Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Afzal Khan & Anr. Versus Mehboob Ayub Khan & Ors.

Transmission of shares - rectification of register of members - validity of the refusal of the company to transmit 726 and 128 shares jointly held by Mehboob and Yasmin, respectively, with Ayub upon the latter's death - Held that:- In the present case, the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 12 September 2011 does not stand the scrutiny of these tests. During the brief period, i.e. between 4 April 2011 and 23 November 2011, when the Appellants were on the Board of the Company, they appear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ancel the entries, acting in their own interests and on a wrong principle. The conclusion of the CLB, in the premises, of the resolution of 12 September 2011 being vitiated by mala fides is, thus, clearly sustainable. There is no error of law in it.

There were two contests on merits :(i) the locus of the Petitioners, Mehboob and Yasmin, to present the petition in the face of the subsequent Board resolution of 12 September 2011 omitting their names; and (ii) whether the board had suffi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cause so far as the refusal to transmit is concerned, the CLB rightly relied on Article 25 of the Articles of Association of the Company, under which, in case of death of one or more joint holders, the survivor/s is/are the only person/s recognized as having title to or interest in the shares. In the case of a will, Article 28(f) of the Articles came into play. The CLB held that the company was bound to follow its Articles and could not have denied transmission / registration of the shares in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctification of register, by entering their names as sole shareholders in respect of 726 and 128 shares. The conclusion is clearly in order. No error of law can be said to vitiate it. - COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 55, 56, 65 OF 2014, COMPANY PETITION NO. 40, 42, 97, 46, 41 OF 2011, COMPANY APPEAL NO. 31, 54, 56 OF 2015 - Dated:- 28-3-2016 - S.C. GUPTE, J. For The Appellant : Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Vaibhav Krishna & Tahir Parande I/b. Juris Consillis, Mr.Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advoca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t, 1956 ( Act ), by which the first Respondent company was inter alia directed to transmit shares held by a shareholder of the company and rectify the register of members. Companion Company Appeal Nos.31 of 2015 and 54 of 2015 are cross appeals which impugn another order passed by the CLB on the same day on a petition filed by the same Petitioners under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, complaining of the same facts as are the subject matter of the rectification petitions in addition to some othe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of shares held by descendants / successors-in-title of late Mehboob Khan. The family tree of late Mehboob Khan is shown below for the purposes of convenience of understanding the controversy. Mehboob Khan : Family Tree I (two wives) Fatimabibi (6 children) I Sardar Akhtar (no children) Ayub Khan (deceased) 14.3.08 I Iqbal Khan (Orig R8) Shaukat Khan (Orig R7) Najma Sayed (Orig R2) Mumtaz Khan Zubeida Imam I Aslam Khan & Afzul Khan (1st marriage) (Respdts 3 & 4) Mehboob Khan & Yasmin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs) as joint holders in respect of 726 and 128 shares, respectively, held by Ayub in his sole name. The entries were made in the share certificates and the names of the original Petitioners, Mehboob and Yasmin, were entered in the register of members as joint holders with Ayub in respect of the shares. Thus, 1992 onwards, 726 shares of the company have been held by Mehboob whilst 128 shares have been held by Yasmin, both jointly with Ayub. (III) In or about November 2003, Najma Sayed (original R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tamentary disposition during his life time in favour of the two, which was to take effect upon his death and that since that was not a transfer, the pre-emption clause in the Articles did not apply thereto.) Around the same time, i.e. in or about November 2003, Najma also filed another company petition, being Company Petition No.108 of 2003, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, complaining of oppression and mismanagement. (Once again, in reply to that petition, Ayub filed an affidavit stating .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty of a Mohammedan do not apply in the event of registration of the testator's marriage under the Special marriage Act, making bequest of 100% estate of the Mohammedan through a will possible.) (V) On 17 September 2007, Ayub executed his last will and testament by which he bequeathed the aforesaid shares in favour of Mehboob and Yasmin in keeping with the original proposal of including their names in the share certificates so as to enable a testamentary disposition. The balance 278 shaes (ou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

riginal Respondent No.5) - 381 shares - 7.62% (vii) Abdul Hafiz Khan (original Respondent No.6) - 338 shares - 6.56% (viii) Najma Sayed (original Respondent No.2) - 429 shares - 8.58% (ix) Zubeida Peshimam (daughter of late Mehboob Khan) - 39 shares - 0.78% (x) Estate of Sardar Akhtar (late Mehboob Khan's second wife) - 25 shares (VII) On 4 April 2008, Mehboob, Yasmin and Farida called upon the company to effect transfer of 726 shares and 128 shares, respectively, to the sole names of Mehboo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

portedly executed by Ayub. (IX) On 26 August 2008, Afzal and Aslam also filed an administration suit, being Suit No.2855 of 2008, in this Court claiming entitlement by way of intestate succession to half the estate of late Ayub, being sons from the latter's first marriage, which inter alia included 566 shares out of 1132 shares of the company originally held by Ayub. (X) On 25 November 2008, this Court rejected the prayer for ad-interim reliefs in the notice of motion of Afzal and Aslam in S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice of motion inter alia to the effect that all transactions would be subject to further orders in the motion and the suit and in pursuance thereof, decided not to transmit the shares and to keep the dividend on the shares in a separate account. (XII) In January 2011, the Company through its Advocates informed the Advocates of Mehboob and Yasmin that the company would not accede to their request for transmission of the shares unless appropriate directions were obtained from the court in that beh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

premises, on 5 September 2011, Mehboob and Yasmin, respectively, filed Company Petition Nos. 40 of 2011 and 42 of 2011 for rectification of register of members in respect of 726 shares and 128 shares of Ayub jointly held by them with him. The petitions proceeded alternatively on the basis of the right of survivorship of Ayub and Yasmin as joint shareholders along with Ayub in respect of these shares and devolution of shares under the last will and testament of Ayub. Simultaneously, Farida filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ares to the joint names of Mehboob and Yasmin along with late Ayub, which was accomplished in 1992, was in violation of the Articles of Association and that the Board was duty bound to take remedial steps for rectification / correction of entries made in the register of members. The Board of Directors by a majority of 6 : 1 resolved that the transfer of 726 shares and 128 shares by Ayub in favour of himself jointly with Mehboob and Yasmin, respectively, by Board Resolution dated 9 May 1992, was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, complaining of oppression and mismanagement and challenging inter alia the resolution dated 12 September 2011. (IV) On 23 November 2011, original Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as well as the two other Directors, Sattar Khan and Afiz Khan, were removed as Directors of the company. The reconstituted Board passed a resolution rescinding all earlier resolutions passed by them during their tenure, including presumably the resolution of 12 September 2011. 4 Based on the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3 November 2011, removing them as directors of the company, in a petition under Sections 397 and 398 (Company Petition No.97 of 2011). 5 In the backdrop of these facts, the company petitions of Mehboob, Yasmin and Farida under Section 111 of the Act seeking rectification of register of members (C.P. Nos.40, 41 and 42 of 2011) as well as the company petition filed by the three under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act (C.P. No.96 of 2011) along with the petition of Afzal, Aslam and Sattar (C.P. No.97 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of the respective shares. An undertaking was, however, directed to be filed by the transferees not to deal with these shares without prior approval of this Court in the pending administration suit, i.e. Suit No.2855 of 2008. The company petition of Farida (C.P. No.41 of 2011) for rectification of register in respect of 278 shares of late Ayub by giving effect to the will executed by Ayub, was disposed of by reserving liberty to her to revive her petition after the conclusion of the pending ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctification. 7 By its order of the same date, i.e. 7 August 2014, the CLB dismissed the company petition of Mehboob,Yasmin and Farida under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act (C.P. No.96 of 2011), inter alia, on the ground that the grievance of Mehboob and Yasmin in respect of nontransmission of 726 and 128 shares respectively held by them as joint shareholders with late Ayub had already been brought to an end by final orders passed on C.P. Nos.40 and 42 of 2011, whilst the other grievances raised .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fzal, Aslam and Sattar under Sections 397 and 398 (C.P. No.97 of 2011). This order has been challenged by them in Company Appeal No.65 of 2014. 9 The appeals form four groups : (i) The appeals of Afzal and Aslam from the rectification orders passed on the petitions of Mehboob and Yasmin (Co.App.Nos.55 and 56 of 2014) and the appeal of Afzal and Aslam from the order on the oppression and mismanagement petition of Mehboob, Yasmin and Farida (Co.App. No. 31 of 2015); (ii) The appeal of Mehboob, Yas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ticular subject, namely, rectification of register of members so as to transmit 726 and 128 shares to the sole names of Mehboob and Yasmin, respectively. Co.Appeal Nos.55 and 56 of 2014 & Co.Appeal Nos.54 and 31 of 2015 10 Mr.Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants in Co.Appeal Nos.55 and 56 of 2014 and Co.Appeal No.31 of 2015, made the following submissions: (i) Learned Counsel submitted that the finding of the CLB that the resolution of 12 September 2011 passed by the Board of Di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctification petitions, was sought to be challenged by the Petitioners by introducing an amendment to their petitions, but the amendment application was dismissed as not pressed. Mr.Chinoy submitted that in the premises, the CLB could not have proceeded to set aside that resolution, particularly considering that the same did not form part of the challenge and his clients had no opportunity to deal with the same in their pleadings in the rectification petitions. (ii) Secondly, it is submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Appellants that the finding of the CLB on the Board resolution of 12 September 2011 was without jurisdiction and null and void by reason of dismissal (as not pressed) of the amendment application introducing a challenge to the resolution, appears to be hyper technical and is decisively devoid of any substance. The allegation is that the order is without jurisdiction and amounts to miscarriage of justice for two reasons - one, the resolution was not the subject matter of challenge in the compan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t matter of challenge in the companion company petition, namely, Company Petition No.96 of 2011. In fact, that was one of the main grounds on which the grievance of Mehboob and Yasmin about oppression and mismanagement by the Appellants herein was premised. Company Petition No.96 of 2011 was heard by the CLB along with the rectification petitions, namely, Company Petition Nos.40, 41 and 42 of 2011. The parties had very much joined issues on the validity of the resolution of 12 September 2011 in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

jurisdiction or amounts to miscarriage of justice. Both orders on the rectification petitions and the oppression and mismanagement petition were passed on the same day after hearing the parties. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has not been able to show a single plea which the Appellants could not take, or a single document which the Appellants could not produce, in support of the validity of the resolution of 12 September 2011 because of the dismissal of the amendment application of the origi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s merely a permissive and enabling provision and it is not obligatory for the company to apply to the CLB for such rectification. It is submitted that the scheme of Section 111, particularly Clause (a)(ii) of Sub-section (4) thereof, does suggest that the Company itself could omit the name of any person from the register of members, provided of course it has a sufficient cause to do so; and if it does so without such sufficient cause, any aggrieved person or member may apply to the CLB for resto .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roperties P. Ltd. (2010) 153 Comp Cas 49 (CLB) in support of his submission that such rectification could be made by the Company. He also relies on the judgments of Hunter vs. Hunter {1936} A.C. 222 and Tett vs. Phoenix Property and Investment Co.Ltd. (1986) 2 B.C.C. 99140 to support the action of the Board in deleting the entries. 13 Section 111 deals with entries in the register of members and rectification of the register. Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 111 deal with grievances which may .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e intimation of such transmission, as the case may be, was delivered to the company, send notice of the refusal to the transferee and the transferor or to the person giving intimation of such transmission, as the case may be, giving reasons for such refusal. (2) The transferor or transferee, or the person who gave intimation of the transmission by operation of law, as the case may be, may appeal to the Tribunal against any refusal of the company to register the transfer or transmission, or again .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) If - (a) the name of any person - (i) is, without sufficient cause, entered in the register of members of a company, or (ii) after having been entered in the register, is, without sufficient cause, omitted therefrom; or (b) default is made, or unnecessary delay takes place, in entering in the register the fact of any person having become, or ceased to be, a member [including a refusal under sub-section (1)], the person aggrieved, or any member of the company, or the company, may apply to the T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ering or omission of a name without sufficient cause and (c) default or delay in entering or omitting any name. Insofar as grievance (a) is concerned, obviously the aggrieved person or any member alone could file an appeal. There is no question of a company carrying the matter before the CLB, since the appeal in this case actually challenges an action of the company, namely, refusal to register a transfer or transmission. So also, in the case of (c), the appeal could only be by a person aggrieve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the register, without there being a sufficient cause, or a name which originally existed stands omitted in the register, again without a sufficient cause, the company may be aggrieved and may, in that case, apply to the CLB for rectification of register. In other words, it is not the act of entering or omitting a name, but the subsistence of such entry or omission, which gives rise to a grievance insofar as the company is concerned. 14 If Mr.Chinoy's arguments were to be accepted, that is to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n. Mr.Chinoy suggests that the very fact that entry or omission of a name without sufficient cause is made a subject matter of grievance implies that there could be an entry or omission with sufficient cause and who else could do it but the company itself. There is a fallacy in this argument and that arises if we consider Section 111 as a stand-alone provision and not in the back-drop of other provisions. Section 111 finds place in a group of sections, Sections 108 to 112, which is under the tit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r nomination of shares by a holder thereof and vesting of the shares in such nominee upon the death of the holder. Section 110 provides for the application for transfer and notice before registration of transfer. In this context, Section 111 deals with the various grievances, which may arise as a result of a wrongful entry or omission or refusal to register, or delay or default in registration. As the scheme of these Sections indicates, a company may refuse to register any transfer or transmissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the person aggrieved or any member could apply. These are all wrongful refusals or delays or defaults. These are all actions or omissions of the company on applications for transfer or transmission. In addition to these categories of cases, there may be cases where a wrongful entry or omission may be subsisting in the register without a sufficient cause, that is to say, an entry or omission, no doubt made earlier by the company in the first place (though not necessarily on the application of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

transmittee or (iv) a legal representative of a holder. Sections 108, 108A to 108I, 109 and 110 apply to such applications. In all these cases, the aggrieved person or any member, as the case may be, may apply to the CLB for rectification. In case, however, any entry or omission previously made subsists on the register, and there is no sufficient cause for its subsistence, any aggrieved person, member or the company may apply to the CLB for rectification. There is no question of any aggrieved pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

company could rectify suo motu, it may well rectify on the application of a person aggrieved or any member. In every such case, Mr.Chinoy would have to admit, the company could well be said to have the power to do so and the only contested question would be of sufficiency of the cause to do so. That, I am afraid, cannot be a correct interpretation of the law. 15 The reason for not reserving unto the company the power to correct a subsisting entry (as opposed to making of an entry or omission occ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as allottees of shares. The directors later resolved to cancel the allotment and proceeded to remove their names from the register. This is what Madras High Court said in that case: 4. Before proceeding further, I may say I am disposed to regard the removal by the company of the applicants' names from the register of members as wholly illegal. The register of the members of a company is a public document and I know of no provision in the Companies Act which permits the directors of a company .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the circumstances are such that the Court would order rectification , the Board of Directors may itself effect the necessary correction (Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edn. Vol.7, Para 306). In re Poole Firebrick and Blue Clay Company (known as Hartley's case) (187475) Law Reports 10 Ch. App.157, the law was stated by the Master of the Rolls in the following words : It is part of the duty of directors to keep a correct register of their shareholders. Here they allotted certain share .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ourt to get an order to do that which both parties are willing to do, and wish to be done ? I cannot hold that it is necessary, and I am therefore of opinion that Mr.Hartley is in the same position as if his name had not been placed on the register until after the contract had been filed. His name must, consequently, be removed from the list of contributories. 16 The decision of Delhi High Court in the case of His Highness Manabendra Shah Maharaja of Tehri Garhwal (supra), relied upon by Mr.Chin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case and also the obligations of the McCardie J. in First National Re-insurance Company Ltd. vs. Greenfield [(1921 (2) K.B. 260] (13) to the following effect : With regard to the rectification of the register an application to the court was essential only when the company disputes the right to rectification. There is no reason why the directors, if they bone fide agree that the shareholder has a right to avoid the contract, should not thereupon assent to the rescission of the contract and recti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rror to bring the shareholding to the correct position. The CLB in Biva Pyne, however, proceeded on the footing of a presumption that the register of members was also altered in keeping with the altered shareholding purportedly erroneously reflected in the annual returns. To the extent the CLB decision suggests that the company can alter its register either by entry in or omission from the register on its own and without recourse to the Court even in a contested matter, the case must be held to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tition No.96 of 2011.) Firstly, because no court order was sought under Section 111(4) and secondly, because Mehboob and Yasmin were joint holders for over 19 years as per the register of members and under the Articles of Company, the Board was bound to register the transmission in their favour after the death of Ayub. Mr.Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, supported this conclusion of the CLB by submitting that the power of the Board of Directors of rejecting or accepting a tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have to be tested from three points of view. First, whether the Directors acted in the interest of the company; secondly, whether they acted on a wrong principle; and, thirdly, whether they acted with an oblique motive or for a collateral purpose. This Court in M/s.Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Jhunihunwala & Others [(1962) 2 SCR 339 : AIR 1961 SC 1669] that "the discretion of the Directors would be nullified if it were established that the Directors acted oppressively, ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

matively pleaded and proved. It would be for the aggrieved transferor to show that the refusal to register transfer was exercised mala fide and not in the interest of the company and thereby the presumption of bona fide would be displaced. 15 The words 'bonafide and for the benefit of the company as a whole' have been considered in some English decisions. Reference may be made to the decision in Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd. [(1950) 2 All ER 1120] where Evershed, M.R. said that if a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ptember 2011 does not stand the scrutiny of these tests. During the brief period, i.e. between 4 April 2011 and 23 November 2011, when the Appellants were on the Board of the Company, they appear to have passed this resolution acting in their own interest. Their suit, challenging the will of Ayub, was pending before this Court. So also, was their petition challenging the joint holdership of Mehboob and Yasmin pending before the CLB, Principal Bench. They were clearly aware that the entries of jo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pplication before the CLB to cancel the entry of joint shareholding effected in favour of Mehboob and Yasmin in respect of 726 and 128 shares of Ayub by the Board resolution of 9 May 1992. The power of the then Board of Directors of the Company to add their names jointly with Ayub in the share certificates and make entries accordingly in the register was not a subject matter of challenge. Earlier, the resolution of 9 May 1992 was challenged by Najma in a company petition filed in the year 2003 b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

present case was the validity of the refusal of the company to transmit 726 and 128 shares jointly held by Mehboob and Yasmin, respectively, with Ayub upon the latter's death. There were two contests on merits :(i) the locus of the Petitioners, Mehboob and Yasmin, to present the petition in the face of the subsequent Board resolution of 12 September 2011 omitting their names; and (ii) whether the board had sufficient cause to refuse the transmission. On the first question, the CLB found, and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Notification: Absolute Exemption from IGST on inter-State supplies of goods

Notification: CGST Rate Schedule u/s 9(1) - notifying rates of CGST @ 2.5%, 6%, 9%, 14%, 1.5% and 0.125% on Supply of Goods

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Forum: REGISTRETION

Forum: On what Value tax to be deducted at source (TDS)

Highlight: IGST Rate Schedule u/s 5(1) - notifying rates of IGST @ 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, 3% and 0.25% on supply of goods. - Notification no. 1/2017 as amended vide notification dated 22-9-2017

Notification: IGST Rate Schedule u/s 5(1) - notifying rates of IGST @ 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, 3% and 0.25% on supply of goods.

Highlight: National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards - Tenure of the NACAS extended from one year to two years

Notification: National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force - "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary"

Highlight: Restriction on number of layers for certain classes of holding companies - More than two layers of subsidiaries not allowed subject to certain exceptions.

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Forum: Input Tax Credit - Reg

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version