monthly updates | oct, 2016 · pdf fileliberal view in case of waiver of penalty for ... (app...

Monthly Updates | Oct, 2016

CO

NT

EN

T 01-

DIRECT TAXES Income Tax Pg.3 International Tax Pg.16

02- INDIRECT TAXES Customs Pg.24 Excise Pg.31 Service Tax Pg.33

03- ROC UPDATE Pg. 37

04- UPCOMING DUE DATES Pg. 38

05- CONTACT Pg. 43

For Private Circulations Only 3 The Update –Oct, 2016, SGCO & Co.

INCOME TAX

NOTIFICATIONS

Liberal view in case of waiver of penalty for

years not covered by IDS

The CBDT has clarified that where a

declaration is made under the Income

Disclosure Scheme, 2016 and an identical

issue is involved for a year which is pending

assessment u/s. 143(3)/147of the Act, then,

the Pr. CIT or CIT shall take a lenient view in

respect of waiver of penalty on receipt of a

valid application u/s. 273A.

F. No282/227/2016-IT (inv.V)/26/2016

-----------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL RULINGS

Failure to deposit the amount of

consideration not utilized towards the

purchase of new flat in the specified bank

account before the due date of filing return

of Income u/s 139(1) is fatal to the claim for

exemption. The fact that the entire amount

has been paid to the developer/builder

before the last date to file the ROI is

irrelevant

Facts:

On 29th April, 1995, the appellant

sold a plot of land in Mumbai for a

consideration of Rs.85,33,250/-.

On 16th July, 1996, the appellant

entered into an agreement to

purchase a flat for a consideration

of Rs.69,60,000/-.

The appellant paid two installments

of Rs.10,00,000/- each on 17th July,

1996 and 23rd October, 1996 to the

developer / builder i.e. before the

due date for filing of return of


Income under Section 139(1) of the

Act i.e. 31st October, 1996.

On 1st November, 1996 the

petitioner paid to the developer a

further installment of

Rs.15,00,000/- for purchase of flat

pursuant to the agreement dated

16th July, 1996.

On 4th November, 1996 the

appellant filed his return of income

for the Assessment year 1996-97.

This was after the due date of filing

the return of income.

On 13th March, 2001, the Assessing

Officer passed an Assessment

Order under Section 143(3) read

with Section 147 of the Act. The

Assessment Order determined the

net consideration at Rs.75.39 lakhs.

Thereafter the Assessing Officer

allowed a proportionate exemption

of Rs.31.55 lakhs (out of Rs.35 lakhs

paid till the filing of return) from

Capital Gain Tax in terms of Section

54F of the Act. However, the

balance consideration of

Rs.43,84,334/- which was payable

for purchase of the flat pursuant to

the agreement dated 16th July,

1996 was brought to tax under the

head ‘Capital Gains’ on account of

appellant’s failure to deposit the

unutilized consideration for

purchase of the flat in specified

bank accounts in accordance with

the scheme of Central Government

as provided under Section 54F(4) of

the Act.

Being aggrieved, the appellant-

assessee filed an appeal to the

Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) (CIT(A)). By order dated

19th October, 2001, the CIT(A) did

record the fact that the appellant

had obtained possession of the new

flat on 27th January, 1997.

However, the order of the

Assessing Officer dated 13th

March, 2001 was not disturbed.

Being aggrieved the appellant

carried the issue in further appeal

to the Tribunal. By the impugned

order, the Tribunal on an analysis of

Section 54F(4) of the Act, came to


the conclusion that the appellant

had only utilized Rs.35,00,000/- of

the net consideration received on

sale of land towards purchase of a

flat before the due date of filing the

return of income. Further, the

balance of the net consideration

had not been deposited in the

specified bank account as

mandated by Section 54F(4) of the

Act. Thus dismissing the appeal of

the appellant-assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of ITAT, the

assessee filed appeal with the High

Court.

Held:

Section 54F(1) of the Act which grants

exemption from Capital gain tax where

a flat is purchased either within one year

prior to the sale of capital asset or

within 2 years after the date of sale of

the capital asset or where a residential

house is constructed within 3 years from

the date of sale of the capital asset, is

now subject to the provisions of Section

54F(4) of the Act. Thus, where the

consideration received on sale of capital

asset is not appropriated (where

purchase was earlier than sale) or

utilized (where purchase is after the

sale) then the same would be subject to

the charge of capital gain tax, unless the

un-utilized amounts are deposited in

specified bank account as notified in

terms of Section 54F(4) of the Act. The

exemption would be available to the un-

utilized amounts only if the mandate of

sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the Act

is complied with. Further the proviso to

sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the Act,

safeguards the Revenue where the

assessee had not invested the amounts

chargeable to Capital Gains within the

time prescribed under sub-section (1) of

Section 54F of the Act. Thus, in such

cases, Capital Gain under Section 45 of

the Act would be charged on the un-

utilized amount as Income of the

previous year in which the period of

three years from the date of transfer of

the capital asset expires.

The assessee submitted that the issue

stands concluded in favour of the

appellant by the decision of the


Karnataka High Court in Commissioner

of Income Tax Vs. K. Ramchandra Rao1

wherein an identical question came up

for consideration and it was held that

even where the assessee had not

deposited the un-utilized Capital Gain in

an account which was duly notified by

the Central Government in terms of

Section 54F(4) of the Act, the benefit of

Section 54F(1) of the Act would still be

available. The Court held that if the

intention was not to retain the capital

gains but was to invest it in construction

of property within the period stipulated

in Sub Section (1) of Section 54F of the

Act then Section 54F(4) of the Act is not

at all attracted.

The Hon’ble High court did not accept

the reasoning adopted by Karnataka

High Court in K. Ramchandra Rao

(supra) as in its view the decision was

sub-silentio. The Hon’ble High Court

held that the decision was not binding

on it and need not be necessarily

followed. It further held that the

1 (2015) 277 CTR 0522

mandate of Section 54F(4) of the Act is

clear that amount which has not been

utilized in construction and/or purchase

of property before filing the return of

income, must necessarily be deposited

in an account duly notified by the

Central Government, so as to be

exempted.

In view of above, the assessee was held

not to be eligible for exemption u/s.

54F.

Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT (Bom

HC)2

-----------------------------------------------------

The AO must examine the accounts closely

and determine if at all any expenditure

could be ascribed to the tax exempt

dividend/interest earned by the assessee. If

the tax exempted income was earned

without the interference of any employee

the question of attributing any expenditure

cannot arise at all

Facts:

2 ITA NO.545 OF 2002


The assessee reported a tax exempt

dividend income of Rs. 10,87,898 and he

had, however, not claimed any

expenditure for earning that income.

Purporting to apply the statutory

disallowance under Section 14A read

with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, the

AO ascribed a sum of Rs. 1,21,805 and

added it back to the taxable income. The

assessee contended that the tax

exempted income in the form of interest

and dividends was without the

interaction of any special personnel. The

revenue on the other hand urged that the

assessee carries on business and in the

course of such business he engaged an

accountant who was also tasked with the

job of looking after the accounts and

investments which yielded a sum of Rs.

10,87,898.

Held:

Sub-rule (1) categorically and significantly

states that the Assessing Officer having

regard to the account of the assessee and on

not being satisfied with the correctness of

the claim of expenditure made by the

assessee or claim that no expenditure was

incurred in relation to income which does

not form part of the total income under the

Act, can go on to determine the disallowance

under sub rule (2) to Rule 8D of the Rules.

Sub-rule (2) will not come into operation

until and unless the specific precondition in

sub-rule (1) is satisfied. Thus, section 14A (2)

of the Act and rule 8D (1) in unison and

affirmatively state that the computation or

disallowance made by the assessee or claim

that no expenditure was incurred to earn

exempt income must be examined with

reference to the accounts, and only and

when the explanation/claim of the assessee

is not satisfactory, computation under sub

rule (2) to rule 8D of the Rules is to be made.

It was firstly incumbent upon the AO to in

fact examine the accounts closely and

determine if at all any expenditure could be

ascribed to the tax exempt dividend/interest

earned by the assessee. If indeed the tax

exempted income was earned without the

interference of any employee but rather

through the solicitation and advertisement

of the bank the question of attributing any

expenditure cannot arise at all.


Pradeep Khanna vs. ACIT (Del HC)3

-----------------------------------------------------

S. 14A is applicable even where the motive

of the assessee in acquiring the shares is to

obtain controlling interest in a company

and not to earn dividends

Facts:

The question arose whether s. 14A

applies to a case where the motive

of the assessee is to acquire

controlling interest in a company

and not to earn dividends. The

Tribunal followed the judgement of

the Special Bench in ITO v. Daga

Capital Management Pvt. Ltd

(2009) 312 ITR (AT) 1 and held that

Held:

Assessing Officer to ascertain from

the facts of the case as to how

much interest bearing borrowings

was utilized to acquire shares in the

companies. In appeal by the

assessee to the High Court, the

following substantial question of

law was raised:

Whether in law, the provisions of

Section 14A of the Act are

applicable to the expenses incurred

by the appellant towards interest

and others on the loan borrowed for

advances made to the subsidiaries

in the course of business for its

expansion?

section 14A is applicable even

where the motive in acquiring the

shares was to obtain controlling

interest in the companies. The

Tribunal upheld in principle the

applicability of section 14A but

remanded the matter to the

The Tribunal after holding in principle the

applicability of Sec. 14A, has further

directed the Assessing Officer to

ascertain from the facts of the case as to

how much interest bearing borrowings

was utilized to acquire shares in the

companies and the matter is relegated to

3 ITA 953/2015


the Assessing Officer. As per the language

in Sec.14A, the enquiry has to be

undertaken by the Assessing Officer

which has been so ordered by the

Tribunal. Hence, it can be said that the

Tribunal has exercised the discretion

where rights of both sides are kept open

for admissible deduction under Sec.14A.

When such a discretion is exercised and

the rights of the assessee is also kept

open to satisfy the Assessing Officer, it

cannot be said that any substantial

questions of law would arise for

consideration, as sought to be canvassed.

At the stage of enquiry under Sec.14A, it

is open to the Assessing Officer to

independently consider the matter for

admissibility of the interest on

borrowings and if yes to what extent.

Hence, when the question at large is

further to be considered by the Assessing

Officer, we do not find that any further

observations are required to be made in

this regard. In any case, the question of

law as sought to be canvassed would not

arise for consideration at this stage on

the said aspects as sought to be

canvassed.

United Breweries Ltd v. DCIT (Kar HC)4

-----------------------------------------------------

Expenditure incurred by a director in

engaging lawyers to defend himself against

cases filed for violation of the law by the

Company of which he is a director is not

personal expenditure but is allowable as

business expenditure

Facts:

The assessee debited an amount of

Rs.55,65,938/- under the head “legal

fees and related expenses”. In respect

of this expenditure, the assessee

explained to the Assessing Officer that

the assessee was Director on Board of

many companies including on the Board

of M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. This

company M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.

received fixed deposit from the public.

This company was charged with default

in repayment of fixed deposits and

interest thereon. The assessee had been

mentioned as one of the accused among

4 ITA No. 419 of 2009


several others for non-payment of these

fixed deposits by M/s. Nagarjuna

Finance Ltd. The Andhra Pradesh

Government had filed suit against

directors of M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.

including against the assessee. To

defend himself, the assessee had

appointed various advocates to

represent his case before various courts

viz., District Court, High Court, Supreme

Court. The appellant paid fees to the

advocates and other expenses incurred.

The details of such expenses were

furnished by the assessee to the

Assessing Officer. The assessee argued

before the Assessing Officer that the

expenditure was incurred to protect his

business interest and, therefore, the

same should be fully allowable u/s.37(1)

of the Act. As per A.O. the expenditure

were personal in nature, he therefore

disallowed the same. This was

confirmed by the CIT(A).

Held

The expenditure is incurred by the

assessee in his character as a

professional and is not an expenditure

which is personal in nature. The

assessee has in his professional capacity

been a director of various limited

companies has earned professional fees

for the services rendered to these

companies. He was a director of

Nagarjuna Finance Limited (NFL) from

14-12-1982 to 28-04-1999. The assessee

has earned professional income during

all the years, he was, a director of NFL.

The assessee serves as an Independent

Director on the Board of several leading

Indian Companies such as Apollo Tyres

Limited, Britannia Industries Limited,

Deepak Nitrite Limited and KSB Pumps

Limited and also a member of various

Governing Boards of Centre for Policy

Research, Indian Institute of Capital

Markets, CII, SEBI etc. He regularly gets

sitting fees and commission from many

of these Companies. The assessee was

also an independent Director on the

board of Nagarjuna Finance Limited.

Nagarjuna Finance Limited had

collected Fixed Deposits from the

public. Nagarjuna Finance Limited was

charged with default in repayment of


fixed deposits and interest thereon. Mr.

Nimesh Kampani has been mentioned

as one of the accused among several

others, for non-payment of these fixed

deposits by Nagarjuna Finance Limited.

The Andhra Pradesh Government had

since filed suit against directors of

Nagarjuna Finance Limited including Mr.

Kampani. To defend himself, Mr.

Kampani has appointed various

advocates to represent his case before

various courts viz, District Court, High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, Supreme

Court of India. As the expenditure is

incurred to protect his business interest

the same is required to be allowed u/s.

37(1) of the Act.

Nimesh M Kampani v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)5

----------------------------------------------------------

Compensation received by flat owner from

builder for hardship caused due to

redevelopment of the building is a non-

taxable receipt and has to be reduced from

the cost of the flat. Amount received from

builder to meet rental costs during the

redevelopment is also not taxable as

income

Held

As regards the corpus fund towards hardship

caused to assessee on redevelopment, the

same is in the nature of a capital receipt and

as such not taxable as held in Kushal K Bangia

vs. ITO ITA No.2349/Mum/2011. It was held

that it is elementary that the connotation of

income howsoever wide and exhaustive,

take into account only such capital receipts

which are specifically taxable under the

provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section

2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any

capital gains chargeable under section 45”,

and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt

simplicitor cannot be taken as income.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Padmraje R. Kardambande vs CIT (195 ITR

877) has observed that “we hold that the

amounts received by the assessee during the

financial years in question have to be

regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore,

are not income within meaning of section

5 ITA No. 3316/Mum/2015


2(24) of the Income Tax Act….” This clearly

implies, as is the settled legal position in our

understanding, that a capital receipt in

principle is outside the scope of income

chargeable to tax and a receipt cannot be

taxed as income unless it is in the nature of

revenue receipt or is brought within the

ambit income by way of a specific provision

in the Act. No matter how wide be the scope

of income u/s.2(24) it cannot obliterate the

distinction between capital receipt and

revenue receipt. It is not even the case of the

Assessing Officer that the compensation

received by the assessee is in the revenue

field, and rightly so because the residential

flat owned by the assessee in society

building is certainly a capital asset in the

hands of the assessee and compensation is

referable to the same. As held by Hon’ble

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dr.

George Thomas K vs CIT(156 ITR 412), “the

burden is on the revenue to establish that

the receipt is of revenue nature” though

“once the receipt is found to be of revenue

character, whether it comes under

exemption or not, it is for the assessee to

establish”. The only defense put up by

learned Departmental Representative is that

cash compensation received by the assessee

is nothing but his share in profits earned by

the developer which are essentially revenue

items in nature. This argument however

proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of

payment in the hands of payer also ends up

determining its nature in the hands of the

recipient. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal

Singha (82 ITR 460), “it is now well settled

that, in order to find out whether it is a

capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to

see what it is in the hands of the receiver and

not what it is in the hands of the payer”. The

consideration for which the amount has

been paid by the developer are, therefore,

not really relevant in determining the nature

of receipt in the hands of the assessee.

However, the impugned receipt ends up

reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset,

i.e. flat, and, therefore, the same will be

taken into account as such, as and when

occasion arises for computing capital gains in

respect of the said asset. Subject to these

observations, grievance of the assessee is

upheld.


Nothing contrary was brought to my

knowledge on behalf of Revenue. Facts

being similar, so following same reasoning,

consideration for which the amount has

been paid by the developer are, therefore,

not relevant in determining the nature of

receipt in the hands of the assessee. In view

of these discussions, in my considered view,

receipt could not be said to be of revenue

nature, and, accordingly, the same is outside

the ambit of income under section 2(24) of

the Act. The impugned receipt ends up

reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset,

i.e. flat, and, therefore, the same will be

taken into account as such, as and when

occasion arises for computing capital gains in

respect of the said asset. Subject to these

observations, the appeal of assessee is

allowed.

Next issue is regarding addition of amount

given by Developer for paying rent while

development of the project was taking

place. In fact, assessee submitted that he has

made expenditure of Rs.6,80,000/- towards

rent while development activity of the

project was taken place. So, assessing officer

is directed to allow the claim of assessee to

same extent because it is nothing but

compensation received by assessee for

paying rent. This cannot be said to be income

of assessee.

Jitendra Kumar Soneja vs. ITO (Mumbai

ITAT)6

----------------------------------------------------------

6 ITA No. 291/Mum/2015

For Private Circulations Only The Update –Oct, 2016, SGCO & Co

16

INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

UC Berkeley Centre for Executive

Education, USA, In re [AAR No. 1623 of

2014] – Payment made to a university in

United States of America for providing

management training to India executives

shall not be treated as Fees for Technical

Services.

Facts of the Case:

The application was made by UC Berkeley Centre

for Executive Education (applicant), which is USA

based non-profit corporation formed for the

purpose of providing executive education to

management executives in USA and other

countries. The applicant had entered in to an

agreement with an Indian company to launch a

management programme for senior executives of

various corporations. The entire course materials

and other instructional material was to be

developed by the applicant and all intellectual

rights therein were reserved with it. The applicant

raised the following 2 questions before the

Authority of Advance Rulings (Income-Tax), New

Delhi:

1) Whether programme fee received by

the applicant in terms of the agreement

with the Indian Company was

chargeable to tax under Article 12 (Fees

for Included services) of the India – USA

DTAA and the provisions of section

9(1)(vii) (Fees for Technical services) of

the Income Tax act, 1961?

2) The activities of the applicant namely

teaching for 5 days would constitute a

Permanent Establishment (PE) under

Article 5 of the India – USA DTAA?

The Advance Authority of Rulings (AAR) Held as

under:

The applicant has submitted all the certificates

and other related documents which clearly

indicate that it is an educational institution and

its activities are charitable and educational


17

activities which covered by applicable laws in

USA.

Reference is made by AAR to its earlier decision

in the case of Eruditus Educational Private

Limited v/s DIT, wherein it was held that

educational institutions have been exempted

under clause 12(5)(c) of the India – Singapore

DTAA. Since, the said clause is identical to clause

12(5)(c) of the India – USA DTAA, the payment

received by the applicant shall not be treated as

Fees for Included Services under Article 12 and

shall not be subjected to withholding tax

implications.

Since, the payments are exempt under the India

– USA DTAA, the AAR refrained from ruling in the

context of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

M.T. Maersk Mikage & 4 v/s Director of

Income Tax – Income earned by a shipping

company and taxable under Article 8 shall

not be ousted by Article 24(1) since the

income is assessable on accrual basis and

not on remittance basis.

Facts of the Case:

The assessee was a company based in

Singapore. Through the shipping business

carried out at Indian ports, the assessee

earned income, on which, it claimed

exemption from Indian income-tax by

relying upon article 8 of DTAA between India

and Singapore.

The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the

assessee was not entitled to benefit of

article 8 by virtue of the provisions

contained in article 24 as the freight receipts

were remitted to London and not to

Singapore. In his opinion, as per article 24 of

DTAA, the funds have to be remitted where

the resident of the country is claiming

benefit of the agreement which condition in

the instant case was not satisfied. The

commissioner upheld the order of the AO.

The assessee filed a petition before the High

Court.

The Gujarat High Court Held that:

The fact that the assessee was eligible to

claim the benefits of Article 8 of the DTAA

was not in dispute. The only question that

prevails is that whether article 8 is ousted by

virtue of clause (1) of Article 24 of the said

Treaty.

Article 24 pertains to limitation of relief.

Clause (1) of the said article provides that

the income from sources in contracting

states (in the present case, India) shall be

exempt from tax or shall be taxed at reduced

rate and under the laws in force in other

contracting states (i.e. Singapore), however

reference is on the amount thereof which is

remitted or received in that State and not by


18

reference to the full amount thereof, then

the exemption or reduction of tax under the

agreement would be limited to so much of

the income as is remitted to or received in

that contracting State.

In this context the certificate of the Inland

Revenue Authority of Singapore assumes

significance. The certificate states that the

income of the shipping company would be

assessable in Singapore on accrual basis and

not on receipt basis. In short, the entire

income of the company was taxable in

Singapore.

The essence of article 24(1) is that in case

certain income is taxed by a contracting

State not on the basis of accrual, but on the

basis of remittance. Applicability of article 8

would be ousted to the extent such income

is not remitted. When in the present case,

the income in question was not taxable at

Singapore on the basis of remittance but on

the basis of accrual; the very basis for

applying clause (1) of article 24 would not

survive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------


19

No Transfer Pricing adjustment should

be made on interest free advances to AE

owing to commercial consideration

Issue of Corporate Guarantee cannot be

considered as provision of service, it is

considered as a shareholder activity.

Facts

The assessee is a leading ink manufacturer in

India. It had a wholly owned subsidiary in

Austria, by the name of Micro Inks GmbH

which, in turn, owned Micro Ink Co., USA

(Micro USA). Micro USA manufactured printing

ink by using the base material supplied by the

assessee. The assesse company also had

trading subsidiaries in China and Hong Kong.

The international transactions reported by

the assessee in Form 3CEB for FY 2005-

2006(A.Y 2006-07) with Micro USA were sale

of goods and sale of packing material samples.

In addition to these transactions, the assesee

made a disclosure in the Form 3CEB that some

guarantees/ advances have been given by the

assessee which assisted the wholly owned

subsidiary to borrow funds from banks/

financial institutions. As per TP study carried

out by the assessee, advances issued by the

assessee on behalf of its AEs were said to be in

the nature of quasi capital and such advances

were provided without any charge.

In respect to transaction relating to sale of

good worth Rs. 215.51 crores to Micro USA.

The TPO noted that the assessee had allowed

its AE an average credit period of 186 days as

against average credit period of 130 days

allowed to independent parties, i.e., non-AEs.

It was also noted that out of total exports made

by the assessee, 45 per cent exports was to

Micro USA.

Also during the course of transfer pricing

proceedings, the TPO noted that the assessee

had issued various corporate guarantees on

behalf of its associated enterprises, i.e.,

subsidiaries.

TPO observed that guarantees were issued

without charging any price to the AEs. The

stand of the assessee was that those

guarantees did not cost assessee anything nor

any charges were recovered for the same, and

that the said guarantees were in the form of

corporate guarantees/quasi capital and not in

the nature of any services.


20

The TPO concluded the assessment

proceedings for the years under consideration,

the TPO proposed the following adjustments:

Interest free advances to the AEs

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was in

agreement with determination of arm’s length

price for sale transactions, however, he did not

agree with the approach of assessee for

determination of arm’s length price of

transaction involving advance to

AEs.

With r e s p e c t to interest free advances

by the assessee to Micro USA, the TPO held

that these advances were in the nature of

interest bearing advance and accordingly,

concluded that, based on the weighted

average cost of funds of assessee, 11 percent

p.a. was be charged as interest for the

advances to AEs.

Interest on excess credit period

The TPO held that the average credit period

allowed to AE was higher than the average

credit period allowed to the unrelated third

party customers. Accordingly, for the excess

days, the TPO charged interest at 11 percent

p.a. on the receivables from the AE.

Guarantee given to AE

The TPO held that Guarantees are chances that

someone will have to pay for them, if chance is

100 per cent, i.e. in all cases one has to pay for

it, guarantee fees will be simply equal to the

guarantee amount. However, if it is only a

probability, and only in few cases it will have to

be paid, its charges are just a percentage of it.

Banks normally compute guarantee charges on

the basis of their experience in handling such

situations.

Guarantees given by the assessee makes its own

borrowing costlier; as its assets get used in

guaranteeing, it has to raise costlier capital

without being able to use its own assets. There

cannot be a direct link to the guarantees given for

the purpose of computing cost, but the fact

remains that there was cost to the guarantor. In

view of the above discussions, guarantee fees was

calculated at two per cent, which was the

prevalent market rate for guarantee fees.

Thus TPO made an adjustment by computing

the arm’s length price (ALP) of the corporate

guarantee at two per cent


21

Aggrieved by the TPO order, the assessee filed

objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel

(DRP).

The DRP rejected the objection raised by the

assessee, referred to and relied upon the ‘OECD

Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational

Permanent Establishments’ and the decision of

the Tax Court of Canada in the case of G E Capital

Canada3. The Assessing Officer (AO) thus

proceeded to make the ALP adjustment in respect

of corporate guarantee at INR2.32Crores.

Assessee’s contentions before the ITA


The assessee contended that under the

peculiar facts of the case, the advances

given to Micro USA were akin to the

shareholder’s funds. The assessee was a new

entrant in the US market and was facing a stiff

competition due to which it had suffered huge

losses. Accordingly, it was necessary for the

assessee to increase its capital support in

order to provide capital base of Micro USA.

It was further explained by the assessee

that its intention was always to fund the

subsidiary through equity capital. However,

equity investment in the foreign subsidiary

required prior approval from Reserve Bank of

India (RBI). Such approval is not required for

giving advance to a foreign subsidiary.

Therefore, the assessee gave advance to the

foreign subsidiary a n d on receipt of

approval from RBI; it converted the advances

into equity capital.

Further, the assessee contended that the

funds so advanced to Micro USA did not have

any costs so far as the assessee was concerned,

and that in any event, at best such cross

border loans in US dollars were available at the

LIBOR.


The assessee submitted that material

being supplied to Micro USA, i.e. semi-finished

goods, ingredients and raw materials were not

being sold to any other enterprise, and, as

such, comparison was not possible.

T


22

T

The assessee also mentioned that it was

required to keep an inventory of these

products at Micro USA, and that 92 percent of

its entire exports, as also 50 percent of its

entire sales, were to Micro USA.


Transfer pricing report categorically stated

that ‘guarantees issued by the assessee are

said to be in form of corporate

guarantees/quasi capital and not in the nature

of services’ and that accordingly, ‘these

transactions are not considered as

international transactions’.

Assessee relied on the decision of Bharti Airtel1

which held that corporate guarantee issued for

the benefit of Associated Enterprise (AE), not

involving any costs to the assessee and not

having any bearing on profits, income, losses

or assets of enterprise, are required to be kept

outside the ambit of ‘international transaction’

and the coordinate bench of the ITAT, has in a

number of cases followed the same

proposition.

1 Bharti Airtel Limited Vs ACIT(2014)63 SOT 113 (Del)

The assessee further argued to the question of

the Tribunal as to why issuance of corporate

guarantee cannot be treated as intra group

services in the light of the OECD guideline; that

the issuance of corporate guarantee cannot be

treated as a service and even if it treated as a

service, in order to come within the ambit of

international transaction,

the service should have ‘a bearing on profits,

income, losses or assets of the enterprise’ and

the said condition is not fulfilled in the present

case.

It was further submitted that the revenue

authorities cannot lean to the OECD guidelines

when the plain words of the statute are in

favor of the assessee.

Tax department’s contentions


It was evident from the disclosure made in

Micro USA financial accounts, that the amount

received by Micro USA was in the nature of an

interest bearing advance and interest was


16

in the nature of an interest bearing advance

and interest was actually paid on it. Therefore,

it was wrong to claim that the amount

advanced was of capital nature. The

relationship between the assessee and Micro

USA was of the borrower and lender, and,

therefore, transaction, such business

expediency would not take the transaction

outside the ambit of transfer pricing

provisions.

The assessee’s contention to the effect that if

at all ALP of interest was to be computed it

should be LIBOR or the American bank rate

was rejected on the ground that the loans by

Indian banks were granted on the basis of

security given by the assessee and such loans

were not comparable, and that the US interest

rate would not be applicable as margins were

charged by the US banks over and above the

same.

Based on the above contentions, the Revenue

held that the weighted average cost of funds

of assessee i.e. 11 percent p.a. should be

charged as interest on the advances to AEs.

2 GE Capital Canada vs Her Majesty the Queen (2009) TCC 563


The tax department did not accept the

contentions of the assessee with respect to

interest on excess credit period transaction.

Taking 120 days as the permissible credit

period, interest at 11 percent p.a. should be

charged as interest on dues from AEs on

excess credit period.


The DRP, in his directions, had referred and

relied upon the decision of tax court of Canada

in case of G E Capital Canada2, wherein the DRP

noted that the group company issuing the

guarantee (i.e. the guarantor) would, in

principle, at least need to cover the cost that it

incurs with respect to providing the guarantee,

and these costs may include administrative

expenses as well as the costs for maintaining

an appropriate level of cash equivalents,

capital, subsidiary credit lines or more

expensive external funding conditions on other

debt finance. In addition, the guarantor would

want to receive the appropriate compensation

for the risk it incurs.


17

fee is included in the

expression ‘international transaction’ in view

of the Explanation i(c) of Section 92B of the

Act, by the amendment brought by the Finance

Act, 2012 with retrospective effect, and the

same has been approved by the Bombay High

Court.

The tax department further also relied on the

decision of Vodafone India Services Limited3

which holds that the effect of the amendment

will have to be considered and cannot be

brushed aside.

The tax department argued that in case of Bharti

Airtel, which was relied on by the assessee, it was

not requested by the contesting parties to decide

whether the provision of guarantee fee was a

service or not and added that ’various Tribunal

decisions have already held that provision for

bank guarantee is a service and, as such, it needs

to be benchmarked’ and that ‘whether the

service has caused any extra cost to the assessee

should not be the deciding factor to determine

whether it is an international transaction’

Held

3 Vodafone India Service Limited Vs Union Of India(2013) 37


Based on the below mentioned reasons, the

Tribunal agreed with the assessee’s

contention that there should be no interest on

the advances given to AE in the case under

consideration based on the commercial and

business considerations involved:

The first important aspect of this interest free

advance was that the advance is said to be in

the nature of quasi capital. The Tribunal

agreed that it was not open to the assessee to

subscribe to the equity capital without prior

obtaining approval from RBI. The Tribunal also

noted that immediately upon obtaining the

permission of the RBI, the advances were

converted into shares.

Secondly, Micro USA was not only a wholly

owned subsidiary of the assessee but was also

playing a very significant role in its sale and

distribution chain in as much as the assessee

was sole vendor to the said concern so far as

sales of raw material and semi-finished

goods were concerned. There was a significant

trade between the assessee and Micro USA to


16

to show case business expediency hence,

relationship on account of lending of money

could not thus be considered in isolation

without considering crucial business

considerations.

The Tribunal also analysed that in case arm’s

length price had to be determined in such

transactions, Comparable Uncontrolled Price

(CUP) method could be applied, and LIBOR or

any other bank linked rate was generally taken

as a rate for comparable uncontrolled

transaction. In this regard, the Tribunal held

that typical LIBOR plus rate related to

transactions in which banks made advances

with a motive of making profits from

lending activities. However, in the assessee’s

case, the rationale for advancing amounts

was in lieu of pending RBI approvals in

connection with its equity infusions.

Accordingly, there was no parity between

these two types of transactions. Secondly, in

this case, the two enterprises were mutually

dependent for commercial reasons. While

Micro USA was dependent on the assessee for

its sheer existence, the assessee was

dependent on Micro USA for its business.

Further, the Tribunal held that on the basis of

pure commercial factors and notwithstanding

the management, capital and control

relationship between the parties, such non-

interest bearing advances were equally

justified even if the assessee and Micro USA

were independent enterprises.


The Tribunal held that this adjustment must

be deleted due to the following reasons:

The transaction was part of the arrangement

for which specified credit period was allowed

and thus the cost of funds blocked in the credit

period was inbuilt in the sale price.

The products sold by the assessee to the AE

were not sold to the third parties.

Accordingly, the credit period for finished

goods cannot be compared with credit period

for unfinished goods and raw materials.

The Tribunal observed that similar issues have

already been covered by the decision in the

case

Of Micro Inks Ltd9. Wherein the Ahmedabad

Tribunal observed that similar products are not

sold to any other concern, at the same price or

even any other price and interest is levied on

the similar credit period allowed to those

independent parties, but not to Micro USA.

The question of


17

Excess credit period arises only when there is a

standard credit period for the product sold at

the

same price and the credit period allowed to

the

AEs is more than the credit period allowed to

independent enterprises. That is not the case

here. The credit period for finished goods

cannot be compared with credit period for

unfinished goods and raw materials, and in any

case, when products are not the same, there

cannot be any question of prices being the

same.


The Tribunal held that issuance of corporate

guarantee was in the nature of ‘Shareholder

Activities’/‘quasi capital’ and thus could not be

included within the ambit of ‘provision of

services’ under the definition of ‘international

transaction’ under Section 92B of the Act.

It distinguished the revenue’s reliance on

Bombay High Court judgment in Everest Kanto

wherein Guarantee commission was actually

charged by the assessee, unlike in the present

case. The grievance against the issuance of

corporate guarantee being held to be an

international transaction could not have come

up for consideration.

In the case of Vodafone India Services,

applicability of retrospective amendment to

Section 92B of the Act had been considered in

context of ‘transfer’ and not ‘international

transaction’. The amendment clarifies the two

aspects of transfer - the asset itself and the

manner in which it is dealt with. The issue

considered by the High Court was prior to the

amendment, whereas in the present case, it is

the amended definition which would have to

be considered. In the present case, we do not

find either necessary or proper to indicate the

application of Section 2(47) of the Act as

amended to the present proceedings. In view

of the above

discussions, the decision is equally misplaced

and devoid of legally sustainable merits.

Further, the Tribunal also distinguishes the

Canadian decision of G E Capital Canada relied

upon by the revenue authorities stating The same

did not even deal with the fundamental question

as to whether issuance of Corporate guarantee is

an international transaction at all and the

provisions of the Act and the Canadian Income Tax

Act, 1985 are so radically different that just

because a particular transaction is to be


18

examined on ALP in Canada, that alone cannot be

a reason enough to hold that it must meet the

same in India as well.

The Tribunal held that revenue cannot seek to

widen the net of transfer pricing legislation by

taking refuge of the best practices recognised

by the OECD work.

The Tribunal analyzed the business model of

bank guarantees, with which corporate

guarantee are sometimes compared, in the

context of benchmarking the ALP of corporate

guarantee. A bank guarantee is a surety that

the bank, or the financial institution issuing the

guarantee, will pay off the debts and liabilities

incurred by an individual or a business entity in

case they are unable to do so. Even when such

guarantees are backed by one hundred

percent deposits, the bank charges a

guarantee fees. Whereas in case of corporate

guarantees, it is issued without any security or

underlying assets. There is no recourse

available with the guarantor if there is any

default. Such guarantees are issued based

upon the business needs and not risk

assessment or underlying asset which

generally the bank asks for. In general,

therefore, bank guarantees are not

comparable with corporate guarantees.

Further relying on the decision of EKL

Appliances, states that even if issuance of

corporate guarantee is accepted as ‘provision for

service’, such service needed to be re-

characterized to bring it to tune with commercial

reality, as ‘no independent enterprise would

issue a guarantee without an underlying security

as has been done by the assessee’ and also states

that issuance of corporate guarantees is covered

by the residuary clause of Section 92B definition.

However, in the decision in Bharti Airtel, the

Delhi Tribunal has explained in detailed, the

legal position of the Section 92B of the Act and

has specifically brought that the onus is on the

Revenue to demonstrate that the transaction

is of such nature so as to have a bearing on its

profits, income, losses or assets. Such impact

should be on a real basis and not on contingent

or hypothetical basis. These conditions are not

satisfied in the present case. It was held that,

‘when the assessee extends an assistance to

the AE, which does not cost anything to the

assessee and particularly for which the

assessee could not have realized money by

giving it to someone else during the course of

its normal business, such an assistance or

accommodation does not have any bearing on

its profits, income, losses or assets, and,


19

therefore, it is outside the ambit of

International transaction under Section 92B

(1)of the Act’ and deletes transfer pricing

adjustment.

The shareholder activity as it was to provide,

or compensate for lack of, core strength for

raising the finances from banks. No material,

indicating to the contrary, is brought on record

in this case.

Going by the OECD Guidance also, it is not

really possible to hold that the corporate

guarantees issued by the assessee were in the

nature of 'provision for services' and not a

shareholder activity which are mutually

exclusive in nature. In the light of these

discussions, it is opined and said view is fully

supported by the OECD Guidance in this, that

the issuance of corporate guarantees, in the

nature of quasi capital or shareholder activity

as is the uncontroverted position on the facts

of this case, does not amount to a service in

which respect of which arm's length

adjustment can be done.

It is thus clear that even if one accepts the

contention of the revenue that issuance of a

corporate guarantee amounts to a 'provision

for service’, such a service needs to be

characterized to bring it in tune with

commercial reality as 'arrangements made in

relation to the transaction, viewed in their

totality, differ from those which would have

been adopted by independent enterprises

behaving in a commercially rational manner'.

No bank would be willing to issue a clean

guarantee, i.e., without underlying asset, to

assessee's subsidiaries when the banks are not

willing to extend those subsidiaries loans on

the same terms as without a guarantee. Such a

guarantee transaction can only be, and is,

motivated by the shareholder, or owner-wise

considerations.

No doubt, under the OECD Guidance on the

issue, an explicit support, such as corporate

guarantee, is to be benchmarked and, for that

purpose, it is in the service category but that

occasion comes only when it is covered by the

scope of 'international transaction' under the

transfer pricing legislation of respective

jurisdiction. The expression 'provision for

services' in its normal or legal connotations, as

seen earlier, does not cover issuance of

corporate guarantees, even though once a

corporate guarantee is covered by the

definition of international transaction', it is

benchmarked in the service segment. In view

of the above, OECD Guidelines, as a matter of


20

fact, strengthen the claim of the assesse that

the corporate guarantees issued by the

assessee were in the nature of quasi capital or

shareholder activity and, for this reason alone,

the issuance of these guarantees should be

excluded from the scope of services and thus

from the scope of 'international transactions'

under section 92B.

Once a transaction is held to be covered by the

definition of international transaction,

whether in the nature of the shareholder

activity or quasi capital or not, ALP

determination must depend on what an

independent enterprise would have charged

for such a transaction. In this light of these

discussions, it is held that the issuance of

corporate guarantees in question was not in

the nature of 'provision for services' and these

corporate guarantees were required to be

treated as shareholder participation in the

subsidiaries.

As for the words 'provision for services"

appearing in section 92B, and connotations

thereof, this expression, in its natural

connotations, is restricted to services

rendered and it does not extend to the

benefits of activities per se. Whether one looks

at the examples given in the OECD material or

even in Explanation to section 92B, the thrust

is on the services like market research, market

development, marketing management,

administration, technical service, repairs,

design, consultation, agency, and scientific

research, legal or accounting service or

coordination services. As a matter of fact, even

in the Explanation to section 92B guarantees

have been grouped in item 'c' dealing with

capital financing, rather than in item 'd' which

specifically deals with 'provision for services'.

When the legislature itself does not group

'guarantees' in the 'provision for services' and

includes it in the 'capital financing', it is

reasonable to proceed on the basis that

issuance of guarantees is not to be treated as

within the scope of normal connotations of

expression 'provision for services'.

Under section 92B, corporate guarantees can

be covered only under the residuary head i.e.

"any other transaction having a bearing on the

profits, income, losses or assets of such

enterprise". It is for this reason that section

92B, in a way, expands the scope of

international transaction in the sense that

even when guarantees are issued as a

shareholder activity but costs are incurred for

the same or, as a measure of abundant

caution, recoveries are made for this non-


21

chargeable activity, these guarantees will fall

in the residuary clause of definition of

international transactions under section 92B.

As for the revenues argument that "whether

the service has caused any extra cost to the

assesse should not be the deciding factor to

determine whether it is an international and

then gives an example of brand royalty to

make his point.What, in the process, he

overlooks is that is that section 92B(1)

specifically covers sale or lease of tangible or

intangible property". The expression "bearing

on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

enterprises" is relevant only for residuary

clause i.e. any other services not specifically

covered by section 92B.

There is no dispute that Explanation to section

92B states that it is merely clarificatory in

nature in as much as it is 'for the removal of

doubts',and, therefore, one has to proceed on

the basis that it does not alter the basic

character of definition of 'international

transaction' under section 92B. Accordingly,

this Explanation is to be read in conjunction

with the main provisions, and in harmony with

the scheme of the provisions, under section

92B. Under this Explanation, five categories of

transactions have been clarified to have been

included in the definition of 'international

transactions'. The first two categories of

transactions, which are stated to be included

in the scope of expression 'international

transactions' by the virtue of clause (a) and (b)

of Explanation to section 92B, are transactions

with regard to purchase, sale, transfer, lease or

use of tangible and intangible properties.

These transactions were anyway covered by

transactions 'in the nature of purchase, sale or

lease of tangible or intangible property'.

The only additional expression in the

clarification is 'use' as also illustrative and

inclusive descriptions of tangible and

intangible assets.Similarly, clause (d) deals

with the “provision of services, including

provision of market research, market

development, marketing management,

administration, technical service, repairs,

design, consultation, agency, scientific

research, legal or accounting service" which

are anyway covered in "provision for services"

and "mutual agreement or arrangement

between two or more associated enterprises

for the allocation or apportionment of, or any

contribution to, any cost or expense incurred

or to be incurred in connection with a benefit,

service or facility provided or to be provided to

any one or more of such enterprises ".


22

That leaves the Tribunal with two clauses in

the Explanation to section 92B which are not

covered by any of the three categories

discussed above or by other specific segments

covered by section 92B, namely borrowing or

lending money. The remaining two items in the

Explanation to section 92B are set out in clause

(c) and (e) thereto, dealing with (a) capital

financing and (b) business restructuring or

reorganization. These items can only be

covered in the residual clause of definition in

international transactions, as in section 92B(1),

which covers "any other transaction having a

bearing on profits, incomes, losses, or assets of

such enterprises". It is, therefore, essential

that in order to be covered by clause (c) and (e)

of Explanation to Section 92B, the transactions

should be such as to have beating on profits,

incomes, losses or assets of such enterprise. In

other words, in a situation in which a

transaction has no bearing on profits, incomes,

losses or assets of such enterprise, the

transaction will be outside the ambit of

expression 'international transaction'. This

aspect of the matter is further highlighted in

clause (e) of the Explanation dealing with

restructuring and reorganization, wherein it is

acknowledged that such an impact could be

immediate or in future as evident from the

words "irrespective of the fact that it (i.e.

restructuring or reorganization) has bearing on

the profit, income, losses or assets of such

enterprise at the time of transaction or on a

future date". What is implicit in this statutory

provision is that while impact on " profit,

income, losses or assets" is sine qua non, the

mere fact that impact is not immediate, but on

a future date, would not take the transaction

outside the ambit of 'international

transaction'. It is also important to bear in

mind that, as it appears on a plain reading of

the provision, this exclusion clause is not for

'contingent' impact on profit, income, losses or

assets but on 'future' impact on profit, income,

losses or assets of the enterprise.

The important distinction between these two

categories is that while latter is a certainty, and

only its crystallization may take place on a

future date, there is no such certainty in the

former case. In the instant case it is an

undisputed position that corporate guarantees

issued by the assessee to the various banks

and crystallization of liability under these

guarantees, though a possibility, is not a

certainty. In view of the discussions above, the

scope of the capital financing transactions, as

could be covered under Explanation to section

92B read with section 92B(1), is restricted to

such capital financing transactions, including


23

inter alia any guarantee, deferred payment or

receivable or any other debt during the course

of business, as will have "a bearing on the

profits, income, losses or assets or such

enterprise".

This precondition about impact on profits,

income, losses or assets of such enterprises is

a precondition embedded in section 92B(1)

and the only relaxation from this condition

precedent is set out in clause (e) of the

Explanation which provides that the bearing

on profits, income, losses or assets could be

immediate or on a future date. These

guarantees do not have any impact on income,

profits, losses or assets of the assessee. There

can be a hypothetical situation in which a

guarantee default takes place and, therefore,

the enterprise may have to pay the guarantee

amounts but such a situation, even if that be

so, is only hypothetical situations, which are,

as discussed above, excluded. When an

assessee extends an assistance to the

associated enterprise, which does not cost

anything to the assessee and particularly for

which the assesse could not have realized

money by giving it to someone else during the

course of its normal business, such an

assistance or accommodation does not have

any bearing on its profits, income, losses or

assets, and, therefore, it is outside the ambit of

international transaction under section 92B(1).

In the present case, as already held that the

issuance of corporate guarantees were in the

nature of shareholder activities as was the

uncontroverted claim of the assessee, and, as

such, could not be included in the 'provision for

services' under the definition of 'international

transaction' under section 92B. Taking note of the

insertion of Explanation to section 92B, that the

issuance of corporate guarantees is covered by

the residuary clause of the definition under

section 92B of the Act but since such issuance of

corporate guarantees, on the facts of the present

case, did not have "bearing on profits, income,

losses or assets", it did not constitute an

international transaction, under section 92B, in

respect of which an arm's length price

adjustment could be made. In this view of the

matter, and for both these independent reasons,

the impugned ALP adjustment is set aside.

Micro Ink Limited vs Additional CIT (I.T.A No:-

2873/AHD/10)


CUSTOMS

*CUSTOMS-TARIFF*

Extension of date for applicability of

Standard rate, additional duty rate or any

condition on Butter, Ghee & Butter Oil.

The Central Government, being satisfied that it is

necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby

makes the following further amendment in

Notification No.12/2012 -Exemption of Additional

Duty & effective rate of basic and additional duty

for goods specified as below.(TABLE).

The amendment is in Notification No-53/2016-

Cust, dt-29/09/2016 as namely-

In case of Butter ,ghee and butter oil the standard

rate is30% and there is no additional duty ,Earlier

the date for the applicability of such notification

was till 30th September,2016 ,now it has been

extended till 31st March,2017.

Hence, Duty on import of goods mentioned in

Table is at Standard rate of 30% , no additional

duty & no condition is mentioned.

TABLE-

S.No Chapter or Heading or Sub heading or tariff item

Description of goods

Standard rate

Additional duty rate

Condition No.

8 0405

Butter ,ghee and butter oil

30%

- -

Notification No. 53/2016-Customs, Dated- 29th

September, 2016.

---------------------------------------------------------

Inclusion of two ICDs in list of Customs

stations from where Export/Import under

EP schemes can take place




The Central Government makes the following

amendment

In case, where Export/Import were done under

“Export Promotion schemes” ,the exemption from

the levy of custom duty is allowed, if the said

Export/Import were take place from the Inland

Container Depot mentioned in the list of Custom

stations. Hence In addition to Custom station

named “Hosur (Tamil Nadu) and Nattakkam Village

(Kottayam Taluk and District)”, the Village named

as Kalinganagar and Tumb Village (Taluka

Umbergaon, District Valsad)” are added.

Notification No. 54/2016-Customs, dated-03rd

October, 2016

---------------------------------------------------------

Change in Entry no. of Goods named

‘Technitium-99m’ as mentioned below;-



Goods named as “Technitium-

99m” was earlier covered under Diagnostic test

kit under s.no.148/516.

But now In Notification No.55/2016- There is a

amendment & Technitium-99m will get inserted in

Table as entry no.163B.

Notification No. 55/2016-Customs, Dated-03rd

October, 2016.

---------------------------------------------------------

Reduction in no. of days for execution of a

bond in the case of import of gold / silver /

platinum under the scheme for 'Export

Against Supply by Nominated Agencies-


Cust, dt-03/10/2016 as namely

Exemption in case of import of gold / silver /

platinum, Provided that;-

S.No Chapt

er or

Headi

ng or

Sub

headi

ng or

tariff

item

Description of

goods

Stan

dard

rate

Ad

diti

on

al

dut

y

rat

e

148 28,29,

30,38

(A) Life saving

drugs / medicines

including their

salts and esters

and diagnostic

test kits specified

in List 4

NIL -


In the case of import of gold / silver / platinum

under the scheme for 'Export Against Supply by

Nominated Agencies', the importer executes a

bond in such form and for such sum within a

“period of ninety days” from the date of issue of

gold / silver / platinum to the exporters, and

binding himself to pay on demand duty on quantity

of gold / silver / platinum representing the

difference between the quantity issued and that

contained in the exported jewellery or articles.”.

Earlier the period of execution of a bond is 120

days which get reduced to 90 days.

Notification No. 56/2016-Customs, Dated-03rd

October, 2016.

---------------------------------------------------------

Extension in days to reimport of machinery

and equipment in Bhutan earlier exported

under duty drawback, rebate or bond -



Earlier the reimports of exported goods is allowed

within 3 years; (further 2 years showing show

cause notice)of all Goods other than DEEC, EPCG,

DEPB.

In case of DEEC, EPCG, DEPB- Reimports can be

made within 1 year (further 1 year by showing

show cause notice). But now a new concept has

been inserted to provide relaxation to Bhutan

.i.e.-

In case of Bhutan-,Machinery & Equipment

(except export under DEEC,EPCG,DEPB) -

Reimports of goods can be made within 7 years of

such export extending 3 years after that by

showing show cause notice.

Notification No. 57/2016-Customs,

Dated-03rd October, 2016.

---------------------------------------------------------

S.

No

Cha

pter

or

Hea

ding

or

Sub

hea

ding

or

tarif

f

item

Descri

ption

of

goods

Stan

dard

rate

Additi

onal

duty

rate

Condi

tion

No.

16

3B

284

4

Techni

tium-

99m

NIL - -


Makes further amendments to Notification

no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990

regarding temporary admission under the

ATA Carnet



Notification No. 157/2016 dated 28/03/16:-

exemption to specified goods imported for display

or use at any specified event such as meetings,

exhibitions, fairs or similar show or display.

Includes the below matters which now has been

amended

The following has been omitted:-

Schedule III – Display or demonstration before any

department before any department of Central

Government or a State Government or a Union

Territory Administration.

Condition (1) -- The event specified in Schedule II is

being held in public interest and is sponsored or

approved by the Government of India or the India

Trade Promotion Organization

Condition (5)-- In the event of failure to export the

goods within the period specified in condition (4),

the customs duty leviable on the goods as on the

date of clearance shall be paid by the Federation:

In the event of failure to export the goods within

the period specified in condition (4) of paragraph

1, the Federation and the importer shall, jointly

and severally be liable to pay the duties of

customs leviable on the goods as on the date of

import, along with applicable interest:

Notification No. 58/2016-Customs,Dated-03rd

October, 2016

---------------------------------------------------------

*CUSTOMS-ANTI DUMPING DUTY*

Extension of impose of anti-dumping duty

on Narrow woven Fabrics [Hook and Loop

Velcro Tapes] of specified types, originating

in or exported from People’s Republic of

China for a period of five years.

The Central Government had extended the anti-

dumping duty imposed on the subject goods

originating in, or exported from, the subject

country vide notification No. 50/2016-Customs

(ADD), dated the 06th October, 2016,

** Including fully processed but uncut hook and

loop tape fasteners. This will however, not include

unprocessed, un-bonded, uncut and un-brushed

narrow woven fabrics.

The same can be viewed at below mentioned link:-


http://www.cbec.gov.in/resources//htdocs-

cbec/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-

2016/cs-add2016/csadd50-2016.pdf

Notification No. 50/2016-Customs,

Dated-06th October, 2016.

---------------------------------------------------------

*Customs-Non-Tariff*

Adding of Land Customs Stations and Routes

named as Foreign Post office at Vijayawada,

Leh and Hyderabad-NotificationNo.-

125/2016-DT-13/10/2016.

Amendment in the Notification No-63/94-Cust-

dt-21/11/1994- Land Customs Stations and

Routes for import and export of goods by land or

inland water ways.

The Central Government has inserted the places

mentioned in below Table as Land Customs Station

for the clearance of all goods or any class of goods

imported or exported by land from or to the land

frontiers of the said table; routes as the routes by

which alone all goods or class of goods may pass

by land or inland water into or out of India to the

said land frontiers.

S.No. Land Frontiers

Land Customs Stations

Routes

8. All Countries

Sub-Foreign Post office at Vijayawada; (11)

Sub-Foreign Post office at Leh. (12)

Sub-Foreign Post office at Hyderabad. (13)

Notification No. 125/2016-Customs, Dated-13th

October, 2016.

---------------------------------------------------------

The Central Board of Excise and Customs

hereby determines the rate of exchange of

conversion of each of the foreign currencies

applicable with effect from 07th October,

2016-

The Central Government hereby determines the

rate of exchange of conversion of each of the

foreign currencies applicable with effect from

21st October, 2016-vide notification No.

127/2016-Customs, dated the 20th October, 2016

SCHEDULE I-

SCHEDULE II-

http://www.cbec.gov.in/resources/htdocs-cbec/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2016/cs-add2016/csadd50-2016.pdf




No.

Foreign

Currency

Rate of exchange of 100 units of foreign currency equivalent to Indian rupees

(1) (2) (3)

(a) (b)

(For

Importe

d

Goods)

(For

Export

Goods)

1 Australian Dollar 52.20 50.40

2 Bahrain Dinar 183.20

170.95

3 Canadian Dollar 51.60 50.00

4 Danish Krone 10.05 9.65

5 EURO 74.50 72.00

6 Hong Kong Dollar 8.70 8.50

7 Kuwait Dinar 227.90

213.25

8 New Zealand

Dollar

49.35 47.45

9 Norwegian Kroner

8.35 8.05

10 Pound Sterling 83.45 80.70

11 Singapore Dollar 48.90 47.30

12 South African Rand 5.00 4.65

13 Saudi Arabian Riyal 18.40 17.20

14 Swedish Kroner 7.70 7.40

15 Swiss Franc 68.60 66.40

16 UAE Dirham

18.75 17.60

17 US Dollar 67.55 65.90

18 Chinese Yuan 10.05 9.75

Notification No. 127/2016-Customs, Dated-21st

October, 2016

---------------------------------------------------------

Tariff Notification in respect of Fixation of

Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Poppy

Seeds, Areca Nut, Gold and Silver-

The Central Board of Excise & Customs, being

satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to

do, hereby makes the following amendment in

the Notification No. 126/2016-CUSTOMS (N.T.)

dated the 14th October, 2016.

Sr.

No.

Foreign

Currenc

y

Rate of exchange of

100 units of foreign

currency equivalent

to Indian rupees

111

111

111

112

111

1)

2 3

(a)

(For Imported

Goods)

1. Japanes

e Yen

65.55

2. Kenya

Shilling

68.05


Sr.

No

.

Chapter

/headin

g/sub-

heading

/tariff

item

Description of

Goods

Tar

iff

Val

ue

(US

$Pe

r

Me

tric

Ton

ne)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 1511 10

00

Crude Palm Oil 704

2 1511 90

10

RBD Palm Oil 724

3 1511 90

90

Others- Palm Oil 714

4 1511 10

00

Crude

Palmolein

737

5 1511 90

20

RBD

Palmolein

740

6 1511 90

90

Others-

Palmolein

739

7 1507 10

00

Crude Soya

bean Oil

845

8 7404 00

22

Brass Scrap ( all

grades)

3028

9 1207 91

00

Poppy seeds 2533

Sr.

No

.

Chapter

/headin

g/sub-

heading

/tariff

item

Desc

riptio

n of

Good

s

Tariff Value

(US

$)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 71 or 98 Gold 410 per 10

grams

2 71 or 98 Silve

r

576 per

kilogram

Notification No. 126/2016-

Customs,Dated-14th October, 2016.

- ------------------------------------------------

DGFT

Public Notice

Export of sugar to European Union (EU) under

CXL Quota and export of sugar to USA under

TRQ is ‘free’ subject to the conditions notified

in the ‘Nature of Restriction’ and 20% Export

Duty applicable on export of raw sugar, white

or refined sugar w.e.f 16 June 2016.

Sr.

No

.

Chapter/h

eading/sub-

heading/tar

iff item

Descrip

tion of

Goods

Tariff

Value

(US $

per

metri

c

tonne

)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 080280 Areca

Nuts

2621


In addition to the aforesaid condition, DGFT

notified 10,000 tons of white sugar to be exported

to EU under CXL Quota upto 30/09/2017.

DGFT Public Notice No. 34/ 2015-2020 dated 28

September, 2016

----------------------------------------------------------

The new regional office of DGFT at Belagavi,

Karnataka is included in the Appendix 1-A (List of

Regional Authorities and their jurisdiction) of

Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020.


September, 2016

----------------------------------------------------------

The export performance of Gems and Jewellery

items from SEZ/EOU Units shall not be clubbed

with export performance from DTA units of any IEC

Holder for grant of Nominated Agency Certificate.


October, 2016

----------------------------------------------------------

The procedure for designated ports for imports of

un-shredded Metallic Waste & Scrap and handling

of un-shredded Metallic Waste & Scrap by ICD’s (

Inland Container Depot ) is prescribed and this can

be referred on the following link :

http://dgft.gov.in/Exim/2000/PN/PN16/PN.3816.

pdf


October, 2016 and 40/ 2015-2020 dated 25

October, 2016

----------------------------------------------------------

Inclusion of Inland Container Depot located at

Kalinganagar and Tumb Village (Taluka

Umbergaon , District Valsad ) as a port for

Registration for availing Export Promotion

Benefits.


October, 2016

----------------------------------------------------------

Notification

Minimum Import Price (MIP) for import of iron and

steel is extended further for a period of two

months i.e. till 4 December, 2016.

Notification No. 30/ 2015-2020 dated 4 October,

2016

----------------------------------------------------------

CENTRAL EXCISE

Notifications

Non-Tariff

In Central Excise (Removal of Goods at

Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of

http://dgft.gov.in/Exim/2000/PN/PN16/PN.3816.pdf

http://dgft.gov.in/Exim/2000/PN/PN16/PN.3816.pdf


Excisable and other Goods) Rules, 2016 in rule 4

sub rule(5), after the word “surety”, the words, “or

security” shall be inserted.

The effect of this is that the applicant

manufacturer, who is availing benefit of a

notification issued under sub-section (1) of section

5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 granting

exemption of duty to excisable goods when used

for the purpose specified in that notification, shall

execute a general bond with surety or security.

Notification No. 46/2016 – CE (NT) dated 26-09-

2016

----------------------------------------------------------

In notification No. 30 / 2014-Central Excise (N.T.),

in the table, in column 4, the following entries

against serial number 1 to 7 shall be substituted –

“Audit, issue of Show Cause Notice and

Adjudication”.

The effect of this is that the officers of Central

Excise so appointed in Notification No. 30 / 2014-

Central Excise (N.T.) to be exercised for the

purposes of Audit and issue of Show Cause Notice

as well as Adjudication.


2016

----------------------------------------------------------

Amendment in Notification No. 27/2014-Central

Excise (NT), as follows:-

1. In Table II(A), - (a) for serial number 3 and the

entries relating thereto, the following serial

number and entries shall be substituted. namelv :-

(1) (2) (3)

3 Bhopal (i) Bhopal (ii) Indore (iii)

Raipur (iv) Ujjain (v) Bilaspur

(vi) Jabalpur.

2. in Table III(B), - (a) for serial number 40 and the


number and entries shall be substituted, namely :-

(1) (2) (3)

40 Ujjain In the Districts of Dewas,

Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur,

Shajapur, Ujjain, Guna,

Rajgarh (Excluding Tehsil

Narsingarh), Gwahor,

Shivpuri, Datia, Morena,

Sheopur, Neemuch, Bhind,

Ashoknagar, Agar and

Alirajpur of the State of

Madhya Pradesh.

3. In Table IV- (a) for serial number 4 and the


number and entries shall be substituted. namelv :-

(1) (2) (3)


4 (i) Audit-I (ii)

Audit-Il (iii)

Appeal-I (iv)

Appeal-Il, Bhopal

(i) Bhopal (ii)

Indore (iii) Raipur

(iv) Ujjain (v)

Bilaspur (vi)

Jabalpur


2016

----------------------------------------------------------

SERVICE TAX

Service by way of advancement of Yoga

provided by entities registered under

section 12AA of Income-tax Act, 1961 is

exempt from the levy of service tax -:

Advancement of Yoga Service has come into the

ambit of Service tax w.e.f. 1 July 2012. Since, Yoga

service was not considered under the definition

of Charitable Activities, the amendment has been

made in the Finance Act, 1994, so as to include

“Yoga ” service provided by entities registered

under section 12AA of Income by way of Charitable

Activities is exempt in Mega Exemption

Notification No.25/2012.

Notification No.25/2012-Service tax In exercise of

the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section

93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994)

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in

supersession of notification number 12/2012-

Service Tax, dated the 17th March, 2012,

published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,

Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number

G.S.R. 210 (E), dated the 17th March, 2012, the

Central Government, being satisfied that it is

necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby

exempts the Services by an entity registered under

section 12AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 (43 of

1961) by way of charitable activities; (k)

"charitable activities" means activities relating to -

(i) public health by way of -

(a) care or counseling of (i) terminally ill persons

or persons with severe physical or mental

disability, (ii) persons afflicted with HIV or AIDS, or

(iii) persons addicted to a dependence-forming

substance such as narcotics drugs or alcohol; or

(b) Public awareness of preventive health, family

planning or prevention of HIV infection;

(ii) Advancement of religion or spirituality;

(iii) Advancement of educational programmes or

skill development relating to,-

(a) abandoned, orphaned or homeless children;

(b) Physically or mentally abused and

traumatized persons;

(c) Prisoners; or

(d) Persons over the age of 65 years residing in

a rural area;

(iv) Preservation of environment including

watershed, forests and wildlife; or


(v) Advancement of any other object of general

public utility up to a value of,- (a) eighteen lakh

and seventy five thousand rupees for the year

2012-13 subject to the condition that total value

of such activities had not exceeded twenty five

lakhs rupees during 2011-12;

(b) twenty five lakh rupees in any other

financial year subject to the condition that total

value of such activities had not exceeded twenty

five lakhs rupees during the preceding financial

year;

Whereafter Notification No.20/2016- Service tax

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section

(1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of

1994), the Central Government, being satisfied

that it is necessary in the public interest so to do,

hereby makes the following further amendments

in the notification of the Government of India in

the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)

No.25/2012 – Service Tax, dated the 20th

June,2012,published in the Gazette of India,

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3,Sub-section (i) vide

number G.S.R.467 (E),dated the 20th

June,2012,namely-

(b) in clause (k),in sub-clause (ii), for the words

religion or spirituality, the words religion,

spirituality or yoga shall be substituted

After amendment in the definition of Charitable

Activities, it is always dispute that whether service

tax is to be paid on the service by way of

advancement of Yoga provided; by entities

registered under section 12AA of Income tax Act,

from the first day of July, 2012 and ending with the

20thday of October, 2015.

To conclude that no service tax is to be paid on

service provided by Charitable Institution by way

of advancement of yoga before the notification on

Mega Exemption-Notification No.20/2016 , the

Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise

Act,1994 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the

Finance Act,1994 (32 of 1994), the Central

Government hereby directs that the service tax

payable under section 66B of the Finance

Act,1994, on the service by way of advancement of

yoga provided by entities registered under section

12AA of Income-tax Act,1961943 of 1961) in the

said period, but for the said practice, shall not be

required to be paid.

Notification No. 42/2016-Service Tax dated 26

September 2016

----------------------------------------------------------

The Central Government hereby makes the

following rules further to amend the Service

Tax Rules, 1994, via Notification No. 43


/2016-Service Tax dated 28 September,in

the Service in Form ST- 3,-

Amendment in the Service Tax Rules, 1994, in

Form ST- 3;-

A new Cess named as Krishi Kalyan Cess is added

after Swacch bharat Cess in PART

A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I. of Form ST-3

Notification No. 43 /2016-Service Tax dated 28

September,in the Service in Form ST- 3

----------------------------------------------------------

Non levy of service tax on provision of the

service of transportation, by educational

institutions is exempt from retrospective

effect i.e. from 1st April, 2013

On 20th June, 2012.It was stated that Services

provided to or by an educational institution in

respect of education by way of,-

(a) Auxiliary educational services; is exempted

from the levy of service tax.

Later, on 11thJuly, 2014 Amendment has been

made in above and it got replaced with new

exemption .i.e. Services provided by an

educational institution to its students, faculty and

staff; is exempted from service tax.

But there is still a doubt that whether any service

tax is to be paid on the service of transportation of

educational service to student ,staff & faculty of

such institution for the period between the new

exemption and old exemption.i.e.1st April,2013 -

10th July,2014

To clarify this doubt ,the central government has

issued a notification which states that no service

tax is to be paid on the service of transportation of

educational service to student ,staff & faculty of

such institution for the period between 1st

April,2013 - 10th July,2014

It means service of transportation of educational

service to student, staff & faculty of such

institution is exempt from the levy of service tax;

retrospectively, ie.w.e.f-1ST April, 2013.

References of Notifications-

(i) Notification No.45/2016.dt-

30/9/2016- Non levy of service tax

on provision of the service of

transportation, by educational

institutions is exempt from

retrospective effect i.e. from 1st

April, 2013

(ii) Notification.No,25/2012- dt-


20/6/2012-Mega Exemption

(iii) Notification.No,06/2014 -dt-

11/07/2014 Amendment in

Notification.No,25/2012 DT-

20/6/2012

----------------------------------------------------------

MVAT

Circulars

Extension of due date for filling of refund

application for the year 2014-15

The Maharashtra Sales Tax Department (MSTD)

vide this trade circular had extended the due date

for filing refund application for the year 2014-15 in

Form 501 from 30 September 2016 to 8 October

2016. The extension was provided as the dealers

were facing technical problems in the system of

MSTD. Also, the facility of uploading e-501 was not

available form 28 September 2016 to 30

September 2016. Accordingly, the due date for

submission of refund application for the said year

had been extended by 7 days.

The said circular can be viewed for easy reference

at:

mahavat.gov.in/Mahavat/MyFold/KNOWLEDGE%

20CENTER/TRADE%20CIRCULARS/DateWise/KNO

W_TRADEC_DW_MVAT/KNOW_TRADEC_DW_MV

AT_10_03_16_11_15_40AM.pdf

Trade Circular 30T of 2016 Dated 1 October 2016.

----------------------------------------------------------

Extension of time limit under Settlement Act, 2016

and clarification on certain issues

The MSTD vide this trade circular has extended the

time limit under the Settlement Act, 2016 from 30

September 2016 to 15 November 2016. Further,

the MSTD have come up with additional

clarifications on procedures to be followed so as to

give the credit of amount paid prior to assessment

order with further relaxation of condition to

submit Audit Report in Form 704 in case of

imposition of penalty u/s. 61(2) of the MVAT Act,

2002.

The said circular can be viewed for easy reference

at:

mahavat.gov.in/Mahavat/MyFold/KNOWLEDGE%

20CENTER/TRADE%20CIRCULARS/DateWise/KNO

W_TRADEC_DW_MVAT/KNOW_TRADEC_DW_MV

AT_10_03_16_11_16_56AM.pdf

Trade Circular 31T of 2016 Dated 1 October 2016.

----------------------------------------------------------


M

MCA UPDATES

Relaxation of additional fees and

extension of last date of filing of Form AOC‐

4, A OC‐4 (XBRL), AOC‐4 CSF AND MGT‐7 under

the Companies Act, 2013

Due extended date of Income tax filing and

request received from various stake holders for

allowing waiver of additional fee. In view of the

above, Ministry of Corporate Affairs has decided

to relax the additional fee payable on e‐forms

which are due for filing by companies on 29th

October, 2016 as one time waiver of additional fee

and it is also clarified to stakeholders that if such

due e‐forms are filed after 29th October, 2016, no

such relaxation shall be allowed.

Dated 27th October, 2016.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Companies (Incorporation) Fourth

Amendment Rules, 2016

The Central Government has make amendments in

Companies (Incorporation) Fourth Amendment

Rules, 2016 providing conversion of public

company into private company or private Limited

by shares or guarantee or conversion of guarantee

company into a company limited by shares.

Dated 01st October, 2016

-----------------------------------------------------------------

company into public company and Conversion of

Unlimited Limited Company into Company

http://taxguru.in/company-law/companies-filing-documents-forms-extensible-business-reporting-language-rules-2015.html

http://taxguru.in/company-law/companies-filing-documents-forms-extensible-business-reporting-language-rules-2015.html


UPCOMING DUE DATES

October, 2016

November, 2016

INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

7th - TDS/TCS payment, Filing

15G/15H for September’ 2016

7th -

-

TDS/TCS payment for October 2016.

Filing 15G/15H for October 2016.

15th - TDS/TCS statement in Form 24Q, 26Q,

27EQ, 27Q for the quarter ending

September’16.

30th -

-

Income Tax/ Wealth tax return of AY 2016-

17 for all corporate assesses & other liable

to audit for Transfer Pricing.

Submission of Transfer Pricing Audit Report

MVAT/CST/PT MVAT/CST/PT

21st -

-

MVAT/CST payment for month /quarter and half year ending Sep’16. WCT TDS payment for the ending Sep’16

21st -

-

MVAT/CST payment for month of Oct’ 16 WCT TDS payment for month ending Oct’ 16

31st -

-

-

MVAT/CST monthly / quarterly / half yearly return for period ending sep’16 in case where the entire liability paid on or before the due date

Submission of CST declaration in Form F’ for the month ending Sep’16

31st -

-

-

-

MVAT/CST monthly return for period ending Oct’16 in case where the entire liability is paid on or before the due date

Submission of CST declaration in Form ‘F’ for month ending Oct’ 16

PT payment if salary of Oct’ 16 paid in Nov’ 16


Sub Submission of CST declaration in Form ‘C’ and in Form H’ for the quarter ending Sep’16

PT payment if salary of Sep’16 paid in Oct’16

- PT return for the month of Nov’ 16 , if salary of Oct’ 16 paid in Nov’ 16

Service Tax

Service Tax

6th -

-

Service Tax payment (other than sole proprietor & Partnership Firms) for the proprietor & Partnership Firms) for the

Service Tax payment for sole proprietor & Partnership Firms for quarter ended Sep’ 16

6th - Service Tax monthly payment (other than sole proprietor & Partnership Firms) for Oct’ 16

25th - Service Tax returns for the period Apr16 to Sep16

Excise Excise

6th - Excise Payment for Sep’16

6th - Excise Payment for Sep’16

10h -

-

-

-

Excise Return for (ER-1) Sep’16 Excise Return for (ER-3) for SSI for quarter ending Sep’16

Excise return (ER-2) for Sep’16 (Applicable for EOU’s)

Excise return (ER-2) for Sep’16

10th -

-

-

-

Excise Return for (ER-1) Sep’16

Excise Return for (ER-3) for SSI for quarter ending Sep’16 Excise return (ER-2) for Sep’16 (Applicable for EOU’s) Excise Return (ER-6) for Sep’16


15th - Quarterly Excise Return for dealers

15th - Quarterly Excise Return for dealers

Company Law

Company Law

7th -

-

File NBS-6 return for exposure to capital markets

File a monthly return in prescribed format (NBFC-ND)

7th -

-

Filing of e-form 8 for the F.Y. 31st March 2016 of LLP

File a monthly return in prescribed format (NBFC-ND)

15th -

-

Quarterly Compliance Report on Corporate Governance U/C 49 of the Listing Agreement

Filing of E-Form ADT-1 (for appointment of Auditors) (Within 15 days of the AGM)

14th - Furnish unaudited Quarterly financial results in the prescribed format U/c 41 I (c) (i) of listing agreement ‐ for Listed Companies

21st - Quarterly Shareholding Pattern for Listed Companies U/C 35 of the Listing Agreement

30th - Filing of e-form MGT-7 for the F.Y. 31st March 2015

30th -

-

-

-

Quarterly Reconciliation of Share Capital Audit Report for the quarter ended by Practicing CA / PCS ‐ for Listed Companies as per Regulation 55A of the (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996 Half yearly submission of Compliance Certificate U/C 47 of the Listing Agreement Filing of e-form AOC-4 (Annual Accounts) of the Companies with ROC for the F.Y. 2015- 2016 (within 30 days of the AGM) Filing of e-form AOC-4 CFS


-

Consolidated Financial Statements, if applicable) of the Companies with ROC

Filing of e-form 8 for the F.Y. 31st March 2016 of LLP for the F.Y. 2015- 2016 (within 30 days of the AGM)


4A, Kaledonia-HDIL, 2nd Floor, Sahar Road, Near Andheri Station, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 069. India

Tel.: +91 22 6625 6363 Fax: +91 22 6625 6364 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.sgco.co.in

M u m b a i

Disclaimer

This newsletter is prepared strictly for private circulation and personal use only. The newsletter is for general guidance on matters of interest only and does not constitute any professional advice from us. One should not act upon the information contained in this newsletter without obtaining specific professional advice. Further, no representation or warranty (expressed or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this newsletter. This newsletter (and any extract from it) may not be copied, paraphrased, reproduced, or distributed in any manner or form, whether by photocopying, electronically, internet, within another document or otherwise, without the prior written consent of S G C O & Co

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sgco.co.in/

monthly updates | oct, 2016 · pdf fileliberal view in case of waiver of penalty for ... (app...

Documents