Saturday, January 7, 2017

SEBI issues guidance notes on Board Evaluation

The SEBI has issued guidance note on evaluation of Board of Directors. The main purpose of this guidance note is to educate the listed entities and their board. The guidance note covers all major aspects of board evaluation, viz, process of evaluation and criteria for evaluation of different persons, feedback to the persons being evaluated and action plan. Guidance note also includes disclosure to stakeholders on various aspects such as frequency of evaluation, responsibility of board evaluation and review of the entire evaluation process.

Loan to HUF is deemed dividend when shareholder-Karta has substantial interest in HUF: Apex Court


a) The assessee-HUF received advances from G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. ('Company'). The AO concluded that the HUF was both the registered shareholder of the Company and also the beneficial owner of shares, as it was holding more than 10% of voting power. On this basis, the amount of advance was included in the income of the HUF as deemed dividend.

b) The assessee argued that being a HUF, it was neither the beneficial shareholder nor the registered shareholder. It was further argued that the Company had issued shares in the name of Karta of the HUF, and not in the name of the HUF as shares could not be directly allotted to a HUF. Thus, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) could not be attracted. 

The Supreme Court held as under:

1) In the instant case, the impugned advance was made to the assessee which was a HUF. However, the Karta of HUF held shares in the lending Company. The said Karta was, undoubtedly, the member of HUF.

2) It was not disputed that Karta was entitled to not less than 20% of the income of HUF. Thus, he had substantial interest in the HUF, being its Karta. Therefore, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) would be attracted as advance was given to the concern in which shareholder had substantial interest. It was not even necessary to determine as to whether HUF could be beneficial shareholder or registered shareholder in lending company. [2017] 77 71 (SC)

Eight meeting of GST Council: Key takeaways

The GST council headed by Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, met 8th time a􀁺er its formation. The key takeaways from council meeting are given hereunder:

1. Issue of dual control 

It is very unfortunate that even in the 8th round of meeting GST council did not reach to any consensus on issue of dual control. The Centre is not willing to accept demand of States for exclusive control over assesses having turnover below Rs 1.5 crore.

2. Cess

Officials from State Govt. were of the view that cess to be levied on more items in addition to demerit goods as the demonetization drive would reduce the tax collection in first year of GST implementation. The revenue loss from GST rollout post-demonetisation could be as much as Rs 90,000 crore,” said West Bengal Finance Minister Amit Mitra.

Click here to read full document

GSTN revised enrollment schedule for taxpayers; provides State wise enrollment details

Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has revised the enrollment schedule for GST migration. The GST enrolment will be available for service tax assessees from January 9, 2017 till January 31, 2017. However, all assessees registered with Central Excise can apply for GST enrollment from January 5, 2017 till January 31, 2017 provided they are not registered with State VAT department

GSTN has also published State-wise status of assesses enrolled under GST. The GST enrollment has received overwhelming response in States like Madhya Pradesh, Gujrat and Chhattisgarh wherein around 75 percent of dealers enrolled under GST. The Delhi Government has enrolled 45 percent of dealers, whereas Haryana Government has enrolled 29 percent dealers.

Click here to view State wise status of GST enrollment

MAT Co. entitled to indexation benefit for computing exempted capital gains under Sec. 10(38): ITAT


a) The assesse filed return of income under provisions of Section 115JB. The Assessing Officer denied benefit of indexed cost of acquisition for computing exempted capital gains.

b) The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that long term capital gain without indexing the cost of acquisition were to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability u/s 115JB.

c) The CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer

The ITAT held in favour of assessee as under:

1) Section 10(38) provides that any income arising from transfer of a long-term capital asset, being equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund shall be exempt. Therefore, the issue revolves around interpretation of the term 'any income' as used in subsection (38) of section 10 from the transfer of long term capital asset.

2) The term 'any income' used in sub-section (38) of section 10 refers to only the amount of long term capital gains computed under the provisions of section 48 which means that the benefit of indexation of cost of acquisition should be given to the assessee while computing long term capital gain for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act.

3) Therefore, the assessee-company would be entitled to the benefit of indexation while calculating long term capital gains for the purpose of computing tax liability u/s 115JB. - [2016] 76 360 (Bangalore - Trib.)