The document is the December 2013 issue of the monthly publication "Missive" from the Knowledge Management Team. It provides an index of topics covered in the issue, including Direct Tax, Transfer Pricing, Service Tax, and others. The main article summarizes several important tax court rulings on issues like TDS credit availability, interest liability for non-residents, capital gains tax rates for non-residents, and whether payments for ship charters constitute royalties. It also briefly summarizes other rulings related to transfer pricing documentation and the application of stamp duty valuation rules.

1. MISSIVE
Volume XXXI
December 2013

2. Index
Dear Patron
H
ere 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.
Topics
Direct Tax
Transfer Pricing
Service Tax
Central Excise
Value Added Tax
Customs
FEMA
Company Law
Transactions that made
headlines
Page
No
1
3
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
Thanks and regards,
Knowledge Management Team
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!!!

3. 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.
1
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

4. 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
2
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.

5. 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-intrade 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.
3
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)
because
is
not
applicable
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

6. 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
4
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;

7. 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
5
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

8. 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
6
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


9. 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,
7
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/2011/12031213 dated 11/02/2013 regarding submission of

10. 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/2013/10291041 dated November 29, 2013
1.
CUSTOMS
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
November 29, 2013
dated
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
8
Rate of exchange of
one unit of foreign
currency equivalent to
Indian rupees
(For Export
Goods)
Australian
Dollar
59.20
57.80
2.
Bahrain Dinar
171.40
162.00
3.
Canadian
Dollar
60.75
59.35
4.
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
(For
Imported
Goods)
Danish Kroner
11.50
11.15
5.
EURO
85.30
83.35
6.
Hong
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
Kong

11. A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 69 dated
November 8, 2013
SCHEDULE-II
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
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.
9
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

12. 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 FCTRS 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
10
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]

13. 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
MADE HEADLINES










THAT
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
11

14. 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