Co. Law -Summary of Notification to exempt private companies

Summary of Provisions notified vide Notification No.... to exempt private companies 

Dear Colleague, 

The Summary of provisions that are notified vide Notification to exempt private companies u/s 462 of the Companies Act, 2013 are tabulated below.

Regards, 

Ghia Tarun Jamnadas 

S. No	Section No	Particulars	Amendments	Remarks
1.	Chapter I, Sub-clause (viii) of clause (76) of section 2- Definition of Related Party	(76) ​“related party”, with reference to a company, means— (i) ​a director or his relative; (ii) ​a key managerial personnel or his relative; (iii) a firm, in which a director, manager or his relative is a partner; (iv) a private company in which a director or manager or his relative is a member or director; (v) a public company in which a director or manager is a director and holds along with his relatives, more than two per cent. of its paid-up share capital; (vi) any body corporate whose Board of Directors, managing director or manager is accustomed to act in accordance with the advice, directions or instructions of a director or manager; (vii) any person on whose advice, directions or instructions a director or manager is accustomed to act:      Provided that nothing in sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) shall apply to the advice, directions or instructions given in a professional capacity;  (viii) any company which is— (A) a holding, subsidiary or an associate company of such company; or (B) a subsidiary of a holding company to which it is also a subsidiary; (ix) such other person as may be prescribed;

Demand on account of tax /TDS credit mismatch cannot be enforced coercively

Demand on account of tax /TDS credit mismatch cannot be enforced coercively

No. 275/29/2014-IT-(B)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
Dated New Delhi, the 1st June, 2015
To,
The CCsIT (CCA)

Subject: Non-deposit of Tax Deducted at Source – regarding. Sir/Madam,

1. Grievances have been received by the Board from many taxpayers that in their cases the deductor has deducted tax at source from payments made to them in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XVII of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) but has failed to deposit the same into the Government account leading to denial of credit of such deduction of tax to these taxpayers and consequent raising of demand.

Where papers were seized from custody of appellant and affidavits filed were neither based on any record nor corroborated with cogent evidence

IT: Assessee inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices in name of 33 fictitious parties, Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price
IT: Where papers were seized from custody of appellant and affidavits filed were neither based on any record nor corroborated with cogent evidence, levy of penalty was just
■■■
[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat)
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Vijay Proteins Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax*
K.S. JHAVERI AND K.J. THAKER, JJ.
IT REFERENCE NO. 139 OF 1996†
TAX APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2002
DECEMBER  9, 2014
I. Section 37(1), read with sections 40A(3) and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Goods, being oil cakes, were not received from those parties who were shown in books - However, such goods were in fact received from a different source which was exclusively known to assessee only - It was also evident that assessee inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices in name of 33 fictitious parties - Whether Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price - Held, yes [Para 16] [In favour or revenue]