments. CBEC has been silent on the objectives of making so many amendments so frequently. In order to get the clear picture and deciphering the objectives, an attempt has been made here to analyse Draft PoTR of August, 2010, PoTR before amendment and PoTR after Notification No. 25/2011 together.
1. What is Director Identification Number (DIN)? It is an unique Identification Number allotted to an individual who is an existing director of a company or intends to be appointed as director of a company pursuant to section 266A & 266B of the Companies Act, 1956 (as amended vide Act No 23 of 2006). 2. Who can file an application for allotment of DIN ? Any individual, who is an existing director of a company or intends to be appointed as a director of the company, can file an application for allotment of DIN.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified vide NOTIFICATION [F.NO. 17/75/2011-C.L.V], DATED 6-4-2011 enhancement in previous limit of Rs. Fifty thousand per month given under Rule 3 of Director’s Relative (Office or Place of Profit) Rules, 2003 to Rs. Two lakh fifty thousand per month for payment remuneration to relatives or partners of the directors of the Company falling under Section 314(1B) of the Companies Act 1956. By such notification, the amended rules may be called as Director’s Relative (Office or Place of Profit) Amendment Rules, 2011.
The effect of the notification shall require the Companies including Government Companies to include a statement showing the name of every specified employee of the Company in their Board Report pursuant to Section 217 (2A) of the Companies Act 1956 read with Companies (Particulars of Employees) Amendment Rules, 2011 which provides:
As per General Circular No. 09/2011 issued by MCA on 31st March, 2011, Companies are required to file their financial statements in the XBRL format with the Registrar of Companies (RoC) for the year ended 31 March, 2011 as per the following criteria: (i) All companies listed in India & their subsidiaries in India and abroad; & (ii)All companies having a Paid up Capital of Rs. 5 Crores & more or a Turnover of Rs. 100 Crores & above
Notification No 36/2011 – Income Tax Income Tax department has last amended the 3CD report by inserting a New Clause 17A after Clause 17 by NOTIFICATION NO. 36/2009, DATED 13-4-2009 , which require auditors to report Amount of interest inadmissible under section 23 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. In addition to that there were some changes in provisions of fringe benefit. I am attaching herewith a Revised Form 3CD for Tax Audit incorporating all the changes and amendments till 31st August 2011 and same is applicable for Assessment year 2009-2010, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Download Form 3CD in Excel Format
The issue of excise duty on readymade garments, the applicability of SSI exemption notifications and many such other issues were discussed in my last article VALUE BASED EXEMPTION SCHEME FOR SSI – GARMENTS . Since the time of publication of this article many clarifications were issued and many procedural aspects were simplified. In this article I propose to discuss these clarifications. In this article readymade garments and made up articles will be referred to as “Garments”
Himachal Pardesh High court in an important recent Judgment namely M/s Durga Dass Devki Nandan.V Income-tax Officer, Palampur decided on 11-03-2011 has held the circular No 739 dated 25-03-1996 of CBDT as invalid. The said circular is on the issue of availability of deduction to a partnership firm in relation to remuneration available to partners of a firm u/s 40(b)(v) of Income Tax Act 1961. The said circular stated that the deduction u/s 40(b)(v) will be available only if the remuneration to partners is authorized by the partnership deed by way of specification of amount of remuneration therein or by way of quantification of remuneration.
In the case of Bharti Cellular the Supreme Court (SC) acknowledged the role of technical experts while deciding on tax issues arising from complex technical matters. The SC, accordingly, directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to issue directions to tax authorities, including transfer pricing officers (TPOs), to take opinion of technical experts and bring on record technical evidence in cases involving complex technical issues and substantial revenue. Pursuant to the above, the CBDT has issued Instruction No. 5/2011 [F. No. 225/61/2011 – IT(A-11)] dated 30 March 2011 (Instruction).
in a recent case namely Snoline/Snowline Air Conditioner Vs State of Punjab decided on 17-12-2010 by PVAT Tribunal(2011) 16 STM 332 where the penalty was imposed u/s 14-B(6)(i) of Punjab General Sales Tax Act 1948 and the case was remanded for denovo orders to the designated officer on the ground that “As per records, the goods were detained on 07-05-2003 and the penalizing officer imposed a penalty on 07.05.2003. It appears that no inquiry was made by penalizing officer before imposition of penalty. The case is remanded to the penalizing officer to afford proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and pass de-novo orders.”
