Statutes -Monday-May-2009-05-25

Find unique and update Indian Statutes information Online- offline including Service Tax Fema-Foreign Exchange Corporate Laws Direct Tax Laws or other judicial rule-regulation with

Online PR News – 25-May-2009 – – CORPORATE LAWS

Guidelines for Foreign investment in Commodity Exchanges - Press Note No. 5 (2009), dated 14-5-2009

Section 1 of the Competition Act, 2000, commencement of Act - Enforcement of certain sections - Notification No. SO 1241(E), dated 15-5-2009


New TDS and TCS payment and information reporting system- Notification No. 858(E), dated 25th March, 2009 published in Official Gazette - Circulars No. 02/209, dated 21-5-2009

New Return Forms for Assessment Year 2009-10 – Matters connected thereto - Circular No. 03 / 2009, dated 21-5-2009

TDS on commission paid by MTNL/BSNL to owners of PCO under section 194-H of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Instruction No. 03/2009, dated 8-5-2009


Re-allocation of limits to FIIs/Sub-accounts for investment in Government Debt - Press Release No. 168/2009, dated 22-5-2009

Notification of SEBI (Investor Protection and Education Fund) Regulations, 2009 - Press Release No. 167/2009, dated 21-5-2009


Refund of service tax paid on taxable services which are provided in relation to the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone - Circular No. 114/08/2009-ST, dated 20-5-2009


Every non-payment will not be a ground for winding up a company - The “sum due” as referred to under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 must mean what has fructified and can not merely be a contingent liability or deferred payment; if the liability has not fructified within 21 days from the time the date of service of notice, it cannot be said to be a debt which company is unable to pay, in order that the Court could find a justification for winding up the company - Priyaraj Electronics Ltd. v. Motorola India (P.) Ltd. [C.A. No. 124-127 of 2006 and C.P. No. 17 of 2006]


For More Details-

Statutory date for FMV of a property cannot be substituted with a subsequent conversion date determined by Central Government through a Notification - It is not possible to ignore the statutory date embedded in the Act and adopt the conversion date as the bench mark date for finding out the FMV - Arun Sunny v. DCIT [ITA NO. 117/COCH/2009]

Charter ship hire payments do not fall under category of “royalty” within meaning of section 9 of IT Act - Payments for chartering ships on hire for doing the business outside India do not satisfy the test laid down in section 9; when section 9 is not satisfied, there cannot be a case that income is deemed to accrue or arise in India as a result of hire payments made by the assessee-company to foreign ships - ACIT v. Kin Ship Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. [ITA NO. 537/COCH/2007]

Scholarship/stipend received by a student for pursuing higher studies cannot be termed as salary - Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 nowhere includes scholarship/stipend which have been mentioned in section 10(16) of the Act; therefore, it can be said that the stipend/scholarship has been specifically precluded from the mischief of sub-clause (1) & (2) of section 17 - Dr. Rahul Tugnait v. ITO [ITA NO. 197/CHD/2008]

Assessment of rental income from immovable property - No straitjacket formula can be devised to determine conclusively as to under which head income from immovable property should fall; all the relevant factors need to be necessarily looked into to decide the character of income; if the facts show that the assessee is doing a complex commercial activity by exploiting the immovable property, then the income would fall under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”; if on the other hand, the assessee has simply let out the space and is earning the rental income, it would fall under the head ‘Income from house property’ - ITO v. Rasiklal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 580/M/2006]


Supreme Court on validity of notice issued by AO under section 148 pursuant to directions of CIT under section 263 of IT Act 1961 - An order of assessment passed by an ITO should not be interfered with only because another view is possible; when a statute provides for different hierarchies, providing for forums in relation to passing of an order as also appellate or original order; by no stretch of imagination a higher authority can interfere with the independence which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process - CIT v. Greenworld Corporation [Civil Appeal No. 3312 of 2009]


Supreme Court on Business Auxiliary Service - By inserting Explanation appended to clause (19) of section 65, a new concept of imposition of tax has been brought in and, therefore, it should not be construed to have a retrospective operation on premise that it is clarificatory or declaratory in nature - Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. - [2009] 20 STT 203 (SC) [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3239 OF 2009]

visit our website