Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Gaurav Varshney & Anr.(SC)(15 July, 2016)

Held: : An "existing" collective investment scheme within the meaning of Section 12(1B), as also, within the meaning of the Collective Investment Regulations, comprised only of such collective investment scheme(s), which had come into existence prior to 25.1.1995. And therefore, it was impermissible for a person who had not commenced a collective investment scheme prior to 25.1.1995, to do so thereafter, till the Collective Investment Regulations were framed. Thereafter, such new entrepreneur, had to obtain a certificate of registration from 'the Board' under Regulation 4 of the Collective Investment Regulations, before he could legally commence activities concerning collective investment operations. The bar to sponsor or cause to be sponsored, or carry on or cause to be carried on any collective investment activity by a new entrepreneur (- who had not commenced the concerned activities, before 25.1.1995) under Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act, was not dependent on the framing of the regulations. Appeal dismissed.

Judgements/Tribunals

Content right to :eJurix

Amin Merchant Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Revenue & Ors. (SC)(19 July, 2016)

Held: The whole thrust of the appellant is that the proposals of the Finance Minister were duly approved by the Parliament. No doubt, the appellant has placed before Court the proposals of the Finance Minister which discloses the intention of the Government but there is no material placed before court to demonstrate that the budget proposals are duly accepted by the Parliament.After it is legislated upon by the Parliament and a rate of duty that is prescribed in relation to a particular Tariff Head that constitutes the authoritative expression of the legislative will of Parliament. In the present facts of the case, as per the finance bill, the legislative will of the Parliament is that for the commodities falling under Tariff Head 2208.10, the tariff is Rs.300/- per litre or 400% whichever is higher. Even assuming that the amount of tax is excessive, in the matters of taxation laws, the Court permits greater latitude to the discretion of the legislature and it is not amenable to judicial review. if the appellant is aggrieved by the particular tariff prescribed under the Finance Act and the same is contrary to the approved budget proposals, he ought to have questioned the same if permissible. Appeals dismissed.

M/S Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(HC-PAT)(19 July, 2016)

Held: The income is taxable in India only if that foreign entity carries on business in India through a permanent establishment situated in India. No such finding with regard to existence of any permanent establishment in India has been brought on record by any of the lower authorities or even by the learned D. R. at the time of hearing before court. In view of this, the position emerges that the payment to a person who happens to be a resident of country with whom India has entered into DTAA and where the business profits are taxed only in the country and does not have a permanent establishment in India, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source. The services rendered by the non-residents are not in the nature of technical services, no income deemed to have accrued to the non-resident entities, there is no liability on the assessee to deduct tax at source on such payment. Therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act are not exigible in the present case. Appeal partly allowed.