Latest Blogs from SBS and Company LLP


    1. Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Goel[1] - No Vicarious Liability on Director of Company in Cheque Bounce issue, if the Company is not arraigned as accused:

    The Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Goel has reiterated that the director of a company is not vicarious labile, if the company is not arraigned as accused. The facts of the case are that Pawan Kumar Goel has supplied certain products to M/s Ravi Organics Limited. For settling the payment, Ravi Organics Limited has given a cheque, which when presented, got dishonored. Pawan Kumar Goel has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) against the director of the Ravi Organics Limited. The Magistrate Court and Sessions Courts have upheld the complaints. The Director has approached the High Court against the orders of lower courts and High Court cancelled all the previous orders stating that the complaint was lodged against the director of the company instead on the company by placing reliance on Aneeta Hada vs Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited[2] and SMS Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Neeta Bhalla & Another[3].

    Summary of IT Decisions

    1. Chennai ITAT in P Srinivasan vs ITO[1] - Receipt of Gift from Uncle’s son and daughter-in-law to the assessee can be said to be constructive gift from Uncle and accordingly not taxable in light of Section 56(2)(vii) in the hands of assessee:

    An interesting issue has come up for consideration before Chennai ITAT. The assessee has received Rs 50 lakhs from his uncle (father’s brother) as gift. However, the said amount was received from the bank account of uncle’s son and daughter-in-law who are non-resident Indians. The AO has considered the amounts received from uncle’s son and daughter-in-law and held that the same as taxable since the later are not considered as ‘relative’ as per the definition provided in Section 56(2)(vii). The Commissioner (Appeals) has also upheld the order of AO.

    Summary of GST Decisions

    1. Calcutta High Court in Green Fizz Beverages Private Limited[1] - Condoned Delay of a period of 3.5 years in Filing of Writ Petition against the order of State Commissioner (Appeals):

    The Calcutta High Court was dealing with an inter-court appeal. The Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the assessee against the order of State Appellate Authority because the same was filed after a period of 3.5 years. The assessee’s argument was that the time period for filing the writ has to be reckoned from the date of notification issued for constituting the tribunal. Since, there was no said notification, though writ filed was post 3.5 years, the same should be allowed.

    Transfer Price Adjustment - Primary and Secondary Adjustment


    Transfer price provisions have been incorporated into tax laws by various countries in order to reduce tax avoidance by artificial shifting of profits from high tax jurisdiction to low/nil tax jurisdiction. Under these provisions, when an entity enters into any transaction with its AE[1], the tax authorities of such country may deny the price at which such transaction is entered and compute the price of transaction at arm’s length principle.

    GST Implications on Incomes earned by YouTuber Creators

    YouTube is undoubtedly the TV for the millennials. I was recently at a family gathering and was talking to the NexGen kids about what they want to become when they grow up. To my surprise, one of them said, he want to become a YouTube creator. I said, that is fine, but, what do you want to do full-time? He has not changed his response. He said he wants to create content as a full-time job and post it on YouTube. No doubt, many of you who are reading this piece of article would have also got the same response in your gatherings. The immediate question that arises, if someone wants to pursue this as full time, will they be earning which is normally equivalent to a full time conventional job? I did a bit research and understood that in 2020, YouTube has paid Rs 6,800 Crores to YouTube Creators in India as part of their YouTube Partner Program (for brevity ‘YPP’). That roughly translates to 6.84 lakh full time jobs[1]. The numbers are astronomical, both the revenues earned and the YouTube Creators. Maybe we have all taken a wrong job (pun intended).


    Page 5 of 114

    Looking for suggestions?

    Subscribe SBS AND COMPANY LLP updates via Email!