DSRA & Associates LLP - Chartered Accountants

Accounts Assistant

MCA Clarification regarding DIR-3, KYC

As per rule 12A of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014, “every individual who has been allotted a Director Identification Number (DIN) as on 31st March of a financial year as per these rules shall, submit e-form DIR-3-KYC to the Central Government on or before 30th April of immediate next financial year.
Provided that every individual who has already been allotted a Director Identification Number (DIN) as at 31st March, 2018, shall submit e-form DIR-3 KYC on or before 5th October,2018.” However, the DIR-3 KYC e-form presently available on the portal does not cater for the following: (i) Filing on annual basis, and (ii) Filing in respect of DINs allotted post 31 March 2018. It presently caters only to those individuals who were allotted DINs as on 31st March 2018 and whose DINs have been marked as ‘Deactivated due to non-filing of DIR-3 KYC’.

Stakeholders may please note that DIN holders are required to file the DIR-3 KYC form every year, so that they are aware of and confirm the data & information as available in the MCA21 system. With the objective of making the form more user friendly, the form is presently being modified to enable pre-filling of data & information so that annual filings can be done by DIN holders in a simple and user friendly manner. The revised form, which will be shortly deployed, can be filed without any fee within a period of 30 days from the date of deployment. Accordingly, DIN holders who had filed DIR-3 KYC form earlier and complied with the said provisions may kindly await the deployment of the modified form for fulfilling their compliance requirements

Kindly note that VAT Rates in Maharashtra have been increased vide Notification No VAT. 1516/CR 123/ Taxation-1 wef 17th September, 2016.
Please note that rates in Schedule C, Schedule D and Schedule E have been ammended as below -

In Schedule C - Rate is increased form 5.50% to 6.00%

In Schedule E - Rate is increased from 12.50% to 13.50%

All you need to know about PM Narendra Modi's historic Startup Action Plan All you need to know about PM narendra Modi's Startup Action Plan

MCA has issued the most awaited circular regarding Amount received by private companies from their members, directors or their relatives before lst April, 2014 - Clarification regarding applicability of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 20l4

Given below is the link for the same:-
http://mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/General_Circular_5-2015.pdf

mca.gov.in

ROC can allow e-filing of DIR-12 by one of the resigned directors who was an authorized signatory

MCA has received several representations with regard to difficulties faced by stakeholders in filing Form DIR-12. The difficulty arises due to the deactivation of Digital signature certificate (DSC) following en masse resignation of all the directors of a company before appointment of new directors in their places. As a result, Form DIR-12 (Particulars of appointment of directors and the key managerial personnel and the changes among them) couldn't be filed by few companies due to lack of an authorized signatory Director.

Thus, MCA has provided much needed relief to such stakeholders by authorizing the ROCs to allow any one of the resigned directors who was an authorized signatory Director to e-file Form DIR-12 along with additional fees subject to compliance of other provisions of the Companies Act, 2013

Bombay High Court : Levy of 234E for late filing of TDS Returns is constitutionally valid and not bad in law even though it is not appeallable.

Levy of mandatory fee for delayed filing of TDS return & Sec 234E is constitutionally valid; Delay in filing TDS returns has cascading effect and IT Department cannot process deductee's tax status until TDS return is filed by deductor; Delay in filing TDS return results in additional burden upon department due to deductor's fault, hence levy of fee u/s 234E is to compensate for additional work burden forced upon the Department ; HC observes that "Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the Department has to provide due to the late filing of the TDS statements"; TDS return is regularised by paying fee u/s 234E, and is a privilege and special service provided to deductor by allowing him to submit TDS return beyond due date; HC rejects petitioner's argument that fee u/s 234E is collected in the guise of tax; Absence of "right to appeal" against Sec 234E fee cannot make levy & section invalid ; HC says " It must be noted that a right of appeal is not a matter of right but is a creature of the statute, and if the Legislature deems it fit not to provide a remedy of appeal, so be it"; Statute relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights : Bombay HC

Students wishing to enroll as articled assistants may send their resume at [email protected]

Congratulations to all students who have successfully cleared their IPCC.

Trust entitled to exemption even if it charged fee for commercial activity, being incidental to its charitable nature


Fee charged by trust for processing subsidy applications could not be deemed as commercial receipts if it was incidental to its charitable objectives. Thus, assessee-trust was entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv).

Facts:

a) The assessee, National Horticulture Board (NHB) was an autonomous society set up by the Government to promote, develop horticultural activities and to enhance the social and economic well-being of the farmers, etc.

b) As a part of pursuing these objectives, one of the activities in which assessee was involved in was disbursement of subsidy received from the ministry of agriculture in respect of qualified horticulture projects and, in this regard, assessee had received certain sum on account of cost of application form and the brochure from subsidy seekers.

c) Assessee had filed its return (including the amount received from subsidy seekers) and it claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iv).

d) The Assessing Officer ('AO') disallowed the exemption by contending that the amount so received were for services rendered to the customers, which were in the nature of business, commerce and trade and, therefore, the activities of assessee could not be treated as charitable activities.

e) On appeal, CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:

1) First proviso to Section 2(15) provides that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity.

2) Thus, the above proviso has two limbs, one is related to carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business and other one is related to carrying on any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business.

3) There was no dispute that first limb of first proviso was not attracted on facts of the instant case, in as much as it was not even revenue's case that the assessee was engaged in activity in the nature of trade commerce or business. The addition was made by revenue by invoking the second limb, i.e., rendering of services in relation to any trade, commerce or business.

4) The Delhi High Court in case of GS1 vs DGIT (Exemption) (2013) 38 taxmann.com 364 (Delhi) held that even for invoking second limb of first proviso to Section 2(15), it was sine qua non that the assessee had extended services to business, trade or commerce and such services have been extended in the course of business carried on by the assessee.

5) It was, thus, clear that even in a situation in which an assessee receives a fees or consideration for rendition of a service to the business, trade or commerce, as long as such a service was subservient to the charitable cause and was not in the nature of business itself, the disability under second limb of first proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play.

6) The Delhi High Court in case of GS1(Supra) also observed that a small contribution by way of fee that the beneficiary pays would not convert charitable activity into business, commerce or trade in the absence of contrary evidence.

7) Thus, in view of the judgment of Delhi High Court, AO was not justified in contending that the assessee's activities cease to be charitable activities under section 2(15) merely because the assessee had charged fees for processing the subsidy applications - National Horticulture Board v. ACIT (2015) 53 taxmann.com 343 (Delhi - Trib.)