CA Online

Companies whose managing director, or wholetime director, has crossed the age of 70 will need shareholders' approval for reappointment. The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a managing director and whole-time director who crossed 70 will be automatically disqualified' and companies will have to call a general meeting of shareholders to pass a special resolution enabling them to stay on. More than 120 listed companies will have to approach minority investors in this regard, according to an ET study. The Bombay High Court in the ruling earlier this month said managing or whole-time directors cannot continue if they have attained the age of 70 years even if they were appointed under the old Act, said experts. “The Companies Act 2013 was very clear that a MDWTD cannot be appointed or continues after appointment if he has attained an age of 70 years. The confusion was whether this requirement will apply to appointments that were made prior to the Companies Act 2013 coming

Notices can be issued by tax authorities for various reasons. One such reason can be to effect recovery. This is what Vodafone is facing lately, even when the matter is before arbitration. The moot question, hence, would be — can the department issue a recovery notice, when the dispute is pending before an arbitration panel? The legal answer to this would be a certain ‘yes’. Once a tax has been determined by revenue authorities as ‘ payable’, it can be recovered, even coercively. The pendency of the case, even before the high court or Supreme Court, does not prevent the recovery of tax. The only remedy is to get the recovery ‘ stayed’ by a court. It is noteworthy that the Income- tax Act does not provide for any arbitration on tax matters. International arbitrations are generally invoked to protect investments running in astronomical figures — as is the case with Vodafone, which has resorted to the IndiaNetherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty. This arbitration certainly does not

A look at some key legal and Constitutional aspects that form the basis of the Budget- making process The genesis of the central Budget in India goes back to 1860 when it was first introduced by then finance minister James Wilson, two years after the transfer of Indian administration from the East India Company to the British Crown. The Budget is presented through 14 documents, some of which are mandated by the Constitution of India, while others are in the nature of explanatory documents. Constitutional sanctity of the Budget The preparation of the Budget for the approval of the legislature is a Constitutional obligation. The control of Parliament over the finances of the country is exercised through legislative prerogative over taxation, and legislative control over expenditure. To this effect, there are specific provisions in the Constitution consolidating these tenets. Article 265 provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law; Article 266 pr

The Supreme Court last week stated that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) Act and its regulations referring to imposition of penalty for manipulative or fraudulent practices are “ somewhat unclear if not a confused picture that emanates from parallel provisions.” The procedural regulations including those that prescribe the procedural course, namely, Sebi ( Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations 2002 and the successor Regulation i. e. Sebi ( Intermediaries) Regulations 2008 contain identical and parallel provisions with regard to imposition of penalty resulting in myriad provisions dealing with the same situation. A comprehensive legislation can bring about more clarity and certainty on the norms governing the security/ capital market and, therefore, would best serve the interest of strengthening and securing the capital market. The court continued in its judgment, Sebi vs Kishore Ajmera, that “ a comprehensive legislation c

Changes to speed up process and ensure names of defaulters are not disclosed at an early stage The capital market regulator is planning to alter the norms of its so-called consent mechanism to speed up the process and ensure that identities of alleged defaulters are disclosed only after a thorough probe and not at an early stage, said two persons familiar with the regulator’s thinking. The consent mechanism is an out-of-the-court process through which the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) settles cases of suspected wrongdoing by listed companies. It currently allows an alleged defaulter to settle cases without admission or denial of any wrongdoing in the capital market. Under existing rules, the regulator has to disclose the details of entities at an early stage, when the consent applications to Sebi are rejected. “It is not fair as a rule of natural justice to disclose the names of alleged entities merely because their consent applications are rejected, even while

www.caonline.in News... 1.TDS u/s 194I or 194C : logistic service for carrying goods by sea route in containers, in any event, tax deduction at source liability is only a vicarious liability and when the principal liability of the assessee is discharged, it ceases exist. [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Circle, Rajkot vs Pushpak Logistics Pvt Ltd - 2016 (2) TMI 883 - ITAT Rajkot] 2.Validity of penalty orders u/s 271(1) (c), assessee has not filed the details in respect of interest payment, unexplained investment in jewellery, bogus sundry creditors, levy of penalty confirmed. [Tangi Hari vs DCIT Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam - 2016 (2) TMI 878 -ITAT, Visakhapatnam] Claim of deduction written off on account of unrecoverable advance made for purchase of machinery is allowed. [Rinder India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 10, Pune - 2016 (2) TMI 876 - ITAT Pune] 3.Entitlement to exemption u/s 10(34) - When the company with which SARA fund has bee