Promotion and posting in the grade of Principal CIT-CBDT Order. List of 68 officers promoted

Promotion and posting in the grade of Principal CIT-CBDT Order. List of 68 officers promoted , 60 new postings and 10 Transfer Postings

Promotion and posting in the grade of Principal CIT

Promotion and posting in the grade of Principal CIT-CBDT order

Central Board of Direct taxes has promoted 67 officers to the grade of PrCIT (level 15 in the pay matrix of Rs. 182,200/- 2,24,100/-). Consequent to the promotions, 60 Officers have been granted postings.

Apart from the above, 10 Transfer/Postings have also been made in the grade of PrCIT.

New Postings/Transfers have been offerred in various cities i.e.  Asansol, Coimbatore, Vadodara, Jammu, Pune, Chandigarh, Bangalore, Delhi, Kota, Agra, Rohtak, Mumbai, Aligarh, Muzaffar Nagar, Mysore, Thiruvananthapuram, Kanpur, Nagpur, Hyderabad, Allahabad, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Noida, Dehradun, Nashik, Kochi, Panaji, Alwar, Amritsar, Chennai, Vijaywada, Panchkula, Raipur, Kolkata, Surat, Varanasi, Kozhikode, Gulbarga, Bhopal and Thane.

 

There is no provision for conversion of disablement pension. Benefits can not be allowed beyond Rules

There is no provision for conversion of disablement pension. Pension Schemes benefits can not be allowed beyond Rules by taking a so called “lenient and liberal view.

disablement pension

National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi has allowed an important Revision Petition filed by the Provident Fund Office, Kannur against the order passed by the Consumer District Forum, Kannur as well as State Commission, Thiruvananthapuram.

The complainant was an employee of a cooperative society and was a member of EPF having more than 20 years of service. The Society discontinued his services on medical grounds. Thereafter the complainant filed an application for provident fund benefits and for disablement pension which was rejected by the said Cooperative Society.

The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur allowed the compliant and directed the Cooperative Society to reconsider the matter and give disablement pension to the complianant.

The State Commission also confirmed the order of the District Forum.

The National Commission has allowed the revision Petition filed by the PF Office with the observation that there is no provision for conversion of disablement pension under Rule 15 to avail of reduced pensionunder Rule 12.The EPF Scheme 1995 and all other pension Schemes are to benefit the employees, however these benefits can not be claimed and allowed beyond the Rules in violation of the said Rules by taking a so called “lenient and liberal view.”

SEBI Substantial Acquisition of Shares and takeovers (Amendment) Regulations 2017

SEBI Substantial Acquisition of Shares and takeovers  Regulations 2017. Amendment to provide for debt restructuring scheme as per RBI guidelines 

SEBI Substantial Acquisition of Shares and takeovers Regulations 2017

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

NOTIFICATION

Mumbai, the 14th August 2017

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (SUBSTANTIAL ACQUISITION OF SHARES AND TAKEOVERS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2017

No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2017-18/015.─In exercise of the powers conferred under section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board hereby makes the following Regulations to further amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, namely:—

1. These regulations may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) (Amendment) Regulations, 2017.

2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

3. In the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, in regulation 10, in sub-regulation (1), –

i. in clause (d), –

a. in sub-clause (ii), after the word “court” and before the word “or”, the words “or a tribunal” shall be inserted;

b. in sub-clause (iii), after the word “court” and before the word “or”, the words “or a tribunal” shall be inserted.

ii. after clause (d), the following new clause shall be inserted, namely,-

“(da) acquisition pursuant to a resolution plan approved under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016).”

iii. clause (i) shall be substituted with the following new clause, namely, –

“(i) Acquisition of shares by the lenders pursuant to conversion of their debt as part of a debt restructuring scheme implemented in accordance with the guidelines specified by the Reserve Bank of India:

Provided that the conditions specified under sub-regulation (5) of regulation 70 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 are complied with.”

iv. after clause (i), the following new clause shall be inserted, namely,-

“(ia) Acquisition of shares by the person(s), by way of allotment by the target company or purchase from the lenders at the time of lenders selling their shareholding or enforcing change in ownership in favour of such person(s), pursuant to a debt restructuring scheme implemented in accordance with the guidelines specified by the Reserve Bank of India:

Provided that in respect of acquisition by persons by way of allotment by the target company, the conditions specified under sub-regulation (6) of regulation 70 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 are complied with:

Provided further that in respect of acquisition by way of purchase of shares from the lenders, the acquisition shall be exempted subject to the compliance with the following conditions:

(a) the guidelines for determining the purchase price have been specified by the Reserve Bank of India and that the purchase price has been determined in accordance with such guidelines;

(b) the purchase price shall be certified by two independent qualified valuers, and for this purpose ‘valuer’ shall be a person who is registered under section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant Rules framed thereunder:

Provided that till such date on which section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant Rules come into force, valuer shall mean an independent merchant banker registered with the Board or an independent chartered accountant in practice having a minimum experience of ten years;

(c) the specified securities so purchased shall be locked-in for a period of at least three years from the date of purchase;

(d) the lock-in of equity shares acquired pursuant to conversion of convertible securities purchased from the lenders shall be reduced to the extent the convertible securities have already been locked-in;

(e) a special resolution has been passed by shareholders of the issuer before the purchase;

(f) the issuer shall, in addition to the disclosures required under the Companies Act, 2013 or any other applicable law, disclose the following information pertaining to the proposed acquirer(s) in the explanatory statement to the notice for the general meeting proposed for passing special resolution as stipulated at clause (e) of this sub-regulation:

a. the identity including of the natural persons who are the ultimate beneficial owners of the shares proposed to be purchased and/ or who ultimately control the proposed acquirer(s);

b. the business model;

c. a statement on growth of business over the period of time;

d. summary of audited financials of previous three financial years;

e. track record in turning around companies, if any;

f. the proposed roadmap for effecting turnaround of the issuer.

(g) applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 are complied with.”

AJAY TYAGI, Chairman
[ADVT.-III/4/Exty./183/17]

SEBI Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements Regulations (Fourth Amendment) 2017

SEBI Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements Regulations (Fourth Amendment) 2017

SEBI issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

NOTIFICATION

Mumbai, the 14th August 2017

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (ISSUE OF CAPITAL AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS) (FOURTH AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2017

No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2017-18/016. ─In exercise of the powers conferred under section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board hereby makes the following Regulations to further amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009, namely:-

1. These regulations may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2017.

2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

3. In the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009, in regulation 70, –

(i) in sub-regulation (1), in clause (c), after the words and figure “Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 or” and before the words “the Tribunal”, the words “the resolution plan approved by” shall be inserted.

(ii) the existing sub-regulation (5) shall be substituted by the following new sub-regulation, namely, –

“(5) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply where the preferential issue of specified securities is made to the lenders pursuant to conversion of their debt, as part of a debt restructuring scheme implemented in accordance with the guidelines specified by the Reserve Bank of India, subject to the following conditions:

(a) the guidelines for determining the conversion price have been specified by the Reserve Bank of India in accordance with which the conversion price shall be determined and which shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013;

(b) the conversion price shall be certified by two independent qualified valuers, and for this purpose ‘valuer’ shall be a person who is registered under section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant Rules framed thereunder: Provided that till such date on which section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant Rules come into force, valuer shall mean an independent merchant banker registered with the Board or an independent chartered accountant in practice having a minimum experience of ten years;

(c) specified securities so allotted shall be locked-in for a period of one year from the date of their allotment:

Provided that for the purpose of transferring the control, the lenders may transfer the specified securities allotted to them before completion of the lock-in period subject to continuation of the lock-in on such securities for the remaining period, with the transferee;

(d) the lock-in of equity shares allotted pursuant to conversion of convertible securities issued on preferential basis shall be reduced to the extent the convertible securities have already been locked-in;

(e) the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 are complied with, including the requirement of special resolution.”

(iii) the existing sub-regulation (6) shall be substituted by the following new sub-regulation, namely, –

“(6) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply where the preferential issue, if any, of specified securities is made to person(s) at the time of lenders selling their holding of specified securities or enforcing change in ownership in favour of such person(s) pursuant to a debt restructuring scheme implemented in accordance with the guidelines specified by the Reserve Bank of India, subject to the following conditions:

(a) the guidelines for determining the issue price have been specified by the Reserve Bank of India in accordance with which the issue price shall be determined and which shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013;

(b) the issue price shall be certified by two independent qualified valuers, and for this purpose ‘valuer’ shall be a person who is registered under section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant Rules framed thereunder: Provided that till such date on which section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant Rules come into force, valuer shall mean an independent merchant banker registered with the Board or an independent chartered accountant in practice having a minimum experience of ten years;

(c) the specified securities so allotted shall be locked-in for a period of at least three years from the date of their allotment;

(d) the lock-in of equity shares allotted pursuant to conversion of convertible securities issued on preferential basis shall be reduced to the extent the convertible securities have already been locked-in;

(e) a special resolution has been passed by shareholders of the issuer before the preferential issue;

(f) the issuer shall, in addition to the disclosures required under the Companies Act, 2013 or any other applicable law, disclose the following information pertaining to the proposed allottee(s) in the explanatory statement to the notice for the general meeting proposed for passing the special resolution as stipulated at clause (e) of this sub-regulation:

a. the identity including that of the natural persons who are the ultimate beneficial owners of the shares proposed to be allotted and/ or who ultimately control the proposed allottee(s);

b. the business model;

c. a statement on growth of business over the period of time;

d. summary of audited financials of previous three financial years;

e. track record in turning around companies, if any;

f. the proposed roadmap for effecting turnaround of the issuer.

g. the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 are complied with.”

AJAY TYAGI, Chairman
[Advt-III/4/Exty./182/2017] 

Penalty us 271(1)(b) for failure to file return u/s 153C has no statutory basis – ITAT

Penalty us 271(1)(b) for failure to file return u/s 153C. Provisions of section 271(1)(b) does not empower AO to impose the penalty for delay or failure to file the returns in response to notice u/s 153C – ITAT

penalty 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2032 (2017) (08) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:
Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa

Brief Facts of the Case:

The appellants were individual/HUF. A search and seizure operations under the provisosn of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were conducted in the case of certain group of companies. Consequent upon search and seizure operations, certain incriminating material pertaining to the appellant was found and therefore, AO issued notice u/s 153C calling upon the appellants to file return of income for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09.

However, despite contacting the appellant over telephone several times to file return of income, there was no response from the appellant to file return of income. Therefore, a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued for non-compliance of the notice.

The appellants did filed any explanation with respect to said show cause notice as well. Therefore, the AO proceeded with the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each year.

The appellant preferred appeals before the CIT(A) wherein it was contended that the delay in filing return of income is on account of the fact that the Chartered Accountant who was entrusted with the responsibility of filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 153C was busy with the filing of returns of income of his clients due in the month of July and it was further contended that time granted to file the return of income was less than 15 days, which was not sufficient/reasonable time to file the return of income and thus it was contended that the time allowed by the AO was insufficient and since the notice per se was invalid, no penalty could be levied.

However, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation and held that the default on the part of the appellant was deliberate and willful noncompliance and therefore, confirmed the levy of penalty.

Contention of the Appellant Assessee:

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that notice calling upon the appellant to file return of income within the period of less than 15 days was invalid and therefore, the question of compliance did not arise. Alternatively, it was also submitted that since the Chartered Accountant who was given the responsibility of filing the returns was busy with filing of return of income of his clients due in the month of July, the appellant could not, comply with the notice well within time.

However, since the returns were subsequently filed and the returns of income were accepted by the AO in the assessment after scrutiny proceedings, there was no prejudice caused to the revenue. It was only technical breach of law and therefore, no penalty was exigible.

Observations made by the Tribunal:

The ITAT observed that a bare reading of the provisions of section 271(1)(b), it was clear that the penalty is leviable only in the cases where any person has failed to comply with notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 115WE or under sub-section (1) of section 142 or subsection (2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142.

It was noted that only in aforesaid cases  the assessee is liable for penalty in addition to tax if any payable, a sum of Rs.10,000/- for each such failure in the cases referred to in clause (b) in addition to tax, if any, payable by him.

It was further noted that in the instant cases, the penalty was obviously levied for delay in filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act. But the provisions of section 271(1)(b) did not empower the AO to impose the penalty in the case of delay or failure to file the returns in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act.

Thus the ITAT found that the penalty orders did not have any legal basis.

Held:

It was held that the orders passed by the AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) had no statutory basis and had no legs to stand. The AO was directed to delete the penalty.

Penalty us 271(1)(b) for failure to file return u/s 153C
Download Full Judgment