Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Saturday, September 26, 2015
TAX PLanning Ideas >>>
TG
Receipt without consideration (Gift) from Non-Relatives – A Tool for Tax Planning
Receipt without consideration (Gift) from Non-Relatives – A Tool for Tax Planning
The write-up
painstakingly ventured and given publicity , as read and understood, is seen to
have dealt with at great length, thereby
bringing to focus, the must-be-concern of
the insured , including ‘pensioners’, in being put to a further erosion in the
‘insured value’, in the aftermath , and as a result, of the newly introduced TDS Rules. The arena chosen for exposition of
the worrisome angles is ‘moneylife’; hence, is mostly confined to the aspect of
money loss.
To try and attempt
to be somewhat explicit, the point in one’s mind is that there is yet another aspect,
which must be of more concern to the impacted insured class. To give a useful clue,
that is what is cryptically known and referred to in legal circles as ‘TDS Woes’.
The subject rules,
as viewed, have prima facie every potential to add to such woes already being
faced with by taxpayers, by reason of the extant rules on the statute , governing
TDS requirements in regard to severally varying types of ‘payments’.
For knowing, if
interested, the viewpoints shared in public domain, the posted material on certain
other websites e.g. Taxguru.com, also shared on Facebook , could be of help and
guidance.
A sum-up of which
has been updated in personal blogs- ‘swamilook’ – to link > http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2015/10/tds-woes-of-taxpayers-contd.html
As selected:
“This
is yet another case of insurers not being clear about what they should do.”
No wonder !; in fact, if viewed from a different
perspective, insurers deserve every sympathy. For. after all, they have been perforce
obligated to ‘cook somebody else’s goose’; in that the subject rules are those
as framed by the Revenue; not by the insurers , selves.
REgulatory X Company Law X ... A typical Example of (Tri- , nay, Multi- angular)- Battle (nay, WAR) OF WITS ON >>>>
While SEBI has sought to
encroach upon the scheme territory through amendments to the listing agreement
introduced in 2003 and through two circulars issued in 2013, the position
remains unclear. Its attempt to establish jurisdiction over a scheme of
arrangement more recently resulted in a lack of success before the Bombay High
Court this month.
Before
dealing with the recent ruling, a discussion of the previous position would be
in order. The question of SEBI’s jurisdiction over a scheme of arrangement came
up for the first time in Securities and Exchange Board of India v.
Sterlite Industries Ltd., (MANU/MH/0339/2002). When SEBI appealed
against a scheme of arrangement and reduction of capital, a division bench of
the Bombay High Court refused to recognise any power of SEBI in representing
itself before the court (a power that it sought to undertake with a view to
safeguarding the interest of the investors).
For the major
part, the Bombay High Court relied on its previous division bench judgment in Sterlite
Industries (discussed above). As decided in that case, SEBI did not have
the locus standi to challenge a scheme under the Companies Act. Although the Sterlite
Industries decision went on appeal to the Supreme Court, it refused to
interfere in the matter and left the substantive issues open. Accordingly, in
this case the court found no reason to doubt the binding nature of Sterlite Industries. Although SEBI
sought to exercise its wide scope of powers that were recognised by the Supreme
Court in Sahara India Real Estate
Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI ((2013) 1 SCC 1), it was not found to have
overruled the decision in Sterlite
Industries.
Going forward, the situation
is clearer. Under the Companies Act, 2013, the notice of the scheme is required
to be sent by the company to various authorities, including SEBI (section
230(5)), who are entitled to make representations before the court. Hence,
SEBI’s right of audience before the court is explicit. Of course, this
provision is yet to come into force, due to which SEBI will be compelled to
navigate through the current system in the near future. The bottom-line from
SEBI’s perspective appears to be: raise objections to the scheme before the
court sanctions it, or never.
  |
|
Posted: 25 Sep 2015 07:01 PM PDT
[The following
guest post is contributed by Shashank Prabhakar, a Senior Associate with Finsec Law Advisors.
These are the author’s personal views]
The Whole Time
Member of SEBI (‘WTM’) recently passed an orderagainst
certain relatives of Mr. Ramalinga Raju and entities belonging to the
promoter group of Satyam Computers for violation of Section 12A of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’),
Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade
Practices) Regulations, 2003 (‘PFUTP Regulations’) and Regulation 3 of
the SEBI (Prevention of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (‘PIT
Regulations’). The order was passed under Section 11(1), 11(4) and 11(B)
of the SEBI Act.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)