Monday, August 21, 2017
A consortium led by Rosneft announced the completion of a $12.9B deal to acquire Essar Oil, strengthening ties between the world's largest oil producer and the fastest growing fuel consumer. Rosneft will get a 49.13% stake in Essar, while the Trafigura-UCP consortium via Kesani Enterprises will get another 49.13% holding. The remaining 1.74% stake will be held by retail shareholders.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
China's great wall of debt! Moody's has lowered the nation's credit rating to A1 from Aa3, citing Beijing's waning financial strength and rising liabilities. It marks the first time a major ratings agency has downgraded the country in more than 25 years. The move also received a backlash from China's finance ministry, which said the decision was "absolutely groundless" and was based on an "inappropriate calculation method."
President Trump's first full budget proposal lands on lawmakers' desks, with a proposed $3.6T in spending cuts over the next decade. Congress will still be allowed to spend $4.1T in 2018, including a big boost to defense, border security and infrastructure, while cutting Medicaid, food stamps and other social programs. The plan also calls for selling half of the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve and permitting drilling in the Alaska refuge.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
S. 54/ 54F: There is no requirement that the investment in the new residential house should be situated in India prior to the amendment by the Finance (Nos.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015
ITO vs. Nishant Lalit Jadhav (ITAT Mumbai)
A similar situation, though in the context of section 54F of the Act, has been considered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt.Leena J. Shah (supra); notably, so far as the impugned issue is concerned, the requirement of sections 54F & 54F of the Act is pari-materia, inter-alia, requiring the assessee to make investment in a new residential house in order to avail the exemption on the capital gains earned. As per the Hon’ble High Court, prior to the amendment the only stipulation was to invest in a new residential property and that there was no scope for importing the requirement of making such investment in a residential property located in India
Friday, May 19, 2017
S. 56(2)(vi): A HUF is a "group of relatives". Consequently, a gift received from a HUF by a member of the HUF is exempt from tax as provided in the Explanation to s. 56(2)(vi)
DCIT vs. Ateev V. Gala (ITAT Mumbai)
From a plain reading of section 56(2)(vi) along with the Explanation to that section and on understanding the intention of the legislature from the section, we find that a gift received from “relative”, irrespective of whether it is from an individual relative or from a group of relatives is exempt from tax under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act as a group of relatives also falls within the Explanation to section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. It is not expressly defined in the Explanation that the word “relative” represents a single person. And it is not always necessary that singular remains singular. Sometimes a singular can mean more than one, as in the case before us. In the case before us the assessee received gift from his HUF. The word “Hindu Undivided Family”, though sounds singular unit in its form and assessed as such for income-tax purposes, finally at the end a “Hindu Undivided Family” is made up of ‘a group of relatives”
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Transfer Pricing: Law explained as to when the “Resale Price Method” (RPM) can be used with respect to related parties under Rule 10B (1)(b) + Law on determining arm’s length rate of the corporate guarantee commission/fee explained
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The Transfer Pricing Officer has selected RPM as most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price of the transaction of sale of programmes and film rights to ATL in contrast to the TNM method selected by the assessee. The first controversy is as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in selecting the RPM as most appropriate method. Section 92(1) of the Act provides that the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods prescribed therein, being the most appropriate method. Notably, the phraseology of section 92C(1) of the Act makes it clear that the selection of the most appropriate method is to be made “having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors………………..”. Further, Rule 10B of the Rules enumerates the various methods to determine the arm’s length price of an international transaction and for the present purpose, what is relevant is clause(b) of Rule 10B(1) of the Rules, which prescribes the manner in which the RPM is to be effectuated.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
S.14A disallowance has to be made also with respect to dividend on shares and units on which tax is payable by the payer u/s 115-O & 115-R. Argument that such dividends are not tax-free in the hands of the payee is not correct. S. 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of proof that expenditure has actually been incurred in earning the dividend income. If the AO has accepted for earlier years that no such expenditure has been incurred, he cannot take a contrary stand for later years if the facts and circumstances have not changed
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court)
While it is correct that Section 10(33) exempts only dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act and there are other species of dividend income on which tax is levied under the Act, we do not see how the said position in law would assist the assessee in understanding the provisions of Section 14A in the manner indicated. What is required to be construed is the provisions of Section 10(33) read in the light of Section 115-O of the Act. So far as the species of dividend income on which tax is payable under Section 115-O of the Act is concerned, the earning of the said dividend is tax free in the hands of the assessee and not includible in the total income of the said assessee. If that is so, we do not see how the operation of Section 14A of the Act to such dividend income can be foreclosed. The fact that Section 10(33) and Section 115-O of the Act were brought in together; deleted and reintroduced later in a composite manner, also, does not assist the assessee. Rather, the aforesaid facts would countenance a situation that so long as the dividend income is taxable in the hands of the dividend paying company, the same is not includible in the total income of the recipient assessee. At such point of time when the said position was reversed (by the Finance Act of 2002; reintroduced again by the Finance Act, 2003), it was the assessee who was liable to pay tax on such dividend income. In such a situation the assessee was entitled under Section 57 of the Act to claim the benefit of exemption of expenditure incurred to earn such income. Once Section 10(33) and 115-O was reintroduced the position was reversed. The above, actually fortifies the situation that Section 14A 44 of the Act would operate to disallow deduction of all expenditure incurred in earning the dividend income under Section 115-O which is not includible in the total income of the assessee.