Reference: Central Board of Direct Taxes
Update:
Special Order of Board u/s 268A in cases involving bogus LTCG through penny stocks:
The monetary limits fixed for filing appeals before ITAT/HC and SLPs /appeals before Supreme Court shall not apply in case of assesses claiming bogus Long Term Capital Gains/Short Term Capital Loss through penny stocks and appeals/SLPs in such cases shall be filed on merits.
Implication:
Monetary appeal filing limit shall not be applicable to Gain through penny stocks
Update:
Sum paid by ‘JIO’ for availing bandwidth services not taxable as royalty as per India-Singapore tax treaty
DCIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd – [2019] 108 taxmann.com 325 (Mumbai – Trib.)
The assessee-company was engaged in the business of rolling out telecom services in India. It entered into an agreement with a Singaporean company (RJIPL) for availing of bandwith services. RJIPL helped the assessee to establish, install, maintain, operate and provide telecommunication service in Singapore. It also helped the assessee to provide bandwith services to the service recipients across the globe. Assessee remitted certain sum to RJIPL for bandwith services and deposited taxes on said sum under section 195.
Thereafter assessee approached the CIT(A) and claimed that it was not liable to deduct TDS under section 195. The assessee contended that the services for which payment was made to RJIPL was taxable as business profits. As per article 7, in the absence of PE or a business connection, business profits couldn’t be charged to tax in India. The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee and held that assessee only received an access to the services and not any access to equipment deployed by the RJIPL. The process involved was a standard commercial process. It couldn’t be classified as a ‘secret process’ as required under the India-Singapore DTAA for the same to qualify as \’royalty\’.
On revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had received only standard facilities. The assessee didn’t have any access to process which helped it in provision of such services. All the required infrastructure and process was always used and under the control of the RJIPL. The definition of term ‘Royalty’ as defined in the India-Singapore tax treaty has a narrow meaning. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
Reference: Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Update:
FAQs related to FORM DIR 3 KYC:
MCA has release FAQs related to FORM DIR 3 KYC (Application for KYC of Directors). To refer the revised FAQs
This will help stakeholders in clarifying any doubts relating to FORM DIR 3 KYC
Reference: Reserve Bank of India
Update:
Bharat Bill Payment System – Expansion of biller categories
Bharat Bill Payment System (BBPS) as an interoperable platform for repetitive bill payments, currently covers bills of five segments viz. Direct to Home (DTH), Electricity, Gas, Telecom and Water.
RBI has expanded the scope and coverage of BBPS to include all categories of billers who raise recurring bills (except prepaid recharges) as eligible participants, on a voluntary basis.
Implication:
Bharat Bill Payment System will include all categories of billers who raise recurring bills (except prepaid recharges) as eligible participants.
Reference: Securities and Exchange board of India
Update:
Monitory penalty on Akashganga Agencies Pvt Ltd: SEBI imposed a fine of Rs 14,20,000 for executing fraudulent trade in the illiquid stock option segment.
Pursuant to observing large scale reversal of trades in the stock options segment of the BSE, SEBI conducted investigation into the trading activities of the segment between April 2014 and September 2015.
SEBI noted that the entity was among the several entities which were indulged in execution of non genuine trades in the stock options segment on the BSE.
Implication:
The penalty is payable by noticee mentioned in the order and it shall be payable within 45 days of the receipt of the order.
Reference: Fraud
Update:
4 arrested for tampering with bank cheques: The Kurar police has arrested three persons for posing as HDFC bank officials and cheating a person under the pretext of clearing a bank loan. The accused also visited the victim’s residence and provided fake identity cards to them. The money was withdrawn using post-dated cheques that the victim had provided to start the loan disbursal process.
The investigation revealed that the accused used a special pen to erase the cancellation remark from the cheques and later deposited them to fraudulently withdraw Rs. 1 lakh.
Reference: General
Update:
Bank of Maharashtra penalized over failure to credit EMIs:
Complainant, a businessman, had a savings account with Bank of Maharashtra. He had availed a loan from L & T finance Ltd for which he had to pay an EMI of Rs. 90056. He had given standing instruction to deduct the amount from his saving account and credit the same to his loan account through Electronic Credit system (ECS) every month.
Complainant received a letter from L&T stating three months’ EMI payment from January to March 2015 were not cleared due to insufficient funds in his account. When he inquired, it was found that on all three occasions when ECS were declined, he had sufficient balance in his saving account.
The Additional District Consumer Redressal Forum has passed order directing Bank of Maharashtra to refund Rs. 29908 to the complainant for losses and also imposed penalty of Rs. 15000 on the bank for causing mental agony and litigation Charges.
Update:
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) quashes SEBI’s Adjudicating Authority’s Order as ‘grossly disproportionate’ penalty for ‘technical’ violation:
SAT has quashed SEBI’s order imposing a penalty of INR 10 million on each directors of a company. SAT held that the penalty was grossly disproportionate considering that (a) the violations were merely technical, and (b) the company had been adequately penalised for related violations when the company was debarred from accessing the capital market for a period of 7 years.
