Online Law Solutions

Visit our website: www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law: Click Here This is an application filed by M/s. Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited and its two Directors namely, Mr. Raghuram lyer and Mr. Ranjit Barthakur under section 621A of the Comnpanies Act 1956 with a prayer for compounding the offences committed by them under section 297 of the Act. After issuance of the show-cause notice the prosecution has been launched before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai bearing criminal complaint No. 4953/SS/2014/232 dated 17.06.201 5. It is thereafter that the application for compounding has been filed. 2. The allegation against the applicant-company is that the company had approved some contracts in various Board Meetings which have been entered into tviv-' between the applicant-company on the one hand and M/s. Agilivs IT Services IndiaPrivate Limited fig EM Management Primate Limited on the other. The offences continued for s

Visit our website: www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law: Click Here Case Law Citation: CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court), Income tax (Appeal) no. 947 of 2011 and 539 of 2014, Date of Judgment: 23/09/2015 Brief of the Case Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. that any changes in the audited financials like for e.g., the ‘regrouping’ of shares in the present case, if at all permissible, has to be preceded by a legally acceptable procedure adopted by the Assessee, and in any event prior to the finalization and signing of the audited balance sheet for a particular financial year. Facts of the Case Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading and finance. For the AY 2005-06, the Assessee filed its return of income on 31st October 2005 declaring a total income of Rs.3,75,88,170 which comprised of business loss of Rs.(-

Visit our website: www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law: Click Here F No 149/222/2015-TPL (Part-I) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes PRESS RELEASE New Delhi, 29th October, 2015 Subject: Taxation of income from off-shore Rupee Denominated Bonds-reg. The Reserve Bank of India has recently permitted Indian corporates to issue rupee denominated bonds outside India. The matter of taxation of income from such bonds under Income-tax Act, 1961 has been considered by the Government. In so far as taxation of interest income from these INR off-shore bonds in the case of non-resident investors is concerned, it is clarified that withholding tax at the rate of 5 percent, which is in the nature of final tax, would be applicable in the same way as it is applicable for off-shore dollar denominated bonds. Further, it has been decided that the Capital gains, arising in case o

Visit our website: www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law: Click Here Case Law Citation: Principal CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court), Income tax Appeal no.519 of 2015, Date of Judgment: 14/10/2015 Brief of the Case Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal  CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.  that the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) subsequent to 16th December 2010 when the Assessee made a statement before the AO to the effect that the original return filed should be treated as a return pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of re-assessment. Accordingly, re-assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is not valid. Facts of the Case The Assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 16th September, 2008. The said return was accepted by the Department and an acknowledgement was issued under Se

Visit our website: www.onlinelawsolutions.com Subscribe our updates on tax/law: Click Here Citation of the Case :  Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court), Writ Petition (c) nos.5348 & 6916 of 2015,  Date of Judgment:   13/10/2015 Brief of the Case Kerala High Court held In the case of Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala that It is well settled that show cause notices issued by statutory authorities particularly in case of imposition of penalty on an assessee, cannot pre-determine the guilt of an assessee. The notices issued cannot confront an assessee with definite conclusions as regards the commission of an offence by him as; otherwise, it would make a mockery of the process of quasi-judicial adjudication. Also there is nothing mention in the notice as to why the revenue authorities considered the petitioner a dealer, or why the transactions in question had to be treated as local sales as against inter-