Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, deals with the filing of Appeal/Application with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for revival of Companies struck-off under Section 248 of the Companies Act. The excerpt of Section 252, is as below:
Read more: Is NCLT, Empowered (Or Powerless) To Revive Voluntarily Struck-Off Companies
Contribution to recognized provident fund (‘RPF’) and/or approved superannuation fund (‘ASF’) are the most popular saving options being selected by the employees across the industries.
In addition to the above, it is very common that the employer makes payment to employee as gratuity. This is because, various tax deductions are available to the employer and the employee under the ITA[1] in respect of above payments.
In this article, we shall discuss the concept of RPF in detail from the perspective of ITA. Other two, namely ASF and Gratuity Fund will be covered in the subsequent parts.
-SC-upholds-Bombay-HC-Judgment in-A-N-Naik-Associates-Others.jpg)
The Supreme Court in the matter of Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills[1] has upheld the judgment of Bombay High Court in the AN Naik Associates & Others[2], which has interpreted the term ‘otherwise’ appearing in Section 45(4) of ITA[3] to include the instances of retirement of partners.
Before getting into the facts in the matter of Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills (supra), let us set us the context. The provisions of Section 45(4) were introduced through Finance Act, 1987. The said section stipulates that profits or gains arising from transfer of capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as income of the firm of the previous year in which such transfer took place and for the purposes of Section 48, the fair market value of the asset as on the date of such transfer shall be the deemed to be full value of consideration.
The Supreme Court in the M/s Sansera Engineering Limited[1] has concluded the long outstanding issue of distinction between the refund and rebate under the erstwhile indirect taxation laws. The assessee tried to distinguish rebate from refund, since there was no specific time limit mentioned for rebate. Before dealing with the said judgment and its implications under the GST laws, a brief background on the thin line of distinction between refund and rebate is sina qua non.
Read more: SC in Sansera Engineering Limited – Rebate vs Refund – Implications under GST Laws
In this 102nd edition, we bring you articles dealing with certain landmark judgments. The article on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills, upholding the decision of Bombay High Court in AN Naik Associates & Others is a must read. The Supreme Court held that the expression ‘otherwise’ which appears in Section 45(4) [old] covers the instance of ‘retirement’ also and not to be restricted only to instances of dissolution. This puts a lot of cases under stress, who took the stand that old section covers only instances of dissolutions.
The next article is on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sansera Engineering Limited, wherein it was held that time limit that was applicable for refund under Section 11B is equally applicable to rebate filed under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules. This also puts an end to a long outstanding issue of different treatment to rebate. Now, under GST laws, though expression ‘rebate’ is not used, the methodology is still being used, so, we tried to apply the rationale of Sansera to the current law.
