Limited Liability Partnership

Parliament Passes Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Bill 2008

15/12/2008
Parliament has passed the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Bill 2008. Lok Sabha today gave its assent to the Bill which was earlier passed by the Rajya Sabha. Replying to the debate on the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Shri Prem Chand Gupta, Minister for Corporate Affairs, expressed the hope that the first ever LLP in the country would be registered by the first day of the new Financial Year i.e. 1.4.2009. In this context he informed the Hose that concept LLP Rules have already been placed on the website of the Ministry. Shri Gupta also assured the House that registration of LLPs will also be a paperless affair as it will also be covered under MCA-21 e-governance program of the Ministry. Regarding taxation, Shri Gupta said that as the matter relates to the Finance Ministry, this concern will be taken care of by that Ministry, but he assured the House that Indian LLPs will in no way be put to any disadvantage and our LLPs will have a level playing field with other similar bodies outside the country.
LLP is a new corporate form that enables professional expertise and entrepreneurial initiative to combine, organize and operate in an innovative and efficient manner.
For a long time, a need has been felt to provide for a business format that would combine the flexibility of a partnership and the advantages of limited liability of a company at a low compliance cost.
The Limited Liability Partnership format is an alternative corporate business vehicle that provides the benefits of limited liability of a company but allows its members the flexibility of organizing their internal management on the basis of a mutually arrived agreement, as is the case in a partnership firm. This format would be quite useful for small and medium enterprises in general and for the enterprises in services sector in particular. Internationally, LLPs are the preferred vehicle of business particularly for service industry or for activities involving professionals.
In our country, several expert groups have examined the need for such a concept since 1972 and recommended from time to time, the enactment of a law that would enable the setting up and functioning of the LLPs. These include the Abid Hussain Committee 1997, the Naresh Chandra Committee on Private Companies and Partnerships 2003 and the Irani Committee for new Company Law, 2005.
As proposed in the Bill, LLP shall be a body corporate and a legal entity separate from its partners. It will have perpetual succession. While the LLP will be a separate legal entity, liable to the full extent of its assets, the liability of the partners would be limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP.
Further, no partner would be liable on account of the independent or unauthorized actions of other partners, thus allowing individual partners to be shielded from joint liability created by another partner’s wrongful business decisions or misconduct.
Today, the world is in the grip of an unprecedented financial crisis, which is adversely affecting economies of most of the countries, including our own. In such a situation, availability of LLP as an alternative business vehicle to our trade and industry will be an important step. Service industry has grown considerably in India and it accounts for nearly half of our GDP. We believe that the LLPs would further contribute to the growth of the service industry in the future.
An earlier version of the LLP Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha around 2 years ago on 15th December, 2006 and was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. The Standing Committee submitted its report on 27th November, 2007. Taking into consideration the suggestions of the August Committee, the revised Bill, namely the Limited Liability Partnership Bill, 2008 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 21st October, 2008. The House passed it on 24th October, 2008.
The salient features of the LLP Bill, 2008 are as under:‑
(i) The LLP will be an alternative corporate business vehicle that would give the benefits of limited liability but would allow its members the flexibility of organizing their internal structure as a partnership based on an agreement.
(ii) The proposed Bill does not restrict the benefit of LLP structure to certain classes of professionals only and would be available for use by any enterprise which fulfills the requirements of the Act.
(iii)While the LLP will be a separate legal entity, liable to the full extent of its assets, the liability of the partners would be limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP. Further, no partner would be liable on account of the independent or un-authorized actions of other partners, thus allowing individual partners to be shielded from joint liability created by another partner’s wrongful business decisions or misconduct.
(iv) LLP shall be a body corporate and a legal entity separate from its partners. It will have perpetual succession. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 shall not be
applicable to LLPs and there shall not be any upper limit on number of partners in an LLP unlike a ordinary partnership firm where the maximum number of partners can not exceed 20.
(iv) An LLP shall be under obligation to maintain annual accounts reflecting true and fair view of its state of affairs. Since tax matters of all entities in India are addressed in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the taxation of LLPs shall be addressed in that Act.
(v) Provisions have been made in the Bill for corporate actions like mergers, amalgamations etc.
(vii) While enabling provisions in respect of winding up and dissolutions of LLPs have been made in the Bill, detailed provisions in this regard would be provided by way of rules under the Act.

New Companies Bill

New Companies Bill to fix responsibility at top
Sapna Dogra Singh / New Delhi December 12, 2008, 0:48 IST
The new Companies Bill 2008, which is before the standing committee of Parliament, for the first time has fixed responsibility and accountability on the top management instead of leaving it loose and broad-based as in the existing Companies Act. The draft Companies Bill 2008 has identified the three key managerial positions as chief executive officer (CEO), chief finance officer (CFO) and company secretary (CS).
By recognising these three key managerial positions, the Bill is fixing responsibility to bring out a system which is more accountable, transparent and workable, according to an official at the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). It would be mandatory to mention the names of people holding these three positions in the annual report of the company.
In the present system, it is the ‘officer in default’ who is held responsible for offences committed by a company. However, the definition of ‘officer in default’ is so vast in the Companies Act of 1956 that it is virtually impossible to put the blame on anyone.
“This is an era of self regulation where you need a team of competent professionals at helm who can be held responsible,” said NK Jain, secretary and CEO of the Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI). This will have a positive impact, added Jain.
Besides bringing accountability and transparency in companies, by recognising the three key managerial personnel, the draft Bill has provided relief to the honorary directors and independent directors and the non-executive members of the company.
In the existing Companies Act, the term ‘officer in default’ encompasses all the senior officials in a company, which include all directors both executive, non-executive and independent. In case of any offence or lapse, any one of them could be made responsible even if they have nothing to do with the actual business of the company, stated Pawan Jain, company secretary of the Abhishek Industries — a leading textiles company in the country.
He cites a recent example in which a leading Bollywood star was implicated because a cheque, issued by a company where the actor was an honorary director, got bounced and the person reportedly filed a suit against the actor.
Also, said Jain, in cases where companies have not filed their returns, action can be taken against anyone in the company under the definition of ‘offer in default’ and hence the new draft Bill will give respite to companies from such incidents.
The draft Bill aims to ensure financial integrity, corporate governance and risk management in the companies, said E Balaji, CEO of Ma Foi Management Consultants.
Many public sector companies feel that this would bring good governance in the companies. The bill is a good step in bringing corporate responsibility by giving statutory recognition to the role of CFO, said DK Saraf, CFO of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation.
Another important step that the draft Bill has proposed is doing away with the need for central government approval for appointments and fixing remuneration of the key managerial positions. It also envisage removal of the ceiling on managerial remuneration based on net profits.
However, AK Singhal, director (finance) NTPC, feels that this wouldn’t be applicable to state-owned companies as the government would continue to fix their remuneration.

360 degree feedback

360 degree feedback
Performance-appraisal data collected from 'all around' an employee-his or her peers, subordinates, supervisors, and sometimes, from internal and external customers. Its main objective usually is to assess training and development needs and to provide competence-related information for succession planning-not promotion or pay increase. Also called multi-rater assessment, multi-source assessment, multi-source feedback.

Deflation

Term of the Day - deflation
A decline in general price levels, often caused by a reduction in the supply of money or credit. Deflation can also be brought about by direct contractions in spending, either in the form of a reduction in government spending, personal spending or investment spending. Deflation has often had the side effect of increasing unemployment in an economy, since the process often leads to a lower level of demand in the economy. opposite of inflation.

Advance tax versus TDS

Advance tax versus TDS
The tax deductible at source has to be excluded while computing the advance tax liability, even if the tax had not actually been deducted.

The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), G-Bench, Delhi, in the DCIT vs Pride Foramer SAS (2008 24(II) ITCL 259) case has decided an interesting issue concerning tax deducted at source (TDS), advance tax and charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee before the assessing officer (AO) was a non-resident French company, which had engaged employees of an associate company for providing technical services in connection with offshore drilling in India.
Tax not deducted at source
The AO noticed that these employees drew salaries exceeding the exemption limit and, therefore, passed an order under Section 163(1), read with Section 143(3), treating the French company as agent of the technicians and made assessments on it on income from salary and perquisites received by these technicians.
Since no tax was deducted at source from the salaries paid and no advance tax was paid for such employees, the AO charged interest under Section 234B(1) of the Act also.
On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the entire income of the foreign technicians was liable to TDS and, therefore, as per Section 209(1)(d) the tax payable for the purpose of advance tax was required to be reduced by the tax ‘deductible at source’.
Since the entire tax payable was deductible at source, there was no advance tax payable by the assessees and, hence, the AO was directed to delete the interest charged under Section 234B. Against this order of the CIT(A), the I-T Department went on appeal before the ITAT.
The Revenue’s contention before the ITAT was that the Section 191 was not overridden by Section 209 and, therefore, once the tax had not been deducted at source, the same was payable as advance tax.
Tribunal’s view
The Tribunal did not agree with this view of the Department. It held that Section 191 along with Section 190 falls in Part-A of Chapter XII, which relates to collection and recovery of tax.
Section 190 relates to deduction at source and advance payment, and provides that notwithstanding that regular assessment in respect of any income is to be made in a later assessment year, tax on such income shall be payable by deduction or collection at source or by advance payment, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the chapter. Section 191 provides for another mode of collection of tax by way of direct payment.
Therefore, even if Section 191 is not overridden by Section 209, the amount payable by the assessee direct under Section 191 in cases where tax had not been deducted at source, is not the amount payable as advance tax.
The amount payable as advance tax has to be computed under Section 209, which is a specific provision for this purpose. Under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 209, the tax deductible at source has to be excluded while computing the advance tax payable.
Had the legislature wanted that only the tax actually deducted at source or collected at source should be excluded, it would not have used the words ‘tax deductible at source’ or ‘collectible at source’.
‘Deductible at source’
The phrase ‘deductible at source’ has not been used casually or without any purpose. There is a reasoning for excluding the ‘tax deductible at source’ because in cases where tax has not been deducted at source by the person responsible, the said person is deemed to be assessee-in-default under Section 201 in respect of whole or any part of tax, which had not been deducted at source and he is also liable for payment of interest and penalty under the said section.
Since the ‘tax deductible at source’, in case not deducted, could be recovered with interest from the person responsible for deducting the same at source, the ‘tax deductible’ has been excluded from the advance tax liability of the assessee.
Section 191 contains only an alternative mode of recovery so that in case tax could not be recovered from the person responsible in case of default, it could be collected from the assessee, who is primarily responsible for paying the tax. The section does not say that the same is payable as advance tax. The tax deductible at source has to be excluded while computing the advance tax liability as provided in Section 209(1)(d), even if the tax had not actually been deducted. In the case before the ITAT, the entire income of the assessee was deductible at source.
Therefore, no advance tax was payable by the technician employees and, as a result, there would be no case for charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. Hence, the ITAT has held that the order of the CIT(A), directing the AO to delete the interest charged under Section 234B, is correct.

ITAT to decide on tax cases within three months

HC directs ITAT to decide on tax cases within three months

MUMBAI: Corporate taxpayers can now hope for speedy justice. The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal

(ITAT) on the ground that the tribunal took four months to deliver the order. Delivering the order, a division bench comprising Justice VC Daga and Justice S Radhakrishnan observed that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice withheld is even worse. Observing that often orders are passed four to 10 months after the tax cases have been heard, the court issued a guideline to the ITAT asking it not to take more than three months to give an order. The division bench also directed ITAT that its order should be self-containing and reasoned. HC gave this order on an appeal filed by Shivsagar Veg Restaurant. The appeal was based on the inordinate delay by ITAT in giving out the order. The taxpayer also alleged non-application of mind as the order did not furnish reasons in detail, did not discuss the issues raised by the taxpayer and did not cite the case laws. The HC said that since ITAT is the final authority on facts, the tribunal is required to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagreed with the findings of the authority below. This would help the HC, where appeals are filed on questions of law, to have a clearer understanding of the issues that come up before it, the division bench said. “Merely because the tribunal happens to be an appellate authority, it does not get the right to brush aside reasons or the findings recorded by the first authority or the lower appellate authority. It has to examine the validity of the reasons and findings recorded,” the bench added. K Shivram, who appeared for Shivsagar Veg Restaurant told ET: “ITAT president Vimal Gandhi had issued detailed guidelines (on speedy clearance) to ITAT members sometime ago. However, those guidelines are not being followed by the ITAT members.”

Rent -a -Cab is Input Service

Whether Rent-a-cab service used for bringing employees to work in the factory for manufacture goods is eligible Input Service for the purpose of Cenvat Credit.


The answer is yes.
While referring the meaning of Input Service assigned to rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, honorable tribunal has held that:
"From the above definition, it is very clear that the input services besides being used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearances of final products from the place of removal includes a plethora of other services such as service used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of factory, premises of provider of input service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales, activities of business, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment, quality control, training and coaching etc. and therefore its scope is much larger than being used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture. The decision cited by Revenue are therefore not relevant as those decisions have not considered the inclusive part of input service as defined under rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules and these decisions have only considered the term in or in relation to the manufacture. Since Rent-a-Cab service is used for bringing employees to work in the factory for manufacture of goods it has to be considered as being used indirectly in relation to the manufacture or as part of business activity for promoting the business as any facility given to the employees will result in greater efficiency and promotion of business."

Refund of Service Tax paid in excess wrongly

Service Tax paid in excess wrongly - Can department refuse to refund the same?
Where it is found that that service tax has been paid in excess wrongly - department should refund the same on making an application for refund the same.
In the instant case, CESTAT has refused to allow the claim of refund on the ground that
"…..that since the assessee had not challenged the assessment order, the claim of refund cannot be entertained, so as to indirectly challenge the assessment order, without filing statutory appeal, against the assessment order. It was also found, that in the case in hand, the order is appelable and no appeal having been filed, the claim of refund has no merit, and the appeal was dismissed."
In this matter, Honorable High Court of Rajasthan held that:"At the outset, it may be observed, that under the scheme of things, starting from Section 73 onwards it is clear, that the assessee himself is to deposit service tax in form ST-3, there is no provision for assessment. Passing of assessment order is contemplated only in cases where the notice is issued under Section 73, and it is found, that service tax is not levied or paid, or has been short levied or short paid etc. In that view of the matter, the very basis/reasonings given by the learned Tribunal, simply have no legs to stand. Admittedly, the appeal under Section 85 lies against a specific order of the concerned authority in Form ST-4, which requires to disclose, designation and address of the officer passing the decision or order appealed against, and the date of decision or order, so also the date of communication of the decision or order appealed against to the appellant. Admittedly, when no order capable of being appealed against, had ever been passed, it cannot be said that the assessee could file appeal against the assessment order, and not having so filed appeal he cannot lay the claim of refund. Thus, the order of the Tribunal cannot sustain."

Overseas securities

Overseas securities pricing gets easier
Publication:Economic Times Delhi;
Date:Nov 28, 2008;
Section:EFM;
Page Number:7

Our Bureau NEW DELHI THE government on Thursday loosened rules covering the pricing of securities issued overseas by Indian companies in a move which is seen helping corporates and underwriters in difficult stock market conditions. The finance ministry said it has changed the rules so that companies can price their overseas securities to reflect the most recent value of their shares in the local market: it will now be at least an average of the highest and lowest price of the share in the two weeks preceding the decision to raise capital abroad. Earlier, it was the average share price covering the preceding two months or six months, with the higher of the two prices being the floor price for the overseas issue. The new regulation covers shares issued by Indian companies in the US and Europe as well as convertible bonds denominated in a foreign currency. Overseas investors have pulled out a record $13.5 billion from Indian stocks so far this year, causing the benchmark Sensex index on the Bombay Stock Exchange to drop by 56%. This contrasts with the sharp rise in stock prices last year, when foreign investors bought a record $17.2 billion. Introducing more market-driven rules will help generate greater interest among underwriters, besides helping the companies, the head of the Indian unit of top European bank said. Underwriters pay the share issuer in advance and assume the risk of selling the securities to investors for a profit. Another rule which required share issuers to not count the 30 days preceding the decision to raise capital has been scrapped. Aimed mainly to prevent price manipulation in the domestic market, the rule is seen as not relevant in a bearish market

Solve issues on taxability of AEs

Solve issues on taxability of AEs
Vivek Mishra UNDERthe service tax law, the liability to pay service tax arises on collection of service charges. Therefore, accrual of income or recording of book entries were not relevant for service tax purposes. However, through the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2008, it has been provided that for transactions between associated enterprises (AEs), the liability to pay service tax will arise on accrual or collection basis, whichever is earlier. This amendment is apparently an anti-avoidance measure. It seeks to cover transactions between AEs wherein service tax has not been paid on the ground of non-receipt of payment even though the transaction has been recognised as revenue/expenditure in the statement of profit and loss account. The concept of AE has been borrowed from the transfer pricing provisions under the Income Tax Act. These provisions broadly provide that two entities would qualify as AEs if one entity is managed or controlled by the other or if the two entities are under common control or management. Further, the amendments to the service tax rules provide that in case of transactions between AEs, payment received for the taxable service would include any amount debited or credited to any account in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax. This would have a significant impact on the cash flow of the AE providing the taxable services. Take this example. Company X and company Y are AEs. X provides taxable services to Y in June 2008 worth Rs 1 million and passes an entry debiting Y for this amount on July 1 2008. The amount is received by X on November 1 2008. Prior to this amendment, X would have been liable to pay tax on this amount by 5 December 2008. However, as a result of the amendment, X is liable to pay service tax on Rs 1 million by 5 August 2008, the due date for payment of service tax for July 2008. Further, this would set back the cash flow of X as it would need to deposit service tax on Rs 1 million without having collected such amount from Y. The amendment has ostensibly been introduced as an anti-avoidance measure. However, the amendment has created certain ambiguities in the operation of service tax provisions which should be clarified at the earliest to avoid unnecessary litigation. Some of these ambiguities are discussed below. 1. One of the conditions to qualify as export of services under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 is that payment for the service should have been received in convertible foreign currency. Now, in case of export of services between AE, the liability to pay service tax has been shifted from collections to accrual basis. At the time of such accrual, the service may not qualify as export as the payment for the service has not been received. Thus, the issue that arises is whether on such accrual the Indian entity would be required to pay service tax and subsequently on receipt of payment initiate refund proceeding to recover output service tax paid or whether such accrual would be treated as a receipt of convertible foreign currency for the purpose of export rules. 2. With regard to accrual entries made in relation to AE, would the Indian entity be required to pay service tax on the opening balance in the account of the AE as on 10 May 2008 or does this amendment apply only to accrual entries made post 10 May 2008. As per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 credit of service tax paid on input services is available only if the value of input service and service tax has been paid. Given that in case of import of taxable service from an AE, service tax is payable on an accrual basis, an issue that arises is whether the Indian enterprise would be permitted to avail credit of service tax paid on such input service imported though the payment for the value of input service has not been made. Provisions permitting a service provider to adjust excess service tax deposited, where the service charges and service tax thereon is refunded to the service recipient, will not be applicable since there will be no refund of these amounts in case the tax is paid on accrual basis. So, the introduction of the deeming fiction in relation to AE has resulted in various anomalies which should be clarified at the earliest to avoid unnecessary litigation.