Tag Archives: LexCounsel Law Offices

ILN Today Post

Clarification by CBDT on taxability of income arising out of transfer of shares

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) with the objective to reduce litigation and to maintain consistency in approach on the issue of treatment of income derived from transfer of shares and securities, has issued circular no. 6/2016 dated February 29, 2016 (“Circular”), and a follow up letter no. F.No.225/12/2016/ITA.II dated May 2, 2016, (“the CBDT Letter”).

Taxability of surplus generated from sale of listed shares or other securities

A majority of transactions in shares and securities take place in respect of listed shares and securities. Therefore, CBDT has instructed the Assessing Officers, vide its Circular, to consider the following principles for determination whether the surplus generated from sale of listed shares or other securities would be treated as capital gain or business income:

Read full article
ILN Today Post

LexCounsel Law Offices LexUpdate – May 24, 2016

Intellectual Property

Government approves National Intellectual Property Rights Policy: “Creative India; Innovative India” – TheGovernment of India has approved the National Intellectual Property Rights (“IPRs”) Policy which is stated will lay the future roadmap for intellectual property in India. The Policy has the following objectives:

· IPR awareness and promotion: Outreach and Promotion – To create public awareness about the economic, social and cultural benefits of IPRs among all sections of society.
· Creation of IPRs – To stimulate the generation of IPRs.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – a brief snapshot

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) has been passed by the Lok Sabha on May 5, 2016 and Rajya Sabha on May 11, 2016, and shall come into force, once, it receives the Presidential assent. The Code, seeks to consolidate and amend the existing laws on bankruptcy and insolvency matters and creates a unified legal framework for resolution of insolvency/bankruptcy issues in a time bound manner. 

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Supreme Court drops the hammer on TRAI’s call drop regulations

  1. Supreme Court quashes TRAI Regulations on call drops

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the Telecom Consumers Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations dated October 16, 2015 (“Regulations”) issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”). The Regulations, which prescribed a financial disincentive (Rs. 1 for each call drop limited to a maximum of three calls per day) to be paid by the Telecom Service Providers (“TSPs”) to their customers w.e.f. January 1, 2016 had been challenged by the TSPs before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on the grounds of being arbitrary, unreasonable and without basis. The High Court however, upheld the validity of the Regulations on February 29, 2016 and further stated that since the same had not been stayed by the court during the proceedings, TRAI was at liberty to take appropriate steps towards its compliance.  

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Swiss challenges method-solicited proposal for development

Introduction

Infrastructure development and its advancement is the first indicator of the level of growth of a nation. While the Government of India has explored various options for a speedy and efficient development of the country’s infrastructure, there are still many a gaps in the Indian infrastructure growth story.

Traditionally, the conceptualization, designing and planning of an infrastructure project is undertaken by the government followed by tenders and awards for such projects to the selected bidders. The government usually uses the least cost method or the quality and cost based selection method for granting these tenders and encourages the public private partnership for effecting the projects.  However, a private sector entity may also take the initiative and pursue the government suo moto for development of social infrastructure projects. To avoid allegations of arbitrariness, unfairness and biasness, the most common method adopted by the government in granting approval to such unsolicited proposals is the Swiss Challenge Method (“the Method”).

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Terminating Employees Not Easy Anymore for Schools

With strict regulations being implemented on schools from time to time, the Delhi schools have been saddled with another compliance to be followed before terminating services of their employees as has been clarified by the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in its recent judgment passed in the matter of Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education & Others (“Judgment”). While considering in detail the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) and the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (“DSE Act”) relating to termination of services of employees by schools, the SC interpreted Section 8(2)1 of the DSE Act which requires obtaining prior approval of the Director of Education (“DoE”) before passing any order of dismissal or termination of services of its employees by school. The SC in its Judgment has, inter alia, observed that Section 8(2) of the DSE Act is a procedural safeguard in favour of an employee to ensure that an order of termination or dismissal is not passed without the prior approval of DoE. 

Read full article
ILN Today Post

India Proposes New Guidelines for Biosimilars/Vaccines

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (“CDSCO”) has released draft guidelines in an effort to streamline the regulatory process for granting marketing permission to similar vaccines and other biosimilars in India. The proposed revised Guidelines on Similar Biologics, 2016 (“Draft Guidelines”) seek to supplement the earlier “Guidelines on Similar Biologics: Regulatory Requirements for Marketing Authorization in India” (“2012 Guidelines”). 

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Foreign Exchange Management Act (“FEMA”)/Foreign Investment

Acceptance of deposits by Indian companies from a person resident outside India for nomination as Director

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has clarified that keeping deposits with an Indian company by persons resident outside India, in accordance with section 160 of the Companies Act, 2013, is a current account (payment) transaction and, as such, does not require any approval from the RBI. Refunds of such deposits, arising in the event of selection of the person as director or getting more than twenty-five (25) percent votes, will be accorded the same treatment. (Reference: A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.59 of April 13, 2016). 

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Trai’s Regulations for Compensation to Consumers for Call Drops Upheld

Call drops can be simply explained as the service provider’s ineptitude in maintaining a call between users and providing continued service once a call has been correctly established. Inadequate infrastructure, overloaded networks and fast paced expansion with poor investment by Telecom Service Providers (“TSPs”) to match the expansion are some of the reasons behind this occurrence. With the Indian Prime Minister stepping in last year and demanding that a solution be found, the Delhi High Court has expressed agreement with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) for allowing compensation for call drops.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Position of Power for Women as Karta

For long, devolution of interest of co-parcenery property was restricted to the male members of the family and only the male members had a right to the ancestral property by birth and demand partition of the Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) property. Hindu women were excluded from these very basic inheritance rights for the obvious vested reasons.

A HUF is a separate entity that is created by members of a family wherein the members are lineal ascendants or descendants. In relation to HUF, a co-parcener is a person who acquires a right in the ancestral property of the HUF by virtue of his birth in the family and has the right to demand partition of HUF property. Prior to the amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘Act’), this devolution of interest of property was restricted to the male members of the family.

Read full article