1. The requirement of filing declaration by a company before commencement of business or exercising its borrowing powers has been dispensed with under the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015. Accordingly companies are no longer required to file e-form INC-21 with the Registrar through MCA portal  (Source: MCA.gov.in)

2. Government forms 8-member panel to review new Companies Act  (Click for detail)

3. Govt to tighten screws on banks' "window dressing" of accounts  (Click for detail)

4. WTO urges India greater tax reform, FDI liberalisation  (Click for detail)

5. India joined the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) on Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI)  (Click for detail)

6. Haven’t received your I- T refund  (Click for detail)

7. Activists Seek Clarity to Protect Investors' Interest  (Click for detail)

8. RBI issued notification about submission of Long Form Audit Report (LFAR) by Concurrent Auditors  (Click for detail)

1.   Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs CIT,  W.P.(C) 3769/2015, Date of Order: 21.04.2015, High court of Delhi

Whether since the Tribunal cannot grant any extension of stay beyond a period of 365 days, there is no bar for the grant of such a relief by the High Court.

Held Yes

By virtue of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: WP(C) 5086/2013 decided on 21.02.2014, it has been made clear that the Tribunal has no authority to extend the period of  stay beyond a period of 365 days from the initial date of grant of stay. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition, seeking grant of stay of recovery of the balance amount in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. In Maruti Suzuki (supra) itself, it has been held that while the Tribunal cannot grant any extension of stay beyond a period of 365 days, there is no bar for the grant of such a relief by the High Court, if it is of the opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  CIT Vs. Vishan Das, I.T.A. No. 404/2013, Date of Order: 21.05.2015, High Court of Delhi

Interest under section 245D(2C) of the Act can be invoked only if the assessee does not deposit income tax payable on income disclosed and admitted under section 245D(1) of the Act.

Section 245D(2C) of the Act can be invoked only if the assessee does not deposit income tax payable on income disclosed and admitted under section 245D(1) of the Act. Question of levying any additional interest over and above what is permissible under Chapter XIX-A would not arise in the circumstances when the application was filed before the settlement commission, the assessee deposited the admitted tax liability. And Soon thereafter, when the application was admitted, the amount required was deposited within the time stipulated under Section 245D(6A). The further tax liability determined was payable after the final decision. In these circumstances, the addition of interest for the period during the pendency of the application before the settlement commission was entirely unwarranted.

(Please click here for judgment)  
 

1.   M/s Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. Vs. M/s Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd., Case No. 20 of 2013, Date of Order: 23.04.2015, Competition Commission of India

Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position -Informant was engaged in manufacturing and marketing of float glass, OP was not dominant in relevant market. Where reserves, surplus, turnover and assets of OP's competitors such as GAIL, IOCL and GSPC were much larger than OP and consumers were not entirely dependent on OP for supply of natural gas

(Please click here for judgment)

IV.  Reported Cases:

Direct Taxes Segment:

 Golden Rules:

  "Life will be more beautiful,
if we treat our lean phase as a learning phase"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team

Voice of CA