Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from June, 2014

Last date for filing DPT 4 extended upto 31-08-2014

Please find copy of circular attached

--
www.taxingnarad.com

MCA UPDATE Clarification on Format of Annual Return applicable for Financial Year 2013-14 and Fees to be charged by Companies for allowing Inspection of Records.

QUERY:·While filing Annual Return (AR) of a Company under The Companies Act for the financial year ended on or before 01-04-2014:§Should we use old format§Or should we use new format as per Companies Act 2013 ?SOLUTION:Circular No. 22/2014 dated 25-June-2014 (Please find attached a copy) vIn all such cases where FY ended on or before 01-04-2014,vWe have to use old format of AR given under Companies Act 1956.QUERY:
Whether fees to be charged by Companies for allowing Inspection of Records?
SOLUTION:Circular No. 22/2014 dated 25-June-2014 (Please find attached a copy)
vClarified that until the requisite fee is specified by companies, inspections could be allowed wlthout lely of fee.

Clarification with regard to use of the words "Commodity Exchange" in a company-reg.

S. 201/ 201(1A): The payer is not liable for TDS default if the Dept does not prove that the tax could not be recovered from the recipient, further no liability for interest u/s 201(1A) if recipient of income had no tax liability embedded in such payments

Allahabad Bank vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)The assessee, a bank,    -           was held liable u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) r.w.s. 194 A          - for failure to withholding TDS on interest paid by it to customers on deposits placed by them with the assessee. The assessee claimed that it could not be treated as an assessee-in-default as no steps had been taken to determine whether the recipients of the interest had paid tax thereon. HELD by the Tribunal allowing the appeal:(i)A short deduction of tax at source, by itself does not result in a legally sustainable demand u/s 201(1) and u/s 201(1A). As held inHindustan Coca Cola Beverages vs. CIT293 ITR 226, taxes cannot be recovered once again from the assessee in a situation in which the recipient of income has paid due taxes on income embedded in the payments from which tax withholding requirements were not fully or partly, complied with. InJagran Prakashan vs. DCIT21 TM.com 489 (All) it was held that the deductor cannot be treated an…

MCA Clarification on Applicability of requirement for Resident Director

--
M/s N.K. Goel & Bros.
@yashugoel
Chartered Accountants
CA Yashu Goel
9899263490

Shares held in fiduciary capacity won't be counted to determine relationship of 'Associate Co.' under 2013 Act

--
M/s N.K. Goel & Bros.
Chartered Accountants
CA Yashu Goel
9899263490

MCA clarification relating to Incorporation of a company i.e. a company incorporated outside India

--
M/s N.K. Goel & Bros.
Chartered Accountants
CA Yashu Goel 9899263490
MCA issues draft Notification for Comments on various sections of Companies Act, 2013 for Private Companies.
30-6-14 (Monday) is LAST DATE to file  Return of Deposits on 1-4-14 in DPT-4 attached to GNL-2 by ALL Cos. Repay Deposits  by 31-3-15 or by due date, if earlier.
Revised TDS returns to be accepted without Original Provisional receipts wef 01.06.2014
Circular No: NSDL/TIN/2014/024,

E-file Wealth Tax Returns with Digital Signature for those assessees who are liable to get accounts audited under section 44AB from    assessment year 2014-15.
In other cases Individuals/HUF can also file returns manually for the assessment year 2014-15 if no Tax Audit. IT Notification number 32 of dated 23-6-14.

A transfer of shares under a family arrangement is for a determinable "consideration" & is not "voluntary".

ACIT vs. Bilakhia Holdings P. Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad)A transfer of shares under a family arrangement is for a determinable "consideration" & is not "voluntary". Consequently, the shares are not received under a "gift" & the transferee cannot claim benefit of cost, and holding period, of the transferorThe members of the Bilakhia family entered into a deed of family arrangement with a view to consolidate and equalize values of the assets held by each of the parties. Pursuance to the said family arrangement, the family members transferred the shares of Nestle India Ltd and Hindustan Lever Ltd held by them as investment to the assessee, an investment company in which the individual members of the family had equal interest. The assessee sold the shares and claimed that as it had acquired the shares vide a "gift", in computing the capital gain, the cost of acquisition of the shares to, and the period of holding by, the transferors, h…

Taxing Narad sent you an invitation

Taxing Narad has invited you to join Twitter! Accept invitation You can stop getting these emails with people you may know (PYMK) suggestions at anytime. Learn more about PYMK suggestions or find other answers at Twitter's Help Center.Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market St., Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103

In the absence of application seeking condonation of delay, the Commissioner Appeal should inform the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay before dismissing the appeal on the ground of it being barred by limitation.

Recently, in the case of 
Janakkumar C. Naik v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman,(2014)  45 taxmann.com 193 (Ahmedabad - CESTAT)
the Ahmedabad CESTAT held that in the absence of application seeking condonation of delay, the Commissioner Appeal should inform the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay before dismissing the appeal on the ground of it being barred by limitation.
In the instant case, The assessee could not file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the time period prescribed (2 months) by Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and delayed it by 10 days. Further, the assessee did not submit the application for condonation of delay and the Commissioner rejected the appeal as being barred by limitation. 
The Ahmedabad CESTAT observed that though the appeal has been filed after the statutory period of two months and no application for condonation of delay has been filed but the appellate authority should have informed the assessee to file an appli…
Today Ministry of Corporate Affairs considering the procedural aspects on e-voting and clarity on demand of poll and postal ballot, it has been decided not to treat the relevant e-voting provisions as mandatory till 31st December 2014. In view of this till December 2014, e-voting is not mandatory for companies. MCA Circular No.20 dated 17th June 2014.http://www.casansaar.com/notification-detail/Clarification-with-regard-to-voting-through-electronic-means/2082.html
HDFC TO ACCEPT OFFLINE  CHALLANS

ITAT issues strictures against AO & CIT & fines them for filing a frivolous appeal

ITO vs. Growel Energy Co. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal raising several grounds relating to s. 69C etc. The CIT(A) had allowed relief to the assessee on the ground that as the expenses were duly recorded in the books and there was no dispute as to their genuineness, s. 69C had no application. HELD by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal:
The ITO, the Appellant, as well as the CIT, who has authorised the AO to prefer an appeal, did not apply their mind in the correct perspective and in a very lacklustre and routine manner filed the appeal which, in turn, resulted in wastage of time of the court … At this juncture it may be noticed that the power is vested in the CIT and not with the AO because the Legislature, in its wisdom, thought that a superior/ senior officer can take a more balanced decision so as to avoid filing frivolous appeals in routine manner. However, even the CIT has not given his reasons as to why he has authorised the AO to file an…
Service tax paid by Service provider, on being pointed out by Department, can be treated as business expenditure

We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Kaypee Mechanical India (P.) Ltd. [(2014) 45 taxmann.com 363 (Gujarat)] on the following issue:

Issue:

Where assessee had not collected and deposited Service tax but on being pointed out, deposited the same along with Interest, can it be treated as expenditure deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Facts & background:

The Department conducted an audit of records of Kaypee Mechanical India (P.) Ltd. ("Kaypee" or "the Assessee") for the Financial Year 2003-04 to 2006-07. During the audit, the authorities raised an audit objection pointing out that the Assessee had not collected the service tax on mechanical erection and installation of plant and machinery, structure work, piping work, etc., for …