Thursday, January 3, 2013

Q & A :CARO

Q & A :CARO 
Hi,

Someone may please reply to the following query(s):

ABC Private Limited had:

- paid up capital Rs.1 Lac and
- Reserves and Surplus (negative balance) Rs.2 Crores as on 31.03.12.
- turnover Rs.1.95 Crores.
- no secured loans from banks or any parties.

Query

Whether CARO shall apply to the said company?

Ans : .......................

Thanks. 

On Behalf Of DK

REPLY:1
Dear DK,

Please go thru, the provisions of Clause 2(iv) of the Companies (Auditor's Report) Order, 2003 issued by the erstwhile Department of Company Affairs, in exercise of its power conferred by Section 227 (4A) of the Companies Act, 1956, this order applies to every company except:-

(iv) a private limited company with a paid-up capital and reserves nor more than rupees fifty lakhs and which does not have loan outstanding exceeding rupees twenty five lakhs from any bank or financial institution and does not have a turn over exceeding rupees five crores at any point of time during the financial year.

Since the ABC Private Limited (it is assumed that it is not a subsidiary of any public company) satisfies all the above conditions, "CARO-2003" is not applicable. However, if ABC Private Limited is a subsidiary of any public company, the "CARO-2003" will be applicable since as per the definitions stated in Section 3(iv) of the Companies Act, 1956, "public company" means which is a not a private company and is a private company which is a subsidiary of a company which is not a private company.

Wit warm regards,

CS. K. Krishnamoorthy 

REPLY:2
No CARO is not applicable. 
--
*Thanks $ Regards**.........................**?*
*CS KANIKA PHOPHALIA*
*ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात्।
*
*A Day Without Laughter is a day wasted…Keep SmilingJ*
*If u want to leave ur footprints on sand for time, do not drag ur feet.*

REPLY:3
NO
-- 
Regards !

Syed Wasi Haider Rizvi

Chartered Accountant
9634082400, 9528834199

REPLY:4
Dear Sir

Following is the requirement for CARO -2003 :-

*Companies not Covered by the Order*

10. Paragraph 2 of the Order provides that it shall not apply to:

(i) a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);
(ii) an insurance company as defined in clause (21) of section 2 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(iii) a company licensed to operate under section 25 of the Companies Act,
1956 (1 of 1956);
and
(iv) a private limited company with a paid-up capital and reserves not more
than rupees fifty lakh and which does not have outstanding loan exceeding
rupees twenty five lakhs from any bank or financial institution and does
not have a turnover exceeding rupees five crores at any point of time
during the financial year.

17. Sub-section (32) of section 2 of the Act defines the term “paid-up
capital” as capital credited as paid-up. The Guidance Note on Terms Used in
Financial Statements, issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India, defines the term “paid-up share capital” as, “that part of the
subscribed share capital for which consideration in cash or otherwise has
been received. This includes bonus shares allotted by the corporate
enterprise”. Paid-up share capital would include both equity share capital
as well as the preference share capital. While calculating the paid-up
capital, amount of calls unpaid should be deducted from and the amount
originally paid-up on forfeited shares should be added to the figure of
paid-up capital. Share application money received should not be considered
as part of the paid-up capital.

18. The Guidance Note on Terms Used in Financial Statements defines the
term “reserve” as, “The portion of earnings, receipts or other surplus of
an enterprise (whether capital or revenue) appropriated by management for a
general or specific purpose other than provision for depreciation or
diminution in the value of assets or for a known liability. The reserves
are primarily of two types: capital reserves and revenue reserves”. Clause
7(1)(b) of Part III of Schedule VI to the Act also defines the term
“reserve” by way of a negative explanation. According to the said
definition, the expression “reserve” does not include any amount written
off by way of providing for depreciation, renewals or diminution in the
value of assets or retained by way of providing for any known liability.
Thus, a reserve has to be clearly distinguished from a provision.

19. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, reserves are primarily of two
types–capital reserves and revenue reserves. According to the Guidance Note
on Terms Used in Financial Statements, the term “capital reserve” means “a
reserve of a corporate enterprise which is not
available for distribution as dividend”. The said Guidance Note defines the
term “revenue reserve” as “any reserve other than capital reserve”. For
determining the applicability of the Order to a private limited company,
both capital as well as revenue reserves should be taken into consideration
while computing the limit of rupees fifty lakhs prescribed for paid-up
capital and reserves. Revaluation reserve, if any, should also be taken
into consideration while determining the figure of reserves for the limited
purpose of determining the applicability of the Order. The credit balance
in the profit and loss account should also be considered as a part of
reserve since the balance in the profit and loss account is available for
general purposes like declaration of dividend. The debit balance of the
profit and loss account, if any, should be reduced from the figure of
revenue reserves only. Therefore, if the company does not have revenue
reserves, debit balance of profit and loss account cannot be reduced from
the figures of paid-up capital, capital reserves and revaluation reserves.
For example, if the company has Rs. 40 lakhs of paid up share capital, Rs.
5 lakhs as Revaluation Reserve, Rs. 6 lakhs in Capital Reserve and Rs. 6
lakhs as debit balance in the Profit and Loss Account, the amount of Rs. 6
lakhs standing to the debit of Proft and Loss Account cannot be deducted
from the figures of Rs. 11 lakhs, being the total of the Revaluation
Reserve and the Capital Reserve. However, miscellaneous expenditure to the
extent not written off should not be deducted from the figure of reserves
for the purpose of computing the above limit.

So whatever be the case CARO -2003 will be applicable for your case as your
Reserve and Surplus is exceeding balance.While further breakup of Reserve
and Surplus A/C will help you to clear all your understanding.

Thanking you.

Sumit Agarwal 

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Querry :Section 3(iv)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956

Querry 10
Dear all
As Per the Section 3(iv)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956:
“The Public Company is a Company which is a private Company, which is a subsidiary of a Company of a Company which is not a Private Company”
The question arises that when the Private Company becomes the Subsidiary (or wholly owned subsidiary) of a Public Company:
1 Should the Private Limited Company has to increase its Paid- up capital from 1 lakh to 5 lakh as required for a Limited Company
2 Should the Private Limited Company has to increase its number of members from 2 to 7 as required for a Limited Company
3 Should the Private Limited Company has to increase number of directors from 2 to 3 as required for a Limited Company
SANDIP KUMAR KEJRIWAL, FCSCOMPANY SECRETARIES# 506, CENTRE POINT21 HEMANTA BASU SARANI(OPP GREAT EASTERN HOTEL)KOLKATA 700 001
‘_________________________
Ans.1 To Querry 10
Dear All,
It is not required that the subsidiary company should have 3 directors or 7 members or Rs. 5 lacs paid up share capital but its status is as of public limited company and for all other purposes where certain restrictions put on public limited company such as provisions of section 81 (1A)etc. that restrictions will also applicable to such subsidiary companies
‘________________________
Ans.2 To Querry 10
Hi Sandeep,
All three points mentioned in ur mail are not applicable to a pvt co whichis a subsidiary of a public company. The status of PUBLIC co is only toattract some of the provisions of Cos Act, 1956 and basics are not requiredto be followed.
this is a kind of deeming clause.
Regards,CS Aparna SinghCompany SecretarySanvijay Rolling & Engineering LtdNagpurM +91 93707 66361
Ans.3 To Querry 10
The structure of the company need not be changed by either increasing the size of the Authorised capital or by increasing the number of Directors consequent upon the company becoming a subsidiary of a public ltd company.By way of good secretarial practice once the company gets affected by Section 3(iv)(c),the Board should make a note of this event and record that the company has become a public company for all intents and purposes of law.The company will have to ensure all compliances as is expected of a public company hereonwards after becoming a subsidiary.If the company so desires,by choice it can make amendments to its Articles to withdraw the restrictions as regards number of members,free transferability of shares etc.This is however voluntary.you may also refer to the views of Dr Chandratre on this in his Book"company Law with secretarial practice page no 216(13thEdition).
regards
kalidas
Ans.4 To Querry 10
Dear Sandip
Above all this the company will have to remove the word "PRIVATE LIMITED" and will only use the word "LIMITED".
WITH REGDSCA Nilesh Maradia M: 98337 10601
Ans.5 To Querry 10
Dear all,
Readers are requested to refer to page no.109 (explanatory notes to Section 3) of “A. Ramaiya’s Guide to the Companies Act – 16th edition reprint 2006” which reads as follows:-
Private Company which is subsidiary of public company (Sub-section (1)(iv)(c) of Section 3:
In respect of several sections of the Act where a private company is exempted, it is provided that the exemption will apply only in the case of private companies which are not subsidiaries of public companies. The reason for this is that a private company which is subsidiary of a public company, is throughout in the Act put in the same position as a public company. For, where a private company is subsidiary of a public holding company, it is controlled by the latter, and treated as having the chacteristics of the holding company itself, enjoying the same privileges and rights and subject to the same restrictions, duties and liabilities. Its interests are the interests of the holding company and its acts are the acts of the holding company. Such a company is now statutorily declared as a public company for all purposes under the Act in view of section 3 (iv)(c).
In view of the above clarifications, private company, which is a subsidiary of a public company, is a public company for all practical purposes and are to follow the provisions applicable to a public company.
In other words, the number of members has to be increased to 7, the number of board of directors have to be increased to 3 and the paid-up capital has to be increased to Rs.5 lakhs.
Besides, such companies should also remove the resctrictive clauses from its Articles of Association, which are applicable to only private companies, refer Sec. 27(3) of the Act.
If others have different views/opinions, I invite them to clarify with examples/Department of Corporate Affairs’ notifications/clarifications, if any.
Regards, K. Krishnamoorthy

Monday, August 10, 2009

Rates of Gold and Silver for Wealth Tax valuation Purpose along with valuation rules

Rates of Gold and Silver for Wealth Tax valuation Purpose along with valuation rules
Valuation of Jewellery
Jewelry Includes:
Ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or any alloy containing one or more of such precious metals, whether or not containing any precious or semi-precious stones, and whether or not worked or sewn into any wearing apparel.
Precious or semi-precious stones, whether or not set in any furniture, utensils or other article or worked or sewn into any wearing apparel.
In support of the valuation of jewellery, the prescribed form to be attached with the return is:
Where the value of the jewellery on the valuation date is upto Rs.5 lakhs, a statement in Form No. 0-8A, a prescribed by rule 13(c), signed by the assessee, or
Where the value of the jewellery on the valuation date exceeds Rs.5 lakhs, a report of Registered Valuer in Form No.0-8, as prescribed by rule 8D.
The report can be the basis for arriving at the valuation for 4 subsequent years. All that is needed is to substitute the value of gold, silver or any alloy of the base year with that of the relevant year. Again, adjustment for purchases and sales made during the relevant year will have to be carried out.
Rates of Gold and Silver for Wealth Tax valuation Purpose

Assessment
Year
Relevant
Valuation
Date
Std. Gold Rate
(24 Carrat for 10 gms
i.e. 0.87 tola.)
Silver Rate
(999 touch for 1 kg.
i.e. 85.734 tola)
1981.1982
01/04/1981
1670
2715
1991.1992
31/03/1991
3466
6646
1992.1993
31/03/1992
4334
8040
1993.1994
31/03/1993
4140
5489
1994.1995
31/03/1994
4598
7142
1995.1996
31/03/1995
4680
6335
1996.1997
31/03/1996
5160
7346
1997.1998
31/03/1997
4725
7345
1998.1999
31/03/1998
4045
8560
1999.2000
31/03/1999
4235
7615
2000.2001
31/03/2000
4355
7675
2001.2002
31/03/2001
4250
7200
2002.2003
31/03/2002
5010
7895
2003.2004
31/03/2003
5310
7695
2004.2005
31/03/2004
6081
11600
2005.2006
31/03/2005
6150
10500
2006.2007
31/03/2006
8560
16800
2007.2008
31/03/2007
9510
19500
2008.2009
31/03/2008
12280
23350
2009-2010
31/03/2009
15120 (Mumbai)
22230

Transportation of Goods by Road in a goods carriage

QUERRY 8
Dear Seniors/Freinds,
Transportation of Goods by Road in a goods carriage is taxable under the head GTA service in Service Tax laws.
But when the services of any transport contractor is used for transporation
of raw materials/finished goods within the factory premises(by means of truck/dumpers), whether this service is taxable under service tax under the head GTA. If not, under which head in service tax, the same will be taxable?
Whether the service receiver will be entitled to take Cenvat credit of the same in above case as transporter doesn't issue any consignment note for the
same as the goods doesn't move outside the factory premises?
Kindly request to clarify the matter.
Best Regards
CA Dipak TodaniChartered Accountants53, N S B Road,RaniganjMob No. 09333847437
REPLY TO QUERRY 8
Dear Deepak,
Please refer to your query below.
Taxable event towards charging service tax under GTA category is a)Transportation of Goods by Road in a goods carriage and b) such transportersshould issue consignment note. Hence, both these conditions arepre-requirement for taxability.
The concept is to bring organised transport sector into taxability and notthe driver's with one or two trucks.
As regards activity involving movement of raw materials/finished goodswithin factory premises is concerned, same may appropriate fall under "CargoHandling Service". However, in such event liability of Service tax would beon provider of service.
Trust above clarification would meet your requirement.
Regards

REPLY TO QUERRY 8
Dear Friend,
I think that inward transportation service is taxable as GTA and service tax paid in this regard is also cenvatable subject to Rule 3 of CCR,2004.
With Regards,
Vinod.

Criteria for allocation of Statutory Auditors of RRBs - (10-08-2009)

Criteria for allocation of Statutory Auditors of RRBs - (10-08-2009)
I New firms to be empanelled from the list of audit firms whose Chartered Accountants should have Diploma in Information and System Accounting (DISA) qualification.
II Selection for new audit firms to be made only from category III and from category IV SP upto 20% of the total requirement in respect of vacancies.
III Re-appointment of on-going existing audit firms as SCA and SBA if they are in the list of ICAI.
IV Partnership firms having a minimum of two Chartered Accountants as partners, of whom at least one should be a full time partner, and the firm or at least one of the partners having a minimum of 5 years experience of bank audit.
V Audit firms that have served as SCA in one RRB consecutively for 3 years to be rested for two years.
VI Audit firms that have served as SBA (Statutory Branch Auditor) in one RRB consecutively for 4 years to be rested for two years.
VII Audit firms having experience of bank audit not less than 5 years to be considered.
VIII A panel of 2 firms as stand-by for SCA and 2 firms as stand-by for SBA of each of the RRBs is being prepared and provided to RRBs after GOI approval.
IX Sole proprietorship firms to be considered as SBA , to the extent of 20% of the total requirement.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Representation by BCA to FM on difficulties being faced/likely to be faced by Assessees while filing Return of Income

Re: Hardships and Practical Difficulties being faced/likely to be faced by Assessees while filing the Return of Income for A.Y.2009-10, in view of directions contained in CBDT Circular No.03/2009 Dated 21.05.2009
We refer to the CBDT Circular No. 03/2009 dated 21.05.2009 in connection with the filing of the Income Tax Returns for A.Y. 2009-2010.
We appreciate the efforts made by CBDT with regards to e-filing of the Returns which has got desired results.
However, your honour will appreciate that an assessee is concerned primarily with proof of filing the Income Tax Return with the Department. The acknowledgement bearing the stamp of Income Tax Office is very much preserved and used by the assessees for various purposes including compliances under Income Tax Act, obtaining Bank loan, obtaining Visa/Passport, registration with various government authorities etc.
Under the present scheme, the acknowledgement form i.e., Form ITR-V was required to be signed by assessee either digitally or manually. In case the return is furnished with digital signature, the date of uploading the return electronically as mentioned in ITR-V is treated as date of filing of the Return. Same position continues even for filing of return for A.Y. 2009-2010. So long as the assessee has uploaded the return with digital signature, there is no problem whatsoever. However, large number of assessees [especially, non-corporate assessees] do not keep/possess digital signatures for various genuine practical reasons. Therefore, they are not covered by this procedure.
In case the return is uploaded without a digital signature, in the last year [i.e. Asst. Year 2008-2009], the assessee was required to furnish the acknowledgement form ITR-V duly signed with the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over his case within 15 days from the date of uploading the return electronically. This enabled assessees to get an acknowledgement from Income Tax Department for having furnished ITR-V with the concerned officer having the jurisdiction. If the physical acknowledgement is dated within 15 days from the date of furnishing the return electronically, the return is deemed to have been furnished on the date on which it was uploaded and date of acknowledgement No. mentioned in ITR-V was treated as the date of filing the return.
However, from the Asst. Year 2009-10, in view of the above referred circular, the position has been drastically changed and made difficult. Those assessees furnishing the returns without digital signature are facing and are also likely to continue to face unintended difficulties and hardships for the following reasons:
(1) The ITR-V duly signed by the assessee has to be furnished by ordinary post to Department, Centralised Processing Centre, Post Box No.1, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore – 560 100, Karnataka within 30 days after date of uploading the data electronically. The assessee may not have in his possession any acknowledgement as the ITR-V is to be sent by only Ordinary Post. Unfortunately, no other mode of sending the same is feasible under the new system and hence, the assessees will have to rely only on the efficiency of the postal department. If such ITR-V does not reach the CPC at Bangalore within the specified period of 30 days, the return of income electronically transmitted by the assessee will become automatically invalid.
(2) Under the new system, the assessee gets to know about the fact and date of receipt of such ITR-V by the CPC at Bangalore only when he receives the intimation by E-Mail to that effect from the CPC and till then, uncertainty continues and the assessee is effectively helpless to do anything in that regard.
(3) All the assessees do not have an e-mail ID to receive the e-mail in due course from CPC, Income Tax Department, Bangalore and acknowledgement for having furnished such ITR –V.
(4) The vagaries of the Postal Department are too well-known to be commented upon and assessee will be at the mercy of GOI, Postal Department over which neither CBDT nor the assessee has any control.
(5) Though assessees have started receiving e-mail from CPC stating that their return submitted electronically will be valid only if ITR-V is sent to CPC within 30days, such e-mails are ordinarily sent by CPC after 20 days of furnishing.
(6) Number of claims such as carry forward and set of losses and allowances, claim of deduction u/s.80 and various other benefits depend very much upon filing of the return on or before due date mentioned u/s. 139. Assessee will have to undergo a serious hardship, if such claims are disallowed in future for no fault on his part merely because some other Agency, in this case – the Postal Department, caused the delay and the assessee has nothing on hand to prove that he had done whatever was required. The onus that is likely to be cast on the assessee is going to be of a serious nature over which he will have no control whatsoever.
(7) Since the return will be deemed to have not been furnished at all in case duly signed ITR-V is, for some reasons or other, not delivered to CPC, assessee will be saddled with the litigation on liability for payment of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and levy of penalties u/s.271(1)(c) etc.
In view of the above, the assessees will have to face undue hardships without any fault on their part. Apart from this, is it fair to expect every such assessee in the country from different places [however remote it may be] to send such ITR-V to Bangalore by post? Consider the cost involved in aggregate for the country as a whole [though, unfortunately, that has to borne by the assessees] and the unnecessary avoidable huge extra burden on the already over-burdened postal department. Will this not be severe national waste?
Why should taxpayers be not permitted to furnish such ITR-V at their respective places in the Office of Assessing Officer or at any centralised places in the Local Income-tax Office and thereafter, the department can forward the same to CPC at Bangalore? This will also enable the assessee to get proper acknowledgement with regard to the date on which such ITR-V is submitted so that there remains no ambiguity about the date of their furnishing the same and consequent date of furnishing return of income. Is it unreasonable on the part of the Tax-Payers to expect such reasonable procedure?
In view of the above, it is earnestly requested that the procedure followed in the last year [Asst.Year 2008-2009] for furnishing returns of income in such cases should continue to be followed and the assessees, after transmitting their returns of income electronically, are permitted to submit such ITR-V in their respective Local Income-tax Offices.
We believe that an urgent action is needed in this regard on the above line so that the members of our organization and the taxpayers in general do not continue to suffer on account of above referred new system introduced.
Thanking you,
Sincerely yours,
Ameet Patel, Kishor Karia Rajesh Shah
President, Chairman, Co-chairman,
Taxation Committee, Taxation Committee,
CC:
(1) Shri S.S. Palanimanickan, Hon.Union Minister of State for Finance.
(2) Shri S.S.N. Moorthy, Chairman, CBDT.
(3) Shri Rahul Gandhi, Gen.Secretary, Indian National Congress.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

ITR :ISSUE DATED 10-8-2009 Volume 315 : Part 1

ITR :ISSUE DATED 10-8-2009 Volume 315 : Part 1: HIGHLIGHTS

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS
1. Amount of enhanced compensation is deemed to be income of previous year in which it is received even if received under orders of court pending decision and assessee has to offer security : CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) p. 1.
2. Assessee keeping controlled commodities in its godown and delivering to retailer shops : Commission from State Government not entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) : Udaipur Sahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. v. CIT p. 21
HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS

1. Order of pre-emptive purchase quashed where Appropriate Authority following empirical method and finding fair market value exceeded consideration : Ross Murarka (India) P. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority, S. K. Laul, Member (Bom) p. 41
2. Society running a school entitled to grant of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) where no evidence to prove surplus earned utilised for personal profit or gain of anyone including founder-manager/director : City Montessori School (Regd.) v. UOI (All) p. 48
3. Sea freight for transportation of goods not entitled to weighted deduction : CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India P. Ltd. [FB] (P&H) p. 66
4. Sale of right to purchase open plot : Issue whether income to be treated as capital gain or casual income not decided while passing assessment order : AO justified in issuing notice for reassessment : Yuvraj v. UOI (Bom) p. 84
5. Additional commission : Expenditure allowable where assessee satisfactorily establishing that expenditure incurred exclusively for purpose of business : CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) p. 91
6. Expenditure on advertisement and sales promotion not entitled to weighted deduction : CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd. (Bom) p. 95
7. Proportionate charges pertaining to printing and stationery expenses not entitled to weighted deduction : CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd. (Bom) p.
8. Surtax not deductible u/s 37 : CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd. (Bom) p. 95
9. Fees paid to Registrar of Companies : Capital expenditure : CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd. (Bom) p. 95
10. Interest u/s 201(1A) not a penalty : Interest paid to be split and spread over from date interest directed to be paid till payment : CIT v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Karn) p. 102
11. Tribunal finding sum in question was assessee's income from undisclosed sources : Addition of credit and disallowance of interest proper : Mangilal Jain v. ITO (Mad) p. 105
12. Tribunal justified in annulling assessment where notice u/s 143(2) issued after expiry of 12 months from filing of return : CIT v. PL. Gandhi (Mad) p. 110
13. Assessee filing return and represented by auditor : : Tribunal directing hearing afresh : No interference : Sumitra Menon v. Asst. CIT (Mad) p. 111
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDERS

1. Contribution to employees' provident fund before due date for filing return entitled to deduction : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
2. Book profit : Profits on sale of rubber estate excludible : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
3. Sale of every asset attributable to specified sum of consideration not a slump sale : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
4. Profits arising on sale of agricultural land : Surplus not a capital asset : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
5. Shares held by assessee as investments : Loss is capital loss : Entitled to set off : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
6. Replanting expenditure : Disallowance merely because expenditure incurred attributable to agricultural operations not justified : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
7. Licence fee : Deletion of disallowance based on earlier deletion by Tribunal's order justified : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
8. Sale of rubber trees not a case of capital gains : Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Cochin) p. 1
9. Computation of business income at surplus earned over fair market value as on 15-1-1998 : Fair market value on that date not available on record : Matter restored for recomputing income : Smt. Naynaben R. Desai v. ITO (Ahd) p. 19
10. Export or transfer of film software, etc. : Assessee receiving only service charges and not having proprietary rights in the product : Deduction u/s 80HHF not available : Deputy CIT v. Kas Movie Makers P. Ltd. (Delhi) p. 25
11. Public undertaking under bona fide belief that gift coupons given to employees to commemorate prestigious awards earned by it not in nature of payment of salary : Employees paying regular taxes on coupons as perquisites : Penalty not exigible : Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Ahd) p. 40
12. Loss on cancellation of forward contracts claimed as business expenditure : Disallowance of small part of commission payments for want of confirmation letters : Penalty not exigible : Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Ahd) p. 40
13. Shipping company in UK engaged in transportation of cargo in international traffic on ships chartered by it and on ships operated by other enterprises under slot chartering arrangements : Not liable to tax in India : Deputy Director of I. T. (International Taxation) v. Balaji Shipping (UK) Ltd. (Mumbai) p. 62
14. Meaning of "operation of ships : Deputy Director of I. T. (International Taxation) v. Balaji Shipping (UK) Ltd. (Mumbai) p. 62
15. Interpretation of double taxation avoidance agreements : Deputy Director of I. T. (International Taxation) v. Balaji Shipping (UK) Ltd. (Mumbai) p. 62