👉🏻Chinese Central Bank picks up 1.75 Cr Shares in HDFC
(The People’s Bank of China purchased 1.75 Cr shares in one of the largest housing finance lenders, HDFC Ltd)
👇🏻 👇🏻 👇🏻
https://bit.ly/3efn5dm
👉🏻GST on Director Remuneration | AAR's Ruling on Directors Remuneration
(Remuneration paid to directors to attract GST by Rajasthan bench of the AAR in the case of Clay Craft India Pvt Ltd.)
👇🏻 👇🏻 👇🏻
https://bit.ly/39XGLiE
👉🏻GST Registration requirements in case of supply from other States
(GST Registration requirements in case of supply from other States - Karnataka AAR's Ruling in case of Kardex India Solutions (P) Ltd.)
👇🏻 👇🏻 👇🏻
https://bit.ly/2y7XhPO
.
==============>
.
CBDT clarified that an employee making a donation to the PM-CARES fund through the employer can claim income tax deduction under Section 80G on the basis of Form 16 issued by the employer. Form 16 is a certificate issued by employers to employees detailing the tax deducted at sources (TDS).
CBIC has issued instruction No. 03/2020- Customs dated April 09, 2020 to process all pending Customs refund and drawback claims immediately in order to provide immediate relief to the business entities, specially MSMEs, in these difficult times.
Anti-Profiteering has issued Order No. 04/2019 dated 31st January, 2019 To Dominos Pizza guilty of not passing GST benefit in case of Sh. Kiran Chimirala & Director General Anti-Profiteering (Applicant) Vs. M/s. Jubilant Food Work Ltd. (Respondent).
Anti-Profiteering has issued Order No. 13/2019 dated 01st March, 2019: No profiteering if base price of product remain same after GST rate reduction in case of Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering (Applicant) Vs. M/s Velbon Vitrified Tiles Pvt. Ltd (Respondent).
GST revenues for April could be down by 30-40% of the annual monthly collections of around Rs 1 lakh crore in FY20. FMCG firms will ensure the dip isn’t more. Currently collections are just a fifth of normal levels.
.
==============>
.
No tax on EPF withdrawals amid covid-19
Considering the financial stress that many salaried individuals might be facing because of covid-19 pandemic, government allowed special provision for withdrawal from Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) account on 20 March 2020. Since announcement Employees’ Provident Fund organization (EPFO) has processed about 1.37 lakh claims disbursing an amount of about 2.8 billion. The remittances of the moneys have already started taking place.
Typically, funds withdrawn from EPF account before the completion of five years of continuous service attract tax, except in certain conditions such as a medical emergency or where the employee or the employer wind up their business or for any other reason beyond the control of the employer. However, even in case you decide to withdraw funds from EPF account because of covid-19 pandemic, such withdrawal will be exempt from tax. Here is how much and how you can withdraw the funds.
How much you can withdraw?
You can withdraw up to three months salary (basic pay and dearness allowance) or 75% of the total EPF balance in your account whichever is lower. For instance, if your EPF balance is 3 lakh and your basic pay and dearness allowance is 30,000 per month, you are eligible to withdraw lower of 90,000 (3 months salary) or 2.25 lakh (75% of EPF balance), that means you can withdraw up to 90,000. If you need lower amount you can make a request accordingly.
How to make withdrawal?
If you want to withdraw funds out of your EPF account, first login to your EPF account using your Universal Account Number (UAN) and password. Once you login, go to online services tab and click on “Claim (Form-31,19,10C & 10D)." You will only be able to proceed further and make claim if you have updated Aadhaar number with your EPF account. In case your Aadhaar is updated with EPF account, it will ask you to enter four digits of your bank account for verification. After verification of bank account, click on the option “Proceed For Online Claim". Next is to select the applicable form for withdrawal i.e. Form 31 from the drop down list. If you are withdrawing fund because of the financial hardship due to covid-19, select the purpose as “Outbreak of pandemic (COVID-19)" from the drop down. Now you are required to enter the amount you want to withdraw and upload scanned copy of cheque and enter your address. Click on “Get Aadhaar OTP" to proceed further, enter the OTP received on Aadhaar linked mobile and submit the request. EPFO is claiming to settle the request in the three working days.
.
==============>
.
CBDT issues Circular C1 of 2020 dated 13.04.2020 clarifying the process of exercising of option by a taxpayer with regard to deduction of tax at source if he/she opts for the concessional rates of tax as per section 115BAC of IT Act,1961.
Employee to intimate employer of intention to opt for new concessional rates.Intimation so given will be applicable for the year &can't be modified.However,employee will continue to have the right to exercise such option or continue with earlier scheme at time of filing ITR.
.
==============>
.
Important Decision on Personal Guarantors under IBC:
Whether liability of the personal guarantor stand consequently reduced or extinguished on the secured financial creditor receiving the payments in terms of a Resolution Plan in respect of a company undergoing a process of CIRP under the provisions of the IBC, 2016-Gouri Shankar Jain Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr. – Calcutta High Court
The decision of the High Court is summarized in following points:
1. Right to apply for insolvency does not arise out of a contract between the parties.
2. Resolution plan is neither a compromise or composition nor voluntary compromise with the corporate debtor.
3. Section 14 of the Code of 2016 does not apply to a personal guarantor.
4. The existing contracts between the surety, principal debtor and the creditor remains unaffected during the moratorium under Section 14.
5. Principal debtor has gone into liquidation would not have any effect on the liability of the guarantor.
6. Pre insolvency right of the creditor does not undergo any metamorphosis on the principle.
7. When, the creditor is dealing with the principal debtor in terms of the Code of 2016, the consent of the surety is not required.
8. The sanctioned Resolution Plan cannot be construed to be a variation of the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor.
https://ibclaw.in/whether-liability-of-the-personal-guarantor-stand-consequently-reduced-or-extinguished-on-the-secured-financial-creditor-receiving-the-payments-in-terms-of-a-resolution-plan-in-respect-of-a-company-un/
.
==============>
.
👉 The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Principal Bench, New Delhi (camp at Chennai), has allowed the Tamil Nadu government to temporarily take over Santosh Hospitals in Besant Nagar, which is closed and under liquidation, and utilise its infrastructure for COVID-19 treatment.
In an unprecedented sitting on Sunday, the Bench passed on an order on an application filed by the Greater Chennai Corporation.
“Though it is Sunday, this Bench has taken up the hearing on an urgent basis, since the COVID-19 pandemic has been rattling lives and the economy of the nation,” said B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, acting president of NCLT.
Santhosh Hospitals had filed for voluntary insolvency and is under liquidation now. The possession of the hospital is with Muthoot Fincorp Limited, one of the lenders to the hospital. The other major lender is DCB Bank.
In its application, the Chennai Corporation said the Tamil Nadu government had directed it to search for suitable hospitals to conduct tests and treat people diagnosed with COVID-19. It identified Santosh Hospitals for the purpose.
The hospital has sufficient beds and infrastructure to conduct tests and offer treatment, it said.
“The Greater Chennai Corporation can take over the hospital on an ‘as is where basis’, without any further liability/expenditure on the part of the liquidator, including charges such as electricity, water usage, cleaning, sanitation and repair and maintenance, among others,” the NCLT said.
👉 Amid prevalent chaos and uncertainty over access to the essential services and commodities during the lockdown, we bring you the latest updates from Chennai.
* The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Sunday permitted Greater Chennai Corporation to take over a 100-bed defunct private super specialty hospital in Besant Nagar and use it for treating Covid-19 patients.
* Amid daily reports of cops and the public clashing over lockdown violations comes this case of policemen on patrol playing good samaritans and rushing a pregnant woman to hospital on Saturday night.
* 9:25am Covid-19 death toll rises to 308 in India, cases climb to 9,152, reports PTI quoting Union health ministry
* Even as the state government maintained that an IndiGo airlines employee, who died at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital a day before, is not a Covid-19 patient, the body was buried as per the protocol reserved for people who die with novel coronavirus infection. Health department authorities are looking to track people who might have come into contact with the patient.
👉 A decision was recently rendered by a rare sitting of a five-member bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the matter of V Padmakumar v. Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (SASF) & Anr.
One of the ancillary issues which came to be considered was whether reflection of debt in the books of accounts tantamounts to acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and thereby extends the period of limitation.
The decision was not a unanimous one – it was a majority decision of 4:1. The majority concluded that the filing of balance sheet being mandatory under the Companies Act, 2013, it cannot be treated to be an acknowledgement under Section 18.
The dissent concludes that the recording of debt will be valid acknowledgment under Section 18. With respect, the author through this article, has attempted to conclude that it is in fact the dissent that is correct and should hold the field.
👉 in December 2019, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the matter of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries held that the Companies Act, 2013 (act), read with the Foreign Exchange Management (Cross Border Merger) Regulations, 2018 (regulations), do not permit cross-border demergers.
Sun Pharma wished to restructure by consolidating the holding structure of its overseas group companies and demerging two vertical units into separate overseas companies situated in the Netherlands and the US. In accordance with sections 230-232 of the act, which detail the procedure for undertaking any scheme of merger or amalgamation, the company sought approval from its shareholders, creditors and statutory authorities such as the Registrar of Companies, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the income tax authorities.
No observations were received from any statutory authority apart from the registrar, who argued that section 234 refers only to cross-border mergers and amalgamations and does not cover demergers. Sun Pharma replied that section 234 applied to a scheme of amalgamation whether by way of merger or demerger. The RBI had indicated that they were not inclined to vet the proposed scheme on an individual basis and the NCLT considered this to be a deemed approval as all conditions under the regulations were satisfied.
.
==============>
.
Indian entities of many multinationals, which receive a fixed margin or a mark-up from their parents, fear they could face transfer-pricing issues due to Covid-19. This is because the MNCs are renegotiating and slashing these fixed mark-ups, which the tax authorities may see as an anomaly and question.
GST AAR gave an important ruling dated 15thOctober,2019 regarding supply under contract for ‘design, realization, integration and commissioning of 1.2m Trisonic wind tunnel is a Work Contact in case of Tata Projects Ltd. [2019] 110 taxmann.com 512 (AAR-KERALA)
MCA Clarification on passing of ordinary and special resolutions by companies under the Companies Act, 2013 and rules made thereunder on account of the threat posed by Covid-19.
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Circular17_13042020.pdf
MCA Filings under section 124 and section 125 of the Companies Act 2013 r/w IEPFA (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules 2016 in view of emerging situation due to outbreak of COVID– 19.
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Circular16_13042020.pdf
MCA has clarified that companies cannot make financial contributions to any ‘Chief Minister’s Relief Fund’ or ‘State Relief Fund for COVID-19′ and claim that as ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) spending as per existing law. It said all corporate donations to Modi’s ‘PM CARES Fund’, which was set up to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, could be counted as CSR expenditure that most companies are mandated to make by law.
Thanks for reading
