Skip to main content

Clarification by MCA on deposits from members, directors and relatives into private companies

General Ctrcular No. O5/2O15
F. No. 1/8/2013-CL-V
Government of India
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
Dr R.P. Road, New Delhi.
Datedt 30th Match, 2015

................
Stakeholders have sought clarifications as to whether amounts received
by private companies from their members, directors or their relatives prior to
1st April, 2014 shall be considered as deposits under the Companies Act, 2013
as such amounts were not treated as 'deposits' under section 58A of the
Companies Act, 1956 and rules made thereunder.

2.The matter has been examined in consultation with RBI and it is
clarified that such amounts received by private companies prior to 16t April,
2Ol4 shall not be treated as 'deposits' under the Companies Act,2013 and
Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 subject to the condition that
relevant private company shall disclose, in the notes to its financial statement
for the financial year commencing on or after lsi April, 2014 the figure of such
amounts and the accounting head in which such amounts have been shown in
the fi nancial statement.
3. Any renewal or acceptance of fresh deposits on or aiter 1st April, 2014
shall, however, be in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 20 13
and rules made thereunder.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more