Synopsis
Notification No 82,83,84,85 and 86/2020: Below updates are effective from 01.01.2021: GSTR-1 related: - Quarterly return filers can file their first and second month B2B invoices in Invoice Furnishing Facility (IFF) on or before 13th of 1st month in next qtr - Total value for such B2B invoices is capped to 50 lakhs per month - No need to report invoices again in GSTR-1 if already reported in IFF - Due date of GSTR-1 for quarterly filers is 13th of 1st month in next qtr - HSN/SAC codes shall be mentioned mandatorily in GSTR-1 ( <5Cr- 4 digit, >5Cr- 6 digit) GSTR-2 related: - The invoices reported in IFF shall be made available to recipient in their GSTR-2A/2B - Notified FORM GSTR-2B GSTR-3B related: - Rule 61(6) was inserted to provide due date for filing GSTR-3B for the months of Oct 2020 to Mar 2021 as 20th of next month if TO > 5 Crores - Quarterly return filers shall deposit tax in electronic cash ledger on or before 25th of next month for first and second months 87/2020: - Due date for filing ITC-04 (Job worker return) for the period July 2020 to September 2020 is extended to 30th November 2020 88/2020: E-invoicing is mandatory from 01.01.2021 for every taxpayer (other than SEZ unit) whose aggregate TO in any of the FY from 17-18 exceeds 100 Crores |
The lift off was originally scheduled for 3.02 pm, but was delayed by 10 minutes due to debris on the path of the vehicle, said the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). This is the first mission by ISRO this year.EOS-01 is intended for applications in agriculture, forestry and disaster management support, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) said. The customer satellites are from Lithuania (1), Luxembourg (4) and USA (4).
This was India's first rocket launch since the Covid-19 pandemic broke out, imposing numerous restrictions to working and enforcing multiple lockdowns.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated ISRO and the country's space industry for the successful launch, saying the scientists overcame many constraints to meet the deadline during this COVID-19 time.
"I congratulate @ISRO and India's space industry for the successful launch of PSLV-C49/EOS-01 Mission today. In the time of COVID-19, our scientists overcame many constraints to meet the deadline," Modi tweeted. In another tweet, he noted that nine satellites, including four each from the US and Luxembourg and one from Lithuania, have also been launched in the mission.
Hong Kong (CNN Business)Mukesh Ambani has long been trying to reduce his company's reliance on oil. This week showed why.
The Relative Strength Index (RSI), developed by J. Welles Wilder, is a momentum oscillator that measures the speed and change of price movements. The RSI oscillates between zero and 100. Traditionally the RSI is considered overbought when above 70 and oversold when below 30. Signals can be generated by looking for divergences and failure swings. RSI can also be used to identify the general trend.
Note: During strong trends, the RSI may remain in overbought or oversold for extended periods.
The RSI is a fairly simple formula, but is difficult to explain without pages of examples. Refer to Wilder's book for additional calculation information. The basic formula is:
RSI = 100 – [100 / ( 1 + (Average of Upward Price Change / Average of Downward Price Change ) ) ]
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the deadline for filing income tax returns (ITR) for FY20 (assessment year 2020-21) to December 31, 2020.
For those who are required to get their ITR audited, the deadline for the procedure has been extended to January 31, 2021 from October 31, 2020.
"The due date for furnishing of Income Tax Returns For The Other Taxpayers (for whom the due date (i.e.before the extension by the said notification) as per the Act was 31st July, 2020) has been extended to 31st December, 2020)," CBDT said in a statement.
The CBDT said it extended the deadline keeping in mind the difficulties faced by taxpayers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The government had previously extended to deadline to November 30 from July 31.
In a big win for married women who are mistreated or tortured at
their in-laws’, the top court has observed that the wife would have the right
to claim the “shared household” of the joint family under the Domestic Violence
Act
The
Supreme Court, on October 15, revised its previous ruling on the Domestic
Violence Act and said that daughters-in-law have the right to stay at their
in-laws' house. In effect, Indian women can now claim residential rights at her
in-laws house both during and after domestic violence proceedings.
In
a big win for married women who are mistreated or tortured at their in-laws,
the top court has observed that the wife would have the right to claim the
“shared household” of the joint family under the Domestic Violence Act.
Earlier,
on August 12, the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of
a daughter’s coparcenary rights in a joint Hindu family property. A
three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S Nazeer, and MR Shah had said
provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, confer the status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after
amendment in the same manner as a son with the same rights and liabilities.
What
is a shared household?
Shared
household refers to property owned by a woman’s husband, or by the joint family
of which the husband is a member. This does not include self-acquired property
of any family member.
According
to an India.com report, a three-judge SC bench headed by
Justice Ashok Bhushan said as per the definition of 'shared
household' in Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, a woman who has been
subject to domestic violence has the legal right to the shared household of the
family and also ancestral house of the mother-in-law.
The
Supreme Court had held in its 2005 order that a wife would be entitled to a
shared household only if the aggrieved person lives there or had lived in a
domestic relationship in the past.
Notably,
Section 17(1) of the Domestic violence Act states that every woman in a domestic
relationship will have the legal right to reside in a shared household,
regardless of her title or beneficial interest in it.
(With ANI inputs)
First Published on Oct 15, 2020 09:00 pm
US e-commerce giant Amazon has served a legal notice to Kishore Biyani-backed Future Group over the latter’s ₹25,000-crore deal with Reliance Retail.
According to sources close to the development, Amazon has alleged violation of an agreement done in August 2019 when it had picked up 49 per cent stake in Future Coupons Ltd, which owns 7.3 per cent of Future Retail. That deal gave Amazon roughly 3.6 per cent in Future Retail.
As part of the agreement, Amazon was granted a call option. This call option allowed Amazon to acquire all or part of the promoters’ shareholding in Future Retail between the third to tenth years.
Biyani had also agreed to certain share transfer restrictions on the promoter shares in the company for the same tenure, including restrictions to not transfer shares to specified persons and, more importantly, a right of the first offer in favour of Amazon.
But a year later, in August 2020, Reliance Retail Ventures Ltd (RRVL), a subsidiary of Mukesh Ambani-controlled Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), acquired Future Group’s retail and wholesale business, and logistics and warehousing business for ₹24,713 crore.
While Amazon and Future Retail declined to comment, sources close to the Biyani family said that the legal notice has come as a surprise. “Everything was discussed with Amazon before signing the deal with Reliance. There was no objection raised all this while. It is surprising to get a legal notice more than a month after the Reliance deal was announced,” said a source close to the Future Group.
The legal notice by Amazon could delay the closure of the Future-Reliance deal. This could be detrimental for the Future group entities, as they have already defaulted on payments more than five times over the last one month. Lenders have refused to release additional funding to the cash-strapped retail company until the deal with Reliance gets all regulatory and legal approvals. Sources in Future Group are hoping that the legal battle with Amazon will be fought by Mukesh Ambani for a quick resolution.Follow us on Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Linkedin. You can also download our Android App or IOS App.
On September 25, an international arbitral tribunal rendered an award in favour of Vodafone International Holdings BV, in its investor protection claims against India under an investment treaty arbitration commenced on the basis of the India-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty.
In 2007 the Dutch affiliate of the Vodafone Group, Vodafone International Holdings BV, acquired 67 percent interest in the Indian telecom company Hutchison Essar Limited. This transaction took place through an agreement between Vodafone International and the Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited involving a Cayman Island-based company, which in turn held majority interest in the Indian company, Hutchison Essar Limited.
Soon after the transaction a tax demand of $2.2 billion was issued by income tax authorities in India. It was refuted by Vodafone on the ground that the transaction between Hutchison Telecom and Vodafone International took place outside India, and did not involve transfer of any capital asset situated in India.
The matter was first argued before the Bombay High court, which ruled in favour of tax authorities. Vodafone filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which held that the income tax department was not empowered to levy capital gains tax on the $11 billion acquisition of Hutchison Essar Limited by Vodafone International Holdings which was consummated through a series of holding companies which were incorporated outside of India.In response to the judgment, Parliament passed an amendment, by way of the Finance Bill, 2012, empowering the income tax department to levy capital gains tax on transactions such as the Vodafone acquisition, and do so even with respect to transactions that took place prior to the amendment, and as far back as 1961. Predictably, this culminated in the income tax department levying such retrospective tax on the acquisition resulting in Vodafone resorting to investment treaty arbitration under the India-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty.
Vodafone claimed that such retrospective imposition of tax, despite the 2012 Supreme Court judgment, amounts to a violation of fair and equitable treatment obligation under the treaty.
The arbitral tribunal has held that Vodafone is entitled, in respect of its investments in mobile telecommunications in India, to the protection proffered under the treaty. India’s conduct in respect of the imposition on Vodafone of an asserted liability to tax and imposition of interest and penalty thereon, despite the Supreme Court judgement was found to breach the terms of the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment assured in the treaty.
It was thus held that this entails India to cease the conduct of imposition of retrospective tax, and that any failure to comply with it will engage India’s international responsibility.
The Government of India has said that it is in the process of ‘considering all options’ with media reports suggesting that it is likely to contest the award.
This award will have ramifications for India in other pending investment treaty disputes and will have implications on other claims, especially in the space of retrospective tax disputes. In this case there was almost negligible collection of the tax as demanded so there does not appear to be an obligation on India to refund any substantial amount except for costs.
However, in other cases such as the Cairn Energy, where also bilateral investment treaty disputes arising out of retrospective tax legislation are pending, there may be substantial payback obligations as in such cases tax departments have recovered part of demands by appropriating dividends, sale of shareholding and other means.
The award directs India to cease its conduct of imposition of retrospective tax and restrains it from collecting a substantial tax liability. The legislative manoeuvring that India tried by retrospective amendment of its tax law to circumvent the Supreme Court judgment has failed. Such measures have been held to be in breach of fair and equitable treatment assurances India had given under its investment treaty regime to foreign investors.
Now, how India reacts to and deals with this unanimous award passed by a neutral international tribunal will send signals to the international investment community, which will be closely watching the next move by the government as it might impact their decision to invest in India.
