{"id":2243,"date":"2016-09-19T08:02:27","date_gmt":"2016-09-19T08:02:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/?p=2243"},"modified":"2021-07-14T12:00:12","modified_gmt":"2021-07-14T12:00:12","slug":"corporate-and-professional-update-sept-192016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.caindelhiindia.com\/blog\/corporate-and-professional-update-sept-192016\/","title":{"rendered":"CORPORATE AND PROFESSIONAL UPDATE SEPT 19,2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

TODAY UPDATES:<\/h1>\n
\"www.caindelhiindia.com;<\/a>
www.caindelhiindia.com; Corporate updates<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Direct Tax:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Gujrat High Court in the below citied case held that A private complaint without any further investigation by the authorities surely not be a tangible material to enable the AO to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.(Biyani Impex Private Limited Vs.\u00a0ITO<\/p>\n

ITAT Delhi in the below citied case held that the amount of payment of interest are hire purchases cannot be characterized as interest payable and this provisions of Section 194A of the Act are not attracted in such transactions.(Pearl Drinks Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-14 (2) , New Delhi)<\/p>\n

IT:\u00a0TDS<\/a> default – Considering the penal nature of Sec-221 it would be in the fitness of things to make a distinction between a case where the TDS is deposited suo-motu before any proceedings are initiated by the AO and a case where the deposit of the TDS is made after initiation of proceedings by the AO but before levy of penalty –\u00a0Kamlesh M. Kanungo HUF Vs DCIT (TDS)-2(1), Mum (2016 (9) TMI 606 – ITAT Mumbai)<\/p>\n

IT:<\/a>\u00a0Addition u\/s 68 – entry operators admitted on oath that they ran a racket assessee has to prove that it was not a beneficiary of the racket \u2013\u00a0ITO, W-6(3), New Delhi Vs Meghna Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Vica-Versa (2016 (9) TMI 654 – ITAT Delhi)<\/p>\n

IT:\u00a0The AO cannot insist the assessee to prove the authenticity of circumstances leading to write off the bad debts –\u00a0Hi-Tech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. Vs DCIT, Cir-12(1), New Delhi (2016 (9) TMI 653 – ITAT Delhi)<\/p>\n

Direct cash deposit in suppliers bank a\/c not attract Disallowance u\/s 40A (3)<\/p>\n

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

ST:\u00a0Pre-mature cenvat credit on input services – credit availed before making payment – Rule 4(7) of CCR 2004 – credit cannot be denied –\u00a0CCE, Jaipur Vs Samcor Glass Ltd. (2016 (9) TMI 684 – CESTAT New Delhi)<\/p>\n

ST:\u00a0Cenvat credit cannot be denied on playing cards supplied as free gift along with final product -Manik Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E., Mumbai-IV (2016 (9) TMI 623 – CESTAT Mumbai)<\/p>\n

VAT & ST:\u00a0It would prima facie appear that the goods stored by the petitioner in the bonded warehouse being sold before the import is completed there would be no liability to pay VAT on such transaction –\u00a0Trafigura India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat And 4 (2016 (9) TMI 614 – Gujarat High Court)<\/p>\n

Gujrat High Court in the below citied case held that the assessee is entitled to interest for delayed refund of amount deposited to Govermnent. However assessee not entitled to interest on interest for delayed refund. .(STATE OF GUJARAT Versus M\/s UNJHA PHARMACY)-\u00a0\u00a02016 (9) TMI 667<\/p>\n

Chandigarh CESTAT holds that manufacturing \/ tie up based agreement between assessee [owner of different brands of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (\u2018IMFL\u2019)] and bottlers will not be considered as agreement for payment of royalty by bottlers to asseessee, hence not liable to service tax.\u00a0[TS-371-CESTAT-2016-ST]<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>RBI & SEBI UPDATE<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

SEBI deems share transfer by promoters by way of gift as sale\u00a0.<\/p>\n

RBI has set up a working group to review the guidelines for hedging of commodity price risk by residents in the overseas market amid rising volumes of cross-border trade<\/a>.<\/p>\n

ICAI UPDATE :<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

ICAI\u00a0\u00a0create support desk for implementation of Indian AS.\u00a0\u00a0(http:\/\/taxguru.in\/company-law\/mca-notifies-roadmap-applicability-indian-accounting standards-ind.html<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Filing of appeal before wrong forum on CA’s advice doesn’t justify 3 year’s delay; condonation plea rejected Inderchand D. Kochar\u00a0v.\u00a0Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai [2016] 73\u00a0taxmann.com\u00a096 (Madras)<\/p>\n

KEY DATES:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n