{"id":2035,"date":"2016-05-28T08:48:57","date_gmt":"2016-05-28T08:48:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/?p=2035"},"modified":"2021-07-07T12:53:21","modified_gmt":"2021-07-07T12:53:21","slug":"corporate-and-professional-update-may-5-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/corporate-and-professional-update-may-5-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"CORPORATE AND PROFESSIONAL UPDATE MAY 5, 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

TODAY UPDATES:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"www.caindelhiindia.com;<\/a>
www.caindelhiindia.com; Corporate updates<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

DIRECT TAX:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

IT:\u00a0The cost incurred by the previous owner shall be adopted while computing capital gains in the hands of the assessee – benefit of indexation should accordingly be provided w.e.f. 01 APR 1981 \u2013\u00a0P.M. Rungta (HUF)\u00a0Vs. ITO (2016 (5) TMI 67 \u2013 ITAT Mumbai)<\/p>\n

IT:\u00a0Exemption on the principle of mutuality claimed – as the individual beneficiaries of the trust cannot be identified therefore there is no question of applying the concept of mutuality \u2013\u00a0Sri Sai Padhuga Trust Vs. ITO (2016 (5) TMI 68 \u2013 ITAT Chennai)<\/p>\n

Transactions having contingent impact on profit\/ losses are not international transactions. [Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)].<\/p>\n

Tax on damages for breach of contract received by immovable property buyer. [Rajesh Mayor vs. ITO (ITAT Amritsar)].<\/p>\n

INDIRECT TAX:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

ST:<\/strong>\u00a0The transport of chlorine through pipeline is done by the appellant in their own account and the delivery on sale is made to the buyer. The transportation charges are included as a consideration for sale and to discharge central excise duty – Demand of service tax set aside \u2013\u00a0M\/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore\u00a0(2016 (5) TMI 87 \u2013 CESTAT New Delhi)<\/p>\n

No local VAT on goods purchased inter-state or in the course of import in works contracts. [Commissioner, DVAT vs.\u00a0ABB Ltd. (SC)].<\/p>\n

COMPANY LAW:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Question:\u00a0We have a Pvt Ltd which is inoperative since two years, we wish to windup the company using FTE mode & we had a few doubts: -Is FTE mode still applicable as of today, because I don’t see the form when I enquire for fees. The Company has some cash balance, is it okay to have the cash balance as the directors have to give an affidavit that there are no assets & liabilities.<\/p>\n

Answer: Yes, Fast Track Exit (FTE) Scheme is still applicable for striking off the name of defunct companies (only Private Companies) which either has not commenced any business activity or operation since incorporation; or is not carrying over any business activity or operation for last one year before making application under FTE.<\/p>\n

Further, for the purpose of applying for striking off the name of company under FTE Scheme, Company should not have any assets & liabilities as on date and Statement of accounts duly certified by Chartered Accountant is required as well who shall certify the same along with Affidavit from all directors of Company.<\/p>\n

Key Dates:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Last date of E-payment of service tax foe April by companies vide Challan No. GAR-7 -06\/05\/2016<\/p>\n

When we think \u2018not now\u2019, success becomes ‘never’. But if we develop attitude of ‘why not now’, success will be ‘yours’.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe best way to predict the future is to create it.\u201d<\/p>\n

We look forward for your valuable comments.\u00a0www.caindelhiindia.com<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

FOR\u00a0 FURTHER\u00a0 QUERIES\u00a0 CONTACT\u00a0US:<\/strong><\/span>
\nW: www.caindelhiindia.com \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E: info@caindelhiindia.com\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 T:011-233-4-33333, 9-555-555-480<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

TODAY UPDATES: DIRECT TAX: IT:\u00a0The cost incurred by the previous owner shall be adopted while computing capital gains in the hands of the assessee – benefit of indexation should accordingly be provided w.e.f. 01 APR 1981 \u2013\u00a0P.M. Rungta (HUF)\u00a0Vs. ITO (2016 (5) TMI 67 \u2013 ITAT Mumbai) IT:\u00a0Exemption on the principle of mutuality claimed – …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[647,142,146,84],"tags":[502,501,195,179,180,214,520,539,560,550,538],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2035"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2035"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2035\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2882,"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2035\/revisions\/2882"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}