MISSIVE

Volume XXXI

December 2013

Topics Page

No

Direct Tax 1

Transfer Pricing 3

Service Tax 6

Central Excise 7

Value Added Tax 7

Customs 8

FEMA 9

Company Law 10

Transactions that made

headlines

11

Never hold your head high with pride or ego, even the winner of a gold

medal gets his medal only when he puts his head down!!!

Index

Dear Patron

Here we are with the Thirtieth

successive issue of our monthly

‘Missive’.

We trust you will enjoy reading this

Missive, even while soaking in the

contents. We would very much

appreciate your feedback which

consistently helps us in improving

and upgrading the contents.

Thanks and regards,

Knowledge Management Team

1

DIRECT TAX

Citicrop finance ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No.

8532/mum/2011)

TDS credit will be available, based on the

evidence produced, even if no TDS

certificate is available or no TDS entry is

found in the system of tax department.

Facts

In the instant case, the assesse claimed TDS.

The TDS certificates for the same were not

available with the assesse and neither the

entry related to the claimed amount of TDS is

shown in Form 26AS. On the basis of this

reasoning that evidence were not available

with the assesse, AO disallow the claimed

amount of TDS.

The CIT (A) held that the taxpayer has to

furnish all TDS certificates and the AO needs to

verify the same. Accordingly, the AO may

allow TDS credit as per the original challan

available on record or as per the details of

such TDS available on the computer system of

tax department.

TribunalRuling

Finally, Mumbai Tribunal held that merely

because the tax department’s system sdoes

not indicate the TDS refund; it cannot be held

that the taxpayer should be compelled to

deposit the amount. TDS credit will be

available on the basis of evidence produced

by the Assesse.

DIT v. Alcatel Lucent USA Inc. (ITA

328/2012, ITA 329/2012, ITA 336/2012, ITA

337/2012 & ITA 340/2012) and DIT v.

Alcatel Lucent World Services Inc.

Non-resident taxpayer is liable to pay

interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act,

1961 for default in payment of advance

tax, since the tax liability was not admitted

in its tax return and the Indian payers did

not deduct tax.

Facts

In this case, the taxpayer is a non-resident

company, engaged in the business of

supplying telecom equipment to customers in

India. The taxpayer was having subsidiary in

India, which provided marketing support

services to the taxpayer. The taxpayer denied

its tax liability while filling Income tax return.

The payer (i.e. Indian customers) did not

deduct tax while making payment to the

taxpayer. A survey was conducted in the

premises of Indian subsidiary and AO

concluded that the taxpayer has PE in India

under India-USA tax treaty and attributed 2.5%

of sale proceeds of the hardware as profit

attributable to PE in India. The AO also levied

interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C of the

Act.

Initially taxpayer denied tax liability to pay tax

in India. However, before CIT(A) the taxpayer

did not claimed that it was not liable to tax in

India. However, the taxpayer contended that

it was not liable to pay interest under Section

234B of the Act on the ground that, it was

liability of the payer to deduct at source on

the income of the taxpayer.

Judgment

The High Court observed that when the

taxpayer denied its tax liability in India while

filing income tax return, it is not open to the

taxpayer, after accepting the tax liability in

appellate proceedings, to state that failure is

2

on the part of Indian payers, to deduct tax at

source. Accordingly, all consequences under

the Act, would be applicable, including its

liability to pay interest under Section 234B of

the Act.

Carin UK Holding Limited Vs. CIT [Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 6752/2012]

Long term Capital Gain on off-market sale

of listed shares by non-residents is taxable

at 10 percent

Facts

The petitioner, a company based in United

Kingdom, held shares in an Indian listed

company. Petitioner sold the shares off market.

Petitioner earned long term capital gain

.Petitioner computed the Capital Gain by

applying , first proviso of Section 48 of the Act

which removes the impact of foreign

exchange fluctuation and second proviso of

Section 112 of the Act which define that tax on

LTCG on listed shares shall be 10% after

applying first proviso of Section 48 of the Act.

The petitioner had approached to the AAR to

take the benefit of reduced tax rate of 10

percent.

AAR upheld the petitioner intention, stating

that “For the proviso of Section 112(1) to apply,

the second proviso to Section 48 of the Act

should also be applicable to the petitioner’s

case, As second proviso to Section 48 of the

Act was not applicable on the Petitioner,

benefit of lower tax rate of tax at 10 percent

was not available to the petitioner.”

Judgment

High Court held that Section 112 Proviso does

not state that the Taxpayers, who avail the

benefits of the first proviso to Section 48 of the

Act, is not entitled to benefit of Section 112

Proviso. Also the benefit cannot be denied

because the second proviso to Section 48 of

the Act is not applicable. All the taxpayers

covered under first proviso to Section 48 of the

Act would be liable to tax at 10 percent and

will never be liable at 20 percent.

Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. vs

ITO, International Taxation - II (2013) 38

taxmann.com 150 (Madras)

West Asia Maritime Limited vs ITO (T.C.(A)

No. 2629 to 2630 of 2006)

Income from time charter of ship from

operations between Indian ports is taxable

as royalty

Facts

Poompuhar shipping corp ltd (taxpayer)

engaged in business of moving coal from

various ports in India to Chennai. It entered in

to time charter agreement (TCA) with foreign

shipping company (FSC) and did not deduct

tax while making hire charges payments to

FSCs.

Assessing officer held that charges paid by

taxpayer was on account of use and hire of

ship, therefore it was royalty within the

meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of I.T Act ,1961 and

Article 12 of respective tax treaties and AO

treated taxpayer as ‘assessee-in-default’ for

non-deduction of tax at source while remitting

such charges.

West Asia Maritime was engaged in shipping

business and made payment to dolphin

maritime co. ltd., an associated enterprise

towards hire charges for use of ship.

3

AO held that hire payments by taxpayer was

royalty for use of equipment without deducting

TDS u/s 195 of act. Also CIT(A) held that

payments made for hire charges being royalty

would be covered by Article 12 of respective

Tax Treaty. It also held that as ship was put to

use on coastline between ports in India by the

hirer, article 8 of tax treaty would not be of any

application.

Judgment

High Court in both the cases mentioned

above, held that consideration was for the hire

of ship and since ship is an equipment, TCA

charges constitutes Royalty. Since the ships, in

the present case, were plying along the Indian

coastline and not in international traffic, the

benefit of the shipping article of the tax treaty

was not available.

Neelkamal Realtors and Erectors India Pvt

Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1143/Mum/2013)

Section 43CA providing for stamp duty

valuation of property held as stock-in-

trade applies prospectively

Facts

The petitioner is engaged in the business of

constructing and selling of flats. The petitioner

offered profits from sale of flats, held as stock in

trade on the project completion method. AO

observed that there were variations in the sale

price of flats sold by the taxpayer. The AO

called for justification from the petitioner.

However by simply rejecting the reasons and

the explanations provided by the petitioner on

the premise that such reasons and

explanations provided by the petitioner are

not justifiable, AO made additions.

The CIT(A) relying on Section 50C, Section

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) and Section 43CA of the Act

sustained that market value of flats ought to

have been considered instead of the actual

sale consideration.

Tribunal’s ruling

The Mumbai Tribunal in this case has held that

the stamp duty valuation provision contained

in Section 50C of the Act are not applicable to

transfer of land or building or both being stock

in trade.

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is not applicable

because

o It is applicable only in the hands of the

transferee/acquirer, whereas the

petitioner is a transferor/seller of flats.

o It is applicable in respect of an

immovable property acquired on or

after 1 October 2009 but in the

petitioner case subjected transaction

occurred before 1 October 2009

o It is applicable in case of immovable

property acquired by an Individual or

HUF, whereas petitioner is a Private

Limited Company.

Further, the newly inserted Section 43CA of the

Act with respect to property held as stock in

trade applies prospectively.

TRANSFER PRICING

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI

(Bombay High Court), Writ Petition No.

1877 of 2013

Existence of income is a jurisdictional

requirement for the applicability of T. P.

provisions. AO must deal with it after giving

4

personal hearing before making reference

to TPO. The dept should not treat the

assesse as an adversary who has to be

taxed.

Facts

The assessee, an Indian company, issued

shares at premium. Though the transaction was

reported as an “international transaction” in

Form 3 CEB, the assessee claimed that the

transfer pricing provisions did not apply as

there was no income arising to it. The AO

referred the issue to the TPO without dealing

with the preliminary objection. The TPO held

that he could not go into the issue whether

income had arisen or not because his

jurisdiction was limited to determine the ALP.

He held that the assessee ought to have

charged the NAV of the share and that the

difference between the NAV and the issue

price was a deemed loan from the assessee to

the holding company for which the assessee

ought to have received interest. He

accordingly computed the adjustment for the

shares premium and the interest thereon. The

AO passed a draft assessment order u/s

144C(1) in which he held that he was bound

u/s 92-CA(4) with the TPO’s determination and

could not consider the contention whether the

transfer pricing provisions applied. The assessee

filed a Writ Petition challenging the jurisdiction

of the TPO/AO to make the adjustment. On

the merits of the adjustment, the assessee filed

objections before the DRP. Before the High

Court the assessee argued that (i) it was a

precondition before the transfer pricing

provisions apply that there has to be income

arising to the assessee. As the allotment of

shares at a premium does not give rise to

income, the transfer pricing provisions do not

apply, (ii) there was a breach of natural justice

because neither the TPO nor the AO had

heard the assessee on, or decided, the

fundamental issue as to whether the transfer

pricing provisions applied at all, (iii) the DRP

does not offer an alternative remedy because

the DRP has no power to quash the draft

assessment order even if it is satisfied that the

same is without jurisdiction & (iv) the DRP

cannot take an unbiased view because one

of its members is the DIT (TP). HELD by the High

Court:

Judgment

i) The Assessee’s contention that the DRP

does not offer an alternative remedy

because it does not have the power to

quash the assessment order even if it is

satisfied that the same is without jurisdiction

is not acceptable because in

Vodafone 37 taxmann.com 250 it was

held that the DRP’s power to confirm

would include the power not to confirm

and to annul the draft assessment order;

ii) It is clear from s. 92(1) that there must be

income arising/ potentially arising by an

international transaction for the

application of the transfer pricing

provisions. This is a jurisdictional requirement

and has to be dealt with by the AO when

specifically raised by the assessee before

making reference to the AO. Grant of

personal hearing before referring the

matter to the TPO has to be read into s.

92CA(1) in cases where the very jurisdiction

to tax under Chapter X is challenged by

the assessee. If, after the hearing the

assessee, the AO holds that there is an

international transaction, that would be

binding on the TPO;

iii) The AO is bound to hear the assessee in

respect of jurisdictional issues before

making the reference. The failure to do so

is an illegality;

5

iv) The Assessee’s contention that the DRP

would not give a fair hearing as one of its

members is the DIT (TP) is not acceptable

because it overlooks the fact that these

are not appeal proceedings but to finalize

the draft assessment order. Also, the DIT(TP)

who approved the TPO’s order is not on

the panel;

v) The Revenue should keep in mind the sage

advice of NaniPalkhivala that the

department should not cause misery and

harassment to the taxpayer and the

gnawing feeling that he is made the victim

of palpable injustice. In this case it would

not be natural for the assessee to feel

harassed as the AO nor the TPO gave a

hearing or dealt with the preliminary

objection. It is hoped that the revenue will

be more sensitive to the just demands of

the assessee and not treat the assessee as

an adversary who has to be taxed, no

matter what;

vi) The DRP should decide the Assessee’s

objection regarding chargeability of

alleged shortfall in share premium as a

preliminary issue. In case the DRP’s decision

on the preliminary issue is adverse, the

assessee shall be entitled to challenge it in

a writ petition if it can show that the DRP’s

decision on the preliminary issue is patently

illegal notwithstanding the availability of

alternate remedy before the ITAT.

Cadbury India Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITA NO. : 7408/Mum/2010

ITA NO. : 7641/Mum/2010

ALP of royalty for trademark usage and

technical know-how fee can be

determined as per TNMM. Approval of RBI

& Govt. means payment is as at arm’s

length

Facts

The assessee entered into an agreement with

its parent company, Cadbury Schweppes,

pursuant to which it agreed to pay royalty for

the use of trademarks and royalty for the use

of technical know-how at 1.25% each of the

net sales. This was approved by the RBI and

the SIA (Government). The assessee adopted

the Transaction Net Margin Method (“TNMM”)

for computing the ALP of the international

transactions by comparing the net margin of

the company at entity level with that of

companies engaged in food products,

beverages and tobacco business. The TPO

held that the transactions pertaining to

payment of royalty for trademarks and

technical know-how fee had to be separately

and independently bench-marked using the

Comparable Uncontrolled Prices (“CUP”)

method. He held that the ALP of royalty and

technical know-how fee should be computed

at 1% of sales the instead of at 1.25% of the

sales. This was reversed by the CIT(A) who held

that the royalty and technical know-how fee

paid by the assessee were at ALP. On appeal

by the department to the Tribunal HELD

dismissing the appeal:

Judgment

The assessee has been paying royalty on

technical know-how to its parent AE since

1993. Other group companies across the

Globe are also paying the same royalty. Also,

the payment is as per the approval given by

the RBI and the SIA. Hence there cannot be

any scope of doubt that the royalty payment

on technical know-how is at arm’s length. As

regards the royalty on trademark usage, the

assessee is in fact paying a lesser amount if the

payment is compared with the payment

6

towards trademark usage by other group

companies using the brand “Cadbury” in other

parts of the world. Accordingly, the royalty

payment on trademark usage is also within the

arms’ length and does not call for any

adjustment.

SERVICE TAX

Clarifications on the issues in VCES

CBEC has issued a Circular No. 174/9/2013- ST

dated 25.11.2013 to clarify various issues in

regard to Voluntary Compliance

Encouragement Scheme (VCES). Following

issues have been clarified by the circular:

If an inquiry, investigation or audit, pending

as on 1.3.2013 was being carried out for

the part period i.e. 2008-2011 , benefit of

VCES would be eligible in respect of 'tax

dues' for the period not covered by the

inquiry, investigation or audit i.e. for the

year 2012.

If an inquiry or investigation, pending as on

1.3.2013 was in respect of a specific issue,

say renting of immovable property, benefit

of VCES would be eligible in respect of 'tax

dues' concerning any other issue in respect

of which no inquiry or investigation was

pending as on 1.3.2013.

In case designated authority has reasons to

believe that the declaration filed by

declarant is covered by section 106(2), a

notice of intention to reject the declaration

will be given to the declarant within 30

days from the date of filing of declaration

stating reasons of rejection to give so as an

opportunity of being heard before the

rejection.

The designated authority may take a view

on merit on the basis of facts and

circumstances of each case as to whether

the inquiry is of roving nature or whether

the provisions of section 106 (2) are to be

attracted.

Benefit of scheme would be available for

payment of tax made after 10.05.2013

even though the declaration under the

scheme has been made later on.

Benefit of scheme would not be available

for waiver from penalty and other

proceedings where service tax pertaining

to the period of scheme along with interest

has already been paid by the assesse.

Circular No. 174/9/2013- ST dated November

25, 2013

Regarding exemption from service tax on

the specified services received by the SEZ

Unit or the Developer and used for the

authorized operations

Where the specified services received by

the SEZ Unit or the Developer are used

exclusively for the authorised operations,

the person liable to pay service tax has the

option not to pay the service tax ab-initio

subject to the conditions as notified. In this

case, the SEZ Unit or the Developer shall

furnish to the jurisdictional Superintendent

of Central Excise a quarterly statement, in

Form A-3, furnishing the details of specified

services received by it without payment of

service tax, by 30th of the month following

the particular quarter. For the quarter of

July, 2013 to September, 2013, the said

statement shall be furnished by the 15th of

December, 2013.

Notification No. 15/ 2013-Service Tax dated

November 21, 2013

7

Monetary Limit for Mandatory E-Payment

of tax reduced from Rs. 10L to Rs. 1L

As per Rule 6(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994

person who has paid Service Tax

(Challan+CENVAT) amounting to Rs.10 Lakhs or

more, in preceding F.Y., shall pay the tax

electronically; however with effect from 1st

January, 2014 the monetary limit has been

reduced to Rs. 1 Lakh. Therefore, service

provider who has paid service tax amounting

to Rs. 1 Lakh or more in F.Y. 2012-2013 is

required to pay service tax liability for the

month of December, 2013 or quarter ending

December, 2013 electronically.

Notification No 16 /2013-Service Tax dated

November 22, 2013

Central Excise

Exemption to certain goods imported or

domestically procured for the Revised

National Tuberculosis Control Programme

funded by the Global Fund to fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis and Malaria

Certain goods of the category Anti

Tuberculosis Drugs and Diagnostics and

equipments required for the Revised National

Tuberculosis Control Programme funded by the

Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and

Malaria, shall be exempt from payment of

excise duty.

Notification No. 30/2013-CE dated November

29, 2013

Reductions of threshold limit from Rs. 10L to

Rs. 1L for mandatory e-payment of Central

Excise duty

An assessee who has paid total duty of Rs.1

Lac or more including the amount of duty paid

by utilization of CENVAT credit in the

preceding financial year shall thereafter,

deposit the duty electronically through internet

banking.

Notification No. 15/2013 – Central Excise (N.T.)

dated November 22, 2013

CENVAT Credit is allowable to the

assessee even if the supplier had not

discharged its duty

Recently, in case of Commissioner of Central

Excise, Jalandhar Vs. Kay Kay Industries, (2013)

38 taxmann.com 336 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that if a supplier of material has not

discharged its Excise Duty liability, the assessee

cannot be denied CENVAT Credit factualizing

the provisions of Section 57A(6) of Central

Excise Act, 1944.

The facts of the case are that the appellant

was denied the right to claim CENVAT Credit

on the invoices issued by supplier of inputs on

the grounds that the supplier had not paid the

Excise Duty on the goods manufactured and

supplied by it. The provisions of Section 57A(6)

of Central Excise Act, 1944 were invoked which

provides an assessee to take reasonable steps

to confirm that the supplier has paid the duty.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited case

judged upon that “Reasonable Care” as cited

in the section does not mean that an assessee

is required to confirm from department about

payment of duty. Thus, CENVAT Credit was

allowed to the appellant.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar Vs.

Kay Kay Industries

VALUE ADDED TAX

Extension of date of filing audit report

Notifications No. 7(420)/Policy/VAT/2011/1203-

1213 dated 11/02/2013 regarding submission of

8

audit report in Form AR-1 for the year 2012-13,

by dealers having turnover of Rs.10 crores or

more in 2011-12 or 2012-13, has been

amended so as to extend the date of filing of

the said report to 31/12/2013 instead of

02/12/2013

Notification No.F.3(384)/Policy/VAT/2013/1029-

1041 dated November 29, 2013

CUSTOMS

Exemption to certain goods imported or

domestically procured for the Revised

National Tuberculosis Control Programme

funded by the Global Fund to fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis and Malaria

Certain goods of the category Anti

Tuberculosis Drugs and Diagnostics and

equipment’s required for the Revised National

Tuberculosis Control Programme funded by the

Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and

Malaria, when imported into India, shall be

exempt from whole of the duty of customs and

additional duty leviable thereon.

Notification No. 49/2013-Customs dated

November 29, 2013

Conversion Rate for Foreign Exchange

Rate of exchange of conversion of each of the

following foreign currency into Indian currency

or vice versa shall, with effect from 22nd

November, 2013 be the rate mentioned

against it in the given tables:

SCHEDULE-I

S.

No.

Foreign

Currency

Rate of exchange of

one unit of foreign

currency equivalent to

Indian rupees

(For

Imported

Goods)

(For Export

Goods)

1. Australian

Dollar

59.20 57.80

2. Bahrain Dinar 171.40 162.00

3. Canadian

Dollar

60.75 59.35

4. Danish Kroner 11.50 11.15

5. EURO 85.30 83.35

6. Hong Kong

Dollar

8.15 8.05

7. Kuwait Dinar 228.65 215.40

8. New Zealand

Dollar

52.55 51.25

9. Norwegian

Kroner

10.40 10.10

10. Pound Sterling 102.25 100.00

11. Singapore

Dollar

50.85 49.75

12. South African

Rand

6.40 6.00

13. Saudi Arabian

Riyal

17.25 16.30

14. Swedish

Kroner

9.55 9.30

15. Swiss France 69.40 67.55

16. UAE Dirham 17.60 16.65

17. US Dollar 63.30 62.30

9

SCHEDULE-II

Notification No. 112/2013-Customs (N.T.)

dated November 21, 2013

FEMA

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 68 dated

November 1, 2013

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in India –

definition of ‘group company’

The extant FDI policy has since been reviewed

and it has been decided to incorporate the

definition for ‘group company’ as under:

‘Group Company’ means two or more

enterprises which, directly or indirectly, are in

position to:

(i) exercise twenty-six per cent, or more of

voting rights in other enterprise; or

(ii) appoint more than fifty per cent, of

members of board of directors in the

other enterprise.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 69 dated

November 8, 2013

Amendment to the “Issue of Foreign

Currency Convertible Bonds and Ordinary

shares (Through Depository Receipt

Mechanism) Scheme, 1993”

As per the existing guidelines unlisted Indian

companies which have not yet accessed

Global Depository Receipts / Foreign Currency

Convertible Bond route for raising capital in the

international market were required to have

prior or simultaneous listing in the domestic

market.

This position has been reviewed and upon

review, it has now been decided to allow

unlisted companies incorporated in India to

raise capital abroad, without the requirement

of prior or subsequent listing in India, initially for

a period of two years, subject to conditions

listed in the Circular.

This scheme will be implemented from the

date of the Government Notification of the

scheme, subject to review after a period of

two years.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 70 dated

November 8, 2013

Third party payments for export / import

transactions

FEMA Notification No. 14 dated May 3, 2000

deals with the manner of receipt & payment

for trade transactions. Normally payment for

exports has to be received from the overseas

buyer named in the Export Declaration Form

(EDF) by the exporter and the payment shall

Foreign

Currency

Rate of exchange of 100 units of

foreign currency equivalent to

Indian rupees

(For Imported Goods) (For

Export

Goods)

Japanese

Yen

63.35 61.80

Kenya

Shilling

75.05 70.85

10

be received in a currency appropriate to the

place of final destination as mentioned in the

EDF irrespective of the country of residence of

the buyer. Similarly, the payments for the

import should be made to the original

overseas seller of the goods and the AD should

ensure that the importer furnishes evidence of

import, such as, Exchange Control copy of the

Bill of Entry to satisfy itself that goods equivalent

to the value of remittance have been

imported.

In order to further liberalize the procedure

relating to payments for exports/imports and

taking into account evolving international

trade practices, it has been decided with

immediate effect, that AD banks may allow

payments for export of goods / software to be

received from a third party (a party other than

the buyer) and AD banks are allowed to make

payments to a third party (a party other than

the seller) for import of goods, subject to the

conditions stipulated in the circular.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 72 dated

November 11, 2013

Foreign Direct Investment in Financial

Sector – Transfer of Shares

As per the extant guidelines, No Objection

Certificate (NoC) is required to be obtained

from the respective financial sector

regulator/regulators of the investee company

as well as transferor and transferee entities and

such NoC(s) are to be filed with the form FC-

TRS to the AD bank, where transfer of shares is

from Residents to Non-Residents and where the

investee company is in the financial services

sector.

On a review, it has now been decided that the

requirement of NoC(s) will be waived from the

perspective of Foreign Exchange

Management Act, 1999 and no such NoC(s)

need to be filed along with form FC-TRS.

However, any 'fit and proper/ due diligence'

requirement as regards the non-resident

investor as stipulated by the respective

financial sector regulator shall have to be

complied with.

COMPANY LAW

Exemption to certain Companies from the

provisions of Section 182(1) of the

Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding

Section 293A(1)(b) and 293A(2)(b) of the

Companies Act, 1956)

[Order dated 7th November, 2013]

The Companies which have been:

1. Incorporated with the name containing

the expression “Electoral Trust”, and

2. Approved in accordance with the

procedure laid down in the Electoral Trust

Scheme, 2013, and

3. To which license is granted under section

25 of the Companies Act, 1956,

have been exempted from the provisions of

Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, 2013

(corresponding Section 293A(1)(b) and

293A(2)(b) of the Companies Act,

1956),dealing with the prohibitions and

restrictions regarding political contributions.

Clarification with regard to the

applicability of provisions of section 372A

of the Companies Act, 1956.

[Circular No. 18/2013 dated 19th November,

2013]

11

Pursuant to the receipt of number of

representations in relation to the notification of

Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013,

dealing with loans to Directors which is

corresponding to section 295 of the

Companies Act, 1956, it has been clarified by

the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that Section

372A of the Companies Act, 1956, dealing with

inter-corporate loans continue to remain in

force till section 186 of the Companies Act,

2013, is notified.

TRANSACTIONS THAT

MADE HEADLINES

Etihad completes deal to buy 24% of

Jet Airways.

GAIL sells part of stake in China Gas

Holdings for $63.5M.

Vodafone seeks to buy out minority

shareholders in India unit for $1.7B

Bharti Airtel buys Qualcomm’s India

wireless broadband venture

Zamin Group completes acquisition of

Anglo American’s Brazilian iron ore

mine for $134M

German firm SQS Software to buy

majority stake in Thinksoft for $23M

Kwality acquires assets of dairy firm

VarshneyBandhu Foods

NareshGoyal sells 7.9% in Jet Airways

for$34M

Diamond trader buys Cadbury House in

Mumbai for $56M

Tech Mahindra to merge Mahindra

Engineering with itself

www.spnagrath.com

A-380, DefenceColony, New Delhi – 110024, India.

This publication is intended as a service to clients and associates

and to provide them with details of the important Transaction

updates. It has been prepared for the general guidance on

matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional

advice. No person shall act upon the information contained in this

publication without obtaining specific professional advice. Due

care has been taken while compiling the information, however, no

representation (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or

completeness of the information contained in this publication