- issue of shares against import of capital goods, machinery or equipment including second hand equipment
- issue of shares against services
- issue of shares against import of raw materials and trade payables.
- issue of shares against pre-operative or pre-incorporation expenses.
- share swaps
- issue of shares against intangible assets including franchisee agreements
- issue of shares against one time extraordinary payment including arbitral awards
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
“In terms of Section 53A(1)(a) of the Act appeal shall lie only against such directions, decisions or orders passed by the Commission before the Tribunal which have been specifically stated under the provisions of Section 53A(1)(a). The orders, which have not been specifically made appealable, cannot be treated appealable by implication. For example taking a prima facie view and issuing a direction to the Director General for investigation would not be an order appealable under Section 53A (emphasis mine).”
“Neither any statutory duty is cast on the Commission to issue notice or grant hearing, nor any party can claim, as a matter of right, notice and/or hearing at the stage of formation of opinion by the Commission, in terms of Section 26(1) of the Act that a prima facie case exists for issuance of a direction to the Director General to cause an investigation to be made into the matter.”(emphasis mine)
“The Commission, in cases where the inquiry has been initiated by the Commission suo moto, shall be a necessary party and in all other cases the Commission shall be a proper party in the proceedings before the Competition Tribunal. The presence of the Commission before the Tribunal would help in complete adjudication and effective and expeditious disposal of matters. Being an expert body, its views would be of appropriate assistance to the Tribunal. Thus, the Commission in the proceedings before the Tribunal would be a necessary or a proper party, as the case may be.” (emphasis mine)
“During an inquiry and where the Commission is satisfied that the act is in contravention of the provisions stated in Section 33 of the Act, it may issue an order temporarily restraining the party from carrying on such act, until the conclusion of such inquiry or until further orders without giving notice to such party, where it deems it necessary. This power has to be exercised by the Commission sparingly and under compelling and exceptional circumstances. The Commission, while recording a reasoned order inter alia should : (a) record its satisfaction (which has to be of much higher degree than formation of a prima facie view under Section 26(1) of the Act) in clear terms that an act in contravention of the stated provisions has been committed and continues to be committed or is about to be committed; (b) It is necessary to issue order of restraint and (c) from the record before the Commission, it is apparent that there is every likelihood of the party to the lis, suffering irreparable and irretrievable damage or there is definite apprehension that it would have adverse effect on competition in the market.” (emphasis mine)
“In consonance with the settled principles of administrative jurisprudence, the Commission is expected to record at least some reason even while forming a prima facie view. However, while passing directions and orders dealing with the rights of the parties in its adjudicatory and determinative capacity, it is required of the Commission to pass speaking orders, upon due application of mind, responding to all the contentions raised before it by the rival parties.” (emphasis mine)
At first blush the finding of the Supreme Court seems to be correct. However I shall analyze the decision in greater detail in a subsequent post.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The order of the COMPAT has been previously discussed on this blog here.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
You can access any of these links above to read the letter reportedly sent to those mags.
There was a specific complaint in the said letter that the said mag had invited NUJS to place ads. I quote and italicise the relevant portion of the letter:
(pardon the long quote)
"We wish to bring to your notice the fact that NUJS had received such an offer to advertise in your magazine in that particular issue by one Manish Kumar <email@example.com> (who claims to be the Assistant Manager of OUTLOOK) for varying rates starting from Rs. 1,00,000 and going up to Rs. 5,00,000.
The text of his email reads as below:
“From: manisk kumar [mailto:manishk@outlookindia.
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:40 AM
Subject: Proposal for professional college issues.
Outlook – India’s Best Professional Colleges Survey – 2010
Outlook, India’s most popular and respected English news magazine is bringing out its eagerly awaited annual survey and ranking of The Best Professional Colleges in India, through a special issue in June 2010. For the past four years, Outlook’s ranking of the leading engineering and medical colleges has set the benchmark for tracking academic excellence. This year, we are expanding the breadth of the survey by covering six other professional streams – architecture, fashion design, hotel management, law, mass communication, and social work.
For parents and students, this special issue is an invaluable guidebook. For colleges and institutes, it’s a matter of prestige to be featured in this survey -- there is high peer recall of Outlook’s ranking.
The survey is based on both objective and perceptual data across relevant parameters. Conducted by leading market research firm MDRA, the survey would also undertake a random physical audit of institutes. Authenticity and evaluation process would be the key elements of this survey. Our research team is contacting close to 1,300 colleges and institutes for the survey. A brief on the categories:
Engineering – More than 600 institutes recognized by AICTE.
Medical – Over 300 (MCI approved) and approximately 100 of Dentistry (DCI approved).
Mass Communication – 60+ institutes are being contacted.
Hotel Management – More than 60 institutes.
Law – Around 50, recognized by Bar Council of India and All India Bar
Social Welfare – 50+ institutes are being contacted.
Architecture – 50+ institutes are being contacted.
Fashion Design – 60 institutes.
The survey will be based on the following parameters:
We invite you to advertise in this special issue dated: June 28th. Released on: June 18th. Deadline: June 10th
Full Page : Card Rate -Rs. 490,000 Special Rate: Rs. 2,00,000
Half Page : Card Rate: Rs. 3,00,000 Special Rate: Rs. 1,00,000
We look forward to your participation. Thanking you and with warm regards
(The entire email chain is attached as Annexure A.)
Was this email and its offer to advertise for a heavy sum in the very same issue where the rankings were to appear, done with a view to subtly inform the college that if it advertised, it faced the prospect of a better ranking? We would appreciate a clarification from you in this regard.
NUJS did not place any advertisement with your magazine. However, NLIU Bhopal did (see attachment: Annexure B). Both colleges had similar marks in the ranking i.e., 779.4: however, NLIU Bhopal was ranked at number 4, while NUJS was ranked at number 5. On what basis does one get precedence over the other? Shouldn’t both have been ranked at number 4 and the next in line should have been number 6. Isn’t this the standard practice? Please elaborate.
In any case, we hope that you will desist from this questionable practice in future. Sponsorships and paid advertisements in the very same issue in which you rank colleges taint the objectivity of ranking and create an impression of bias."
This allegation reminds me of the paid news issue that has been in the news for almost a year. On the paid news issue, have a look at these articles:
P. Sainath, The medium message and the money,
P. Sainath, Politics and the Praetorian Guard ,
Sathya Prakash M R & B K Ravi, India’s Prosperity Paradox and the Mass Media Disconnect,
Ashwin Mahesh, Invisible India is the elephant in your bedroom ,
Report of the Press Council of India on Paid News
Archna Shukla, Should Private Treaties be Made Public to Newspaper Readers?
"The Bill provides that the income earned by FIIs will be deemed as capital gains. This would not have much impact on the FIIs as most FIIs at present offer their income to tax as capital gains. The deemed characterisation under the Bill implies that income from derivative transactions, which are currently treated as business income, will now be taxed as capital gains. Considering that most derivative contracts have a maturity period of between 30-90 days, the income from the derivative transactions will be subject to tax at 15%. "
"For FIIs investing from favourable treaty jurisdictions, all capital gains will be tax exempt. Though, structures without much commercial substance are likely to face challenges with the advent of general anti-avoidance rule ('GAAR'). As per the proposed GAAR, if the structure has been set up to obtain an unintended 'tax benefit' or involves treaty shopping, the Indian tax authorities will have the ability to lift the corporate veil or deny the treaty benefits. While the detailed rules and safe harbours are still to be announced, it is apprehended that holding structures set up in tax favourable jurisdictions such as Mauritius and Cyprus will be presumed to be set up for tax avoidance and the onus to prove otherwise will be on the taxpayers. This uncertainty might tilt the balance in favour of certain well established jurisdictions such as Singapore, which already have an objective substance test built into their tax treaty with India. For those FIIs who have traders based in jurisdictions from where they invest, it may be easier to meet the commercial substance test."
"The significant impact on the FIIs will be as regards the taxation of their investors. The Bill deviates from the current law and has sought to tax offshore transfer of shares in companies which hold at least 50% or more investment in the form of Indian assets. As a consequence, non-residents investing in an open-ended offshore fund set up as a company may be subject to Indian tax upon redemption of offshore shares. This might create unintended cascading tax burden on the investors in the offshore funds set up as collective investment vehicles, and which have more than 50% asset allocation to India."
I shall explore some of the points in detail at a latter point.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Tax Rates
- Residential Status of Individuals
- Residence of Companies
- Income from Salary
- House Property
- Branch Profit Tax
- Wealth Tax
- Minimum Alternate Tax