The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) has issued the revised Guidance on Reports in Company Prospectuses.
The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AASB) of ICAI had issued the “Guidance Note on Reports in Company Prospectuses” in 2006 to provide guidance to the members carrying out engagements to issue reports in prospectuses issued by companies.
The Guidance Note was revised by AASB in 2016 based on the provisions of the Companies Act 2013 and the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009.
In September 2018, SEBI revised the earlier regulations and issued the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 wherein number of changes vis-à-vis ICDR Regulations 2009 have been made. Considering the numerous changes made by SEBI(ICDR) Regulations 2018, it was felt necessary to revise the Guidance Note earlier issued by the ICAI. It is heartening that AASB of ICAI has brought out this revised edition of the ‘Guidance Note on Reports in Company Prospectuses’ to provide appropriate guidance to the members.
The Guidance Note has been written in simple and easy to understand language and contains detailed guidance on various issues involved in such engagements.
“I am happy that the Guidance Note is a comprehensive and self-contained reference document for the members. I compliment CA. Shyam Lal Agarwal, Chairman, CA. Sanjay Vasudeva, Vice-Chairman and other members of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board for bringing out this Guidance Note for the benefit of the members. I am sure that the members would find this Guidance Note immensely useful,” ICAI Chief CA. Naveen N.D. Gupta said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentA three-judge bench of the Kerala High Court has held that the supply of medicines, consumables, and implants provided by the hospitals to in-patients during the course of the medical treatment is not subject to Value Added Tax ( VAT ) as same would constitute ‘composite supply.’
Citing Supreme Court judgment, the full Bench comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, Justice A Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Ashok Menon observed the sale, if any made, in the course of the treatment of a patient in a hospital, is with the sole intention of curing the patient.
The ruling would give a major relief to the in-patients as the medical bills are expected to come down.
Usually, the hospitals categorize the patients as Out-Patients and In-Patients for the administrative convenience. The out-patients are those who visit the hospital for routine check-ups or clinical visits. The in-patients are those who are admitted into the hospital for the required treatment. The in- patients are provided with stay facilities, medicines, consumables, implants, dietary food and other surgeries/ procedures required for the treatment.
The petitioners contended that the assessment of medicines, consumables, implants, X Rays administered during the course of treatment to the inpatients is a composite contract of goods and services which cannot be split and assessed under Kvat Act 200. According to them, the Entry 54 List II of Seventh Schedule and Article 366 (29A) do not permit the assessing authorities to assess the same to tax, treating the same as sales, as is unconstitutional.
The full bench accepted this proposition and answered the reference made by the Division Bench accordingly.
Advocates K P Abdul Azeez, A. Kumar and Bechu Kurian appeared for the petitioners’ hospitals.
Recently, an order of the Authority of Advance Ruling ( AAR ), Kerala had delivered a similar ruling under GST wherein it was held that the supply of medicines, consumables, and implants used in the course of providing health care services to inpatients for diagnosis or treatment are naturally bundled and are provided in conjunction with each other, would be considered as “Composite Supply” and eligible for exemption under the category ‘health care services’.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the delay in filing of the tax audit report is a technical venial breach for which, the penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable.
The assessee, a businessman, did not attach tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act, along with the return of income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for violation of provisions of Section 44AB of the Act, for Rs.77,559/-.
Before the authorities, the assessee pleaded that the tax audit was completed on 27/09/2013, by the tax auditor and thereafter, the said tax auditor suddenly fell ill and accordingly the tax audit report could not be filed along with the return of income. Without the tax audit report, the income tax return was electronically uploaded as it was lying with the tax auditor.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had only committed a technical venial breach without creating any loss to the exchequer. In the instant case, the tax audit report was very much made available before the ld. Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings.
It was observed that the assessee had only committed a technical venial breach without creating any loss to the exchequer. It further noted that the tax audit report was very much made available before the ld. Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that “this decision was rendered in the context of adjudication of the quantum of deduction of the assessee. Hence the said analogy could very well be drawn and used in penalty proceedings like that of the assessee. To conclude, we hold that the assessee had committed only technical venial breach for which he could not be penalized. In view of the aforesaid observation and respectively following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. A.N. Arunachalam (supra), we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Calcutta High Court has held that the service tax audit under Finance Act, 1994 after the GST rollout is permissible under law.
The authorities proposed to conduct an audit against the petitioners under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioners contended before the High Court that the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 repeals Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.
It was contended that the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 stands omitted and an audit contemplated under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 is not saved by the provisions of Section 174 of the Act of 2017.
Allowing the contentions, Justice Debangsu Basak observed that the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 stands omitted by Section 173 of the Act of 2017 save as otherwise provided under the Act of 2017. Therefore, if any provision of the Act of 2017 allows the applicability of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, then notwithstanding the omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 under Section 173 the same continues to apply.
“Section 174 is the repeal and saving provisions. Sub-Section 1 of Section 174 repeals the provisions of the various statutes as mentioned therein. Sub-Section (2) of Section 174 stipulates that, notwithstanding the repeal of the Acts mentioned in SubSection (1) of Section 174 and the amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 to the extent mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 174 or Section 173, it shall not affect any pending investigation, enquiry, verification or other legal proceedings and that, such proceedings may be instituted, continued or enforced as if such Act had not been repealed,” the Court said.
“Prima facie, reading Sections 173 and 174 of the Act of 2017 it appears that an enquiry or an investigation or even a legal proceeding under the Act of 1994 is permissible notwithstanding the coming into effect of the Act of 2017. The authorities are proposing to undertake an audit for the period when the Act of 1994 was applicable. The authorities are entitled to do so,” the Court added.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the relief under section 54F of the Income Tax Act would be available to the assessee even if there was a delay in investing in the new property due to some dispute in the said property.
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Labour work for electric fitting owned a 1/3rd share in property along with two other individuals. The said property was sold out for an amount of Rs. 66,00,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the property purchased was registered in the name of the assessee vide dated 10.10.2011 which is beyond the period prescribed under the provision of Section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the AO denied the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act.
On appeal, the assessee claimed that the delay in getting the property registered was due to some litigation for getting the same settled. Thus, the delay occurred due to the situation which was beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee claimed that he should not be penalized by not allowing exemption u/s 54F of the Act on account of the delay occurred due to the unavoidable situation.
Also Read: ITAT deletes Penalty against SBI for not deducting TDS on LTC to Employees on Foreign Travels
Failed to secure relief from the first appellate authority, the assessee approached the Tribunal by filing the second appeal.
The Tribunal noted that there was a delay on account of some dispute in the property which prevented the assessee from investing the money within the time as specified under section 54F of the Act.
“Thus, it is clear that the assessee could not comply with the provision of Section 54F of the Act which was beyond his control. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee is very much eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act for the amount which has been invested by him beyond the prescribed period but before getting the registration of the property provided there was sufficient reason which prevented the assessee for making in the investment within the prescribed time,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentA CA Student, suffering from cancer is seeking assistance from the general public and fraternity to raise funds for the treatment.
Mr. P. Sreedhar, CA Student from Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, pursuing CA Course at present serving as an Article Assistant.
Mr. Sreedhar got a severe chest pain in June 2018 and went to the hospital, after examination and CT scan doctors had confirmed that he is suffering from a rare type of Bone Cancer -Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumour (Last stage of Cancer).
His father was expired and he is the elder son looking after his family, so far he had incurred 6lakhs+ for the Chemotherapy Treatment cycles and further he had to incur Fifteen Lakhs and above ( Rs. 15 Lakhs+). The family do not have enough financial resources to continue with the treatment.
Persons pleased to extend the help and show their support to Mr.Sreedhar to fight against Cancer can make donations through the below options:
For further Details Contact: 8122031696
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the sale of ‘under construction property’ cannot be regarded as the sale of residential unit fo0r the purpose of denying the benefit of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The respondent-assessee, an individual filed income tax returns and claimed deduction under section 54F on account of sale of flat. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit by finding that the flat was in the nature of residential unit and therefore, Section 54F would not apply.
On appeal, both the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal held that the property transferred by assessee could not be termed to be a residential house and the provisions of section 54F were beneficial provisions enacted for the purpose of promoting the construction/purchase of residential houses.
Justices B P Colabawala and Justice Akil Kureshi held that “Perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act would show that the exemption would be available to an assessee being an individual or Hindu Undivided Family where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, not being a residential house provided the remaining conditions of the said provisions are satisfied. In this context, as noted, the revenue’s objection is that the assessee had sold a flat which was in the nature of the residential unit. The Tribunal, however, found that the facts of the case are somewhat peculiar.”
Also Read: Loss incurred on Sale of Shares of Subsidiary Companies is Business Loss: ITAT
The bench noted that the assessee had booked the flat on 15.1.1981. The builder failed to complete the construction and the scheme ran into multiple legal disputes. These disputes traveled to the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court appointed a committee in the nature of Receiver and was asked to observe the completion of the construction. Under such circumstances, the construction was completed sometime in February 2011. In the meantime, the assessee had sold the flat in the year 2005 which she had booked. The same was still under construction. The same resulted in a long-term capital gain.
Dismissing the departmental appeal, the bench said that “It was in such peculiar facts that the Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be said to have transferred a capital asset in the nature of the residential house. We may recall that the assessee had booked the flat far back in January 1981 and till the time, she sold for the same in the year 2005, completion of Constitution was nowhere in the sight. It was only with the intervention of the High Court and the steps taken by the Committee appointed by the High Court that the construction could be completed much later in the year 2011. In the peculiar facts of this case, therefore, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the loss incurred on the sale of the shares of the subsidiary companies would amount to business loss under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee was aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer who treated the loss incurred on the sale of shares of a subsidiary company as a long-term capital loss as against business loss treated by the assessee.
On appeal, the First appellate authority sustained the order and refused relief to the assessee. The assessee, therefore, approached the Tribunal.
The division bench of the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.71,69,290/- claimed by the assessee on account of loss on sale of investments by holding that such loss is a long-term capital loss and, therefore, is not eligible for setting off against the business income declared by the assessee.
Also Read: No ‘ Angel Tax ’ for Start-Up Investors: Govt.
“Treating the said loss as a long-term capital loss, the Assessing Officer has allowed the carry forward of the same as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act. We find the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that loss on sale of shares held as an investment in subsidiary companies is a revenue loss. It is also his argument that when the holding company invests amounts for the business of its subsidiary, it must be held for business expediency,” the Tribunal said.
Relying on various judicial decisions, the Tribunal overruled the orders of the lower authorities and held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the loss incurred on the sale of shares of subsidiary companies is a capital loss and not a business loss.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) has decided to conduct the examination of Advanced Integrated Course on Information Technology and Soft Skills (Advanced ICITSS) on 3rd March 2019, Sunday.
It will be a Computer Based exam.
The computer based test will be held at the following cities provided sufficient number of candidates offer themselves to appear in the test, from the said cities.
ICAI has the right to cancel the centre and allot the candidates to any centre / city other than the one he / she has opted for, in case the number of candidates who opt for appearing in that particular city / centre is not adequate.
Candidates who have undergone the Advanced ICITTS-Advanced Information Technology course and desirous of appearing in the test, will be required to apply online at http://advit.icaiexam.icai.org and also pay the applicable test fee online. No physical applications will be entertained. There is no concept of submission of applications with late fee. No change of centre will be permitted once opted.
A candidate who is applying for the test for the first time will not be required to pay the test fee. However, those who are applying for the test thereafter, i.e. from second time onwards will be required to pay a test fee of ₹ 500/- online through the payment gateway. For Dubai Centre, the test fee will be USD $ 150.
The income tax department to implement pre-filled income tax returns from the year 2020 making the return filing and refund process a one-day affair.
The cabinet last day cleared an ambitious Rs 4,242-crore project for integrated e-filing and centralised processing. The project will reduce the return processing and refund time from the current average of 63 days, railway minister Piyush Goyal said.
The government is building in an incentive for the service provider to process refunds in a day and there will be a penalty in case the work is not completed within 30 days, sources in the tax department told TOI.
The project will be implemented by Infosys will take around 18 months, in time for filing of returns in 2020.
Some elements of the new project may be implemented under the current system as well. Once the new mechanism is in place, taxpayers will get a pre-filed form in their income tax account which will have their name, Permanent Account Number (PAN) and other details, a tax officer said.
The columns related to salary, interest income and tax deducted at source captured in the 26AS forms will also be there. Taxpayers can add to the form by adding other income that may have accrued but not reported to the tax department earlier, said an officer.
In recent years, processing of returns has picked up and the tax department is also issuing refunds faster.
“By faster processing of returns and issue of refunds to the taxpayer’s bank account directly without any interface with the department, by adhering to international best practices and standards (ISO certification) and by providing processing status updates and speedy communication using mobile app, email, SMS and on the department website, the decision will ensure transparency and accountability,” an official statement said.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad bench has held that the frequency, magnitude of the transaction in a systematic manner cannot be the criteria to hold that the assessee is engaged in the business activity of shares.
The assessee, in his return, has made 162 transactions of purchase and sale of shares for earning such income under the head capital gain. The transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares were very frequent and period of holding of these shares was also very less.
The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has been carrying on a business of sale and purchase of the shares and therefore, the assessee is liable to offer the income as discussed aforesaid under the head business and profession.
Analyzing the CBDT Circulars, the Tribunal observed that the assessee can maintain two portfolios one for trading in the shares and the other one is for the investment in shares.
Also Read: Income Tax Dept sends Notices to Multinational Companies
“The only requirement of the circular, both the activities of the assessee should be clearly demarcated in the books of accounts. As the assessee has not shown any activity from the trading of shares and there was no closing stock shown in the financial statement, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee is dealing only in the investment activity as evident from the classification shown by the assessee under the head investments,” the Tribunal said.
It was observed that from the balance sheet submitted by the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has demarcated its shares under the head investment.
“Therefore, the Circular issued by the CBDT applies to the instant facts of the case. Therefore, keeping in view the provision of the Circular issued by the CBDT we are inclined to hold that the income from the investment of share on account of sale purchase should be liable to tax under the head capital gain,” the Tribunal added.
Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal held that “the frequency, magnitude of the transaction in a systematic manner cannot be the criteria to hold that the assessee is engaged in the business activity of shares. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of Learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to treat the income from investment activity under the head capital gain.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentIn order to compensate the revenue leakage in the direct taxes, the income tax department has issued prosecution notices to the directors of several multinationals, ET reported.
According to the report, the tax officials have issued notices to the Company directors of Google, Facebook, Samsonite, and KraftHeinz etc.
Prosecution notices make such cases equivalent to criminal offenses and give income tax officers additional powers, akin to those of the police, said experts, adding that taxpayers can only seek relief from a magistrate’s court in such instances.
Also Read: Interest to Partners by Firm as per Partnership Deed can’t be disallowed: ITAT
In some cases, prosecution notices have been issued to directors not based in India and to companies that had failed to deduct tax of around Rs 1,000 on an employee’s salary.
Many multinationals which have been served with the notices will now have to tackle this situation on a priority basis as even some of the non-Indian directors have been served with these prosecution notices.
The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the payment of interest to partners by a partnership firm according to the partnership deed cannot be disallowed by invoking section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of shares, derivatives, futures, call, and options on registered stock exchanges. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee firm has made an investment in mutual funds and has earned a dividend from such mutual funds which have been claimed as exempt in its return of income. He, therefore, held that the partners have made the investment in the firm’s capital and the said capital is used for making the investment in the mutual funds. Therefore, he held that the interest payment on partner’s capital is not an allowable expense against the dividend income which has been claimed as exempt and therefore, invoking provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D, he worked out the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 9,11,054/-.
Also Read: Vehicle registered in the name of Company Director Eligible for Deduction: ITAT
The order was confirmed by the first appellate authority.
The department contended before the Tribunal that the payment of interest to the partners by the assessee firm as per the provisions of the partnership deed is not an expenditure which is subject to the provisions of section 14A.
Allowing the second appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Quality Industries (Supra), payment of interest to the partners towards the use of the partner’s capital as per the provisions of the partnership deed is held not subject to disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of the Act. However, in respect of disallowance under Rule 8D(iii), no specific ground or plea has been taken by the ld AR on behalf of the assessee, hence the same is confirmed.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentUnion Minister for Minority Affairs Shri Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi today said here that for the first time after the Independence, more than 2300 Muslim women from India will go on Haj 2019 without Mehram (male companion).
While inaugurating new office space of Haj Division, Minority Affairs Ministry, at RK Puram in New Delhi, Shri Naqvi said that 2340 Muslim women from various states of the country have applied to go on 2019 without Mehram. On the directions of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, this year too, the Minority Affairs Ministry has made arrangement to send these women without lottery system.
For the first time, the Centre’s Modi Government had lifted ban on women going to without Mehram last year, which resulted into about 1300 Indian Muslim women going on 2018 without any male companion. They had been exempted from the lottery system. He said that above 2 lakh 67 thousand applications had been received for Haj 2019 out of which 1,64,902 applications were online.
Shri Naqvi said that for the first time after the Independence, a record number of Muslims from India performed in 2018 and that too without any “subsidy”. Record 1,75,025 Muslims from India performed Haj 2018 which include about 48 per cent women.
The Minister said that GST on Haj pilgrimage has been reduced from 18 per cent to 5 per cent which will ensure that about Rs 113 crore will be saved by pilgrims during 2019 Haj. Reduction in GST on Haj pilgrimage will ensure significant decrease in airfare from various embarkation points. Air fare from Srinagar will be reduced by Rs 11377.07, Ahmadabad will be reduced by Rs 7305.95, from Aurangabad by Rs 9373.68, from Delhi by Rs 7967.62, from Gaya by Rs 11027.85, from Guwahati by Rs 13049.63; from Ranchi by Rs 11946.84, from Kolkata by Rs 9787.22, Hyderabad by Rs 7204.87 this year.
Shri Naqvi said that making the process completely online/digital has helped to make the entire process transparent and pro-pilgrims. The Ministry of Minority Affairs, in cooperation with Saudi Arabia Haj Consulate, Committee of India and other concerned agencies, has completed 2019 Haj preparations 3 months before schedule to make this Haj more comfortable for the pilgrims.
In pursuance of decision in the 32nd Meeting of GST Council held on 10th January 2019 at New Delhi, a Group of Ministers (GoM) on issues relating to lottery has been constituted.
| Sl. No. | Name | Designation and State | |
| 1 | Shri Sudhir Mungantiwar | Finance Minister, Government of Maharashtra | Convener |
| 2 | Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac | Finance Minister, Government of Kerala | Member |
| 3 | Dr. Amit Mitra | Finance Minister, Government of West Bengal | Member |
| 4 | Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma | Finance Minister, Government of Assam | Member |
| 5 | Shri Mauvin Godinho | Minister of Panchayat, Government of Goa | Member |
| 6 | Shri Manpreet Singh Badal | Finance Minister, Government of Punjab | Member |
| 7 | Shri Krishna Byre Gowda | Finance Minister, Government of Karnataka | Member |
| 8 | Shri Jarkar Gamlin | Minister, Taxes and Excise, Government of Arunachal Pradesh | Member |
The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the GoM for lottery shall be as follows:
The Bihar State Government has decreased the threshold limit for generation of the e-way bill on the intra-state movement of goods under GST from 21st January 2019.
Earlier, the limit prescribed for generation of E-way Bill was two lakhs.
The present notification issued by the Government said that the e-way bill is required to be generated if the value of consignment exceeds Rs.1,00,000/-.
Also Read: School Management Committees asked to register with GST
The e-way bill in respect of the movement of goods originating and terminating in the State of Bihar shall not be required to be generated where the consignment value does not exceed One Lac Rupees.”
The new change would be made applicable from 21st January 2019.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has clarified the rumors regarding the CA exam scheduled in May 2019.
An ICAI announcement today said that “It has been brought to our notice that the probable date of commencement of May 2019 CA examinations and the time table there on are doing the rounds in the social media. It is hereby clarified that the timetable in respect of the May 2019 CA examinations has not yet been finalized.”
“It would be hosted on the website of the Institute www.icai.org, as and when it is finalized,” it said.
“Meanwhile, students and other stakeholders are requested to take note of the above clarification and not get misled by rumours which are floating in the social media. Candidates are advised to stay in touch with the website of the Institute, www.icai.org,” it said.
The Commerce Ministry likely to exempt Angel Tax for Start-up investors, according to sources. The Exemption limit being raised to Rs. 50 lakh from Rs. 25 lakh for returns on the Income a year before an investment.
Reportedly, Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu has approved a notification pertaining to clause (VII-B) of Subsection (2) of Section 56 of the Income Tax Act to give relief to Angel Investors in the Start-ups.
The ambiguity lies in the valuation of these premium shares, wherein, the tax man sees angel investor valuations higher than fair market values and hence issues show cause notices to these Start-Ups.
The Central government decision came after a number of representations were made to Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu by Start-Ups, seeking relief from the often ambiguous ‘Angel Tax demands, sources said, adding the step is expected to give a boost to the growing sector of Start-Ups.
A Start-Up, which is recognised by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), shall be eligible to apply for approval of exemption if the following conditions are fulfilled:
A) The aggregate amount of paid-up share capital and share premium of the Start-Up after the proposed issue of a share, if any, does not exceed Rs 10 crore.
B) The Investor/proposed investor shall have-
1)Returned income of Rs 50 lakh or more for the financial year preceding the year of investment/proposed investment, and
2) Net worth exceeding Rs 2 crore or the amount of investment made/ proposed to be made in the Start-Up, whichever is higher, as on the last date of the financial year preceding the year of investment/proposed investment.
The application of the recognised Start-Up shall be transmitted by the DIPP to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which has been given the final mandate to grant approval or rejection to the Start-Up within a period of 45 days for the purposes of ‘Angel Tax exemption.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Maharashtra Prathamik Shikshan Parishad has issued a directive asking the school management committees to register under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ), Times of India reported.
As per the directive, issued through a letter on December 17 last year, the committees of local body-run schools, including those in the rural areas, should be brought under the GST net.
According to the directive, the Government schools having transactions below Rs. 40 lakhs are directed to obtain GST registrations.
Also Read: Delhi High Court upholds NAA Order against HUL
However, the teachers’ associations have asked how can education be brought under the definition of ‘Goods and Services’. The associations have demanded either an exemption or a separate fund to help them meet the cost of account maintenance.
The move will be a setback to the rural schools which get from Rs 7,000 to Rs 17,000 government aid per year.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court has today stayed the demand against the Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) after the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) passed an order against the Company for not passing GST rate cut benefit to the consumers after the large-scale cut last November.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani were hearing a petition filed against the NAA Order. The bench today asked the HUL to pay 90 crores with the department as per the NAA Order.
Earlier, the NAA observed that Rs 383.35 crore worth “benefit has been denied” by HUL to its customers. The authority also directed HUL to reduce the prices of its products by way of commensurate reduction keeping in view the reduced rates of tax and the benefit of ITC. As per GST rules, 50 percent of the amount profiteered or Rs 191.68 crore is required to be deposited by the company in the central consumer welfare fund (CWF), while the balance amount is to be deposited in the CWF of concerned states where the company sold its products.
It was observed that, after allowing for certain deductions, the confirmed amount of tax benefit that the company has not passed on to consumers was assessed at Rs. 383 crores. NAA asked HUL to deposit Rs. 223 crore in central and state consumer welfare funds as the company had proactively deposited Rs. 160 crore with the central consumer welfare fund, set up under the anti-profiteering laws.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) is arranging Convocation 2019 on 1st February 2019 (Friday) at Mumbai, Ahmadabad, Pune, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Jaipur, Kanpur, and Delhi simultaneously.
In an announcement, the ICAI said that around 8360 newly enrolled members who have been granted membership during June 2018 to November 2018 will be awarded Certificate of Membership at respective places in the august gathering of Council Members of ICAI, dignitaries & the Chief Guest as well as CA fraternity.
The Members bearing following Membership Numbers are eligible to participate.
| ICAI | June to November 2018 |
| WRO | 184357-187120 |
| SRO | 244953-246400 |
| ERO | 312682-313085 |
| CRO | 439223-440926 |
| NRO | 549561-551600 |
“Detailed programme sheet has already been sent to the concerned participants. Please contact ICAI office at the above cities or concerned Regional office for further inquiry,” the ICAI said.
“All the participants of Convocation may arrange their travel to attend the convocation programme at the respective places. The listed participants may join on the day and celebrate their success and cherish on becoming Chartered Accountant Professional,” it said.
