Applicability of the Companies Act, 2013 to Auditor’s Report to FY 2014-15 and Onwards1

CLARIFICATION

Applicability of the Companies Act, 2013 to Auditor’s Report to FY 2014-15 and Onwards

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on 26th March 2014 notified a majority of the remaining sections of the Companies Act, 2013, including sections 139 to 148, relating to audits and auditors. The Act was stated to be effective from 1st April, 2014.

Accordingly, queries are being raised by a number of members as to whether any auditor’s report of a company being signed on or after 01st April, 2014 would be in accordance with the requirements of section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013.

In this context, it may be noted that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has, on 04th April 2014, vide its General Circular No. 08/2014, clarified that the financial statements (and documents required to be attached thereto), auditor’s report and Board’s report in respect of financial years that commenced earlier than 01st April, 2014 shall be governed by the relevant provisions/Schedules/rules of the Companies Act 1956. This MCA Circular can be seen at URL http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/General_Circular_8_2014.pdf.

Therefore, it is clear from MCA’s aforesaid General Circular that the auditor’s report of a company pertaining to any financial year commencing on or before 31st march 2014, would be in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956 even if that financial year ends after 01st April 2014. For example, where the financial year of a company is 01st January 2014 to 31st December 2014, the statutory auditor’s report signed therefor would be in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956.

As a corollary to MCA’s General Circular, it appears that the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply only to the financial years commencing on or after 01st April 2014. Thus, for example, the statutory auditor’s report signed in respect of the financial year of the company ended 31st March 2015would need to be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.

Please follow and like us:

Whether wealth tax is leviable on the making charges of the jewellery? – A Detailed Analysis – CA Vidhan Surana & CA Sunil Maloo

Whether wealth tax is leviable on the making charges of the jewellery? –
A Detailed Analysis

– CA Vidhan Surana & CA Sunil Maloo

Under the scheme of Wealth Tax in India, Wealth tax is levied on the net wealth of the every individual, Hindu undivided family and company as on the valuation date. “Net Wealth” means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of Wealth Tax Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the Assessee on the valuation date which have been incurred in relation to the said assets.

Assets” has been defined in section 2(ea) of the Act, which inter alia includes jewellery, bullion furniture, utensils or any other article made wholly or partly of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or any alloy containing one or more of such precious metals, except held as stock in trade.

Out of the above, the term ‘jewellery’ is further defined in explanation 1 to this section, which reads as under:

[Explanation 1] : For the purposes of this clause, —
(a) “jewellery” includes —
(i) ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal or any alloy containing one or more of such precious metals, whether or not containing any precious or semi-precious stones, and whether or not worked or sewn into any wearing apparel;
(ii) precious or semi-precious stones, whether or not set in any furniture, utensils or other article or worked or sewn into any wearing apparel;

Many times the registered valuers while valuing the jewellery for the purpose of wealth tax and also sometime the Assessing Officer while making the Wealth Tax Assessment, includes the ‘Making Charges’ in the value of the jewellery and levies Wealth Tax on the Same.
Now the question arises as to whether the ‘Making Charges’ incurred by the Assessee in connection with the ‘jewellery’, are also subject to the levy of Wealth Tax? Whether the value of Making Charges also needs to be included in the valuation of ‘jewellery’ for the purpose of the Wealth tax?

Let’s examine this issue in detail herein under:
What ‘Making Charges’ exactly are?
Making Charges are the charges we pay to the Gold Smith to make the Jewel out of raw gold/ any other precious metal. It is nothing but the amount that we pay for the labour involved in making a piece of jewellery. A good design is a culmination of artistic view and effort to create a wonderful design that attracts the eyes of buyer. So for making such designs, Jewelery stores generally charges the customer with making charges. This varies from design to design based on the complexity. It varies based on jeweller. Making charges are usually a percentage of the current price of the metal used in jewellary. This means higher the price of metal, higher would be the making charges. Also the more intricate the design, the higher will be the charges. Making charges normally range between 5% and 25% of the cost of metal.

Provisions relating to Valuation of ‘jewellery’ under the Wealth Tax Act:
Section 7 of the Wealth tax Act, 1957 provides for ‘Value of assets, how to be determined’, which reads as under

7. Value of assets, how to be determined
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the value of any asset, other than cash, for the purposes of this Act shall be its value as on the valuation date determined in the manner laid down in Schedule III.

Accordingly, the Net Wealth is to be valued at the rates as specified in the Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act. Schedule III of the Act lays down the ‘Rules for Determining the Value of Assets’. Part ‘G’ of the said schedule contains the rules for determination of ‘Valuation of jewellery’, which reads as under:

Part G
Jewellery
18. Valuation of jewellery.
(1) The value of the jewellery shall be estimated to be the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date (hereafter in this rule referred to as fair market value).

(2) The return of net wealth furnished by the assessee shall be supported by, —
(i) a statement in the prescribed form, where the value of the jewellery on the valuation date does not exceed rupees five lakhs;
(ii) a report of a registered valuer in the prescribed form, where the value of the jewellery on the valuation date exceeds rupees five lakhs.

(3) Notwithstanding anything mentioned in sub-rule (2), the Assessing Officer may, if he is of opinion, that the value of the jewellery declared in the return, —
(a) is less than its fair market value by such percentage or such amount as is prescribed under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 16A;
(b) is less than its fair market value as referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 16A,

he may refer the valuation of such jewellery to a Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of the said section and the value of such jewellery shall be the fair market value as estimated by the Valuation Officer.]

Thus, the levy of Wealth tax on ‘Making charges’ of the jewellery is unjustified because of the following reasons:

a) ‘Making Charges’ are not included in the definition of the Assets either individually or also not covered in the definition of the term ‘jewellary’;

b) In the Rules of Valuation of jewellery, it is clearly provided that the value of jewellery shall be estimated to be the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. It is well settled principle that no one in the open market shall pay for the ‘making charges’ incurred by the seller. The seller will fetch the amount exclusively attributable to the contents of the precious metal at the prevailing rates on that particular date and nothing more than that.

c) There is a difference between the term ‘Cost’ and ‘Value’. In general the ‘Cost’ is the amount that we incur for acquisition of something and ‘Value’ is the amount that we can fetch is that item is sold in open market. Making Charges are without any ambiguity considered as a part of the ‘cost’ of the jewellery but under the scheme of the Wealth Tax, same should not be considered as a part of the ‘Value’ according to the provisions of the Act.

d) In many cases, the Department also argues and levy wealth tax on the making charges of the jewellery on the ground that when a manufacturer of gold jewellery or a person engaged in business of jewellery sell such items into open market, they also realize the making charges. This ground for taxing the making charges under the Wealth Tax Act does not sound to be valid, as such manufacturer / jeweler held the jewellery as stock in trade and which is specifically excluded from the definition of the term ‘jewellery’.

e) Further, the ‘form O-8’ which is the designated form for ‘Valuation of Jewellery’ also does not contain any field which gives even a remote indication regarding inclusion of ‘Making Charges’ into the value of jewellery. Abstracts of Form O-8 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

Point number 12 is for ‘Total Value of Jewellery’, which is succeeded to Point No. 10 and Point No. 11, which are ‘Value of each precious or semi-precious stone and the total value of all such stones’ and ‘Value of the precious metal content in all the items of jewellery’ respectively. Thus, it can also be positively inferred that Point No. 12 is nothing but a sum of Point No. 10 and 11. Inclusion of Making Charges into the value of jewellery does not find any place in the form O-8 of ‘Valuation Report’, which itself implies that same is not to be intended to be included in the taxable ‘Value of Jewellery’.

Conclusion:
Under the background of the above analysis of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act and ‘Rules for Determining the Value of Assets’, it can safely be concluded that ‘Making Charges’ should not be made subject to levy of Wealth Tax. Though, one may logically argue that the Making charges must, invariably form part of the value of jewellery, but the law ALWAYS does not works on mere logics. However, a clarificatory amendment on this aspect of law will be appreciated for the removal of the ambiguity amongst the department being the exchequer, taxpayers, tax-professional and registered valuers.

Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. The authors do not accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Please follow and like us:

MCA vide circular no 23/2014 dated 17th July 2014 has issued various clarifications on one of the most of the argumentative section under the Companies Act 2013 i.e. section 188

Highlights of the clarifications issued are given below:

Voting by related parties in general meeting

As per second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 188 no member of the company shall vote on a special resolution to approve the contract or arrangement (referred to in the first proviso), if such a member is a related party.

It is clarified that ‘related party’ referred above has to be construed with reference only to the contract or arrangement for which the said special resolution is being passed. Thus, the term ‘related party’ in the above context refers only to such related party as may be a related party in the context of the contract or arrangement for which the said special resolution is being passed.

But the above clarification will still not provide any solution to the problem faced by the private companies where the directors and shareholders are generally common and are related to each other.

Applicability of Section 188 to corporate restructuring, amalgamations etc.

It is clarified that transactions arising out of Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations dealt with under specific provisions of the Companies Act, 1956/Companies Act, 2013, will not attract the requirements of section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Requirement of fresh approvals for past contracts under Section 188.

A very common issue of debate was related to the status of contracts entered into by companies, after making necessary compliances under Section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956, which already came into effect before the commencement of Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013. Whether any fresh approval was required under section 188 or not for such contracts?

As per the clarification, no fresh approval will be required for aforesaid mentioned contracts u/s 188 till the expiry of the original term of such contracts. But if any modification in such contract is made on or after 1st April, 2014, the requirements under section 188 will have to be complied with.

Please follow and like us:

RBI allows buying of immovable properties outside India by residents under Liberalized Remittance Scheme

LIBERALISED REMITTANCE SCHEME (LRS) FOR RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS-INCREASE IN THE LIMIT FROM USD 75,000 TO USD 125,000

A.P. (DIR SERIES 2014-15) CIRCULAR NO. 5, DATED 17-7-2014

1. Attention of Authorised Dealer Category-I (AD Category-I) banks is invited to the guidelines regarding the Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS) for Resident Individuals (the Scheme).

2. It was decided vide A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 138 dated June 3, 2014, to increase the limit to USD 125,000 per financial year (April-March) from USD 75,000. Accordingly, AD Category –I banks have been allowed to remit up to USD 125,000 per financial year, under the Scheme, for any permitted current or capital account transaction or a combination of both. Further, it is clarified that the Scheme can now be used for acquisition of immovable property outside India.

3. All other terms and conditions mentioned in A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 64, dated February 4, 2004, A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 24 dated December 20, 2006, A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.51 dated May 8, 2007, A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.36 dated April 4, 2008, A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.17 and 18 both dated September 16, 2011, A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.106 dated May 23, 2013, A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.24 dated August 14, 2013 and A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 138 dated June 3, 2014, shall remain unchanged.

4. Reserve Bank has since amended the Principal Regulations through the Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Account Transaction) (Amendment) Regulations, 2014 notified vide Notification No. FEMA 311/2014-RB dated June 24, 2014 c.f. G.S.R. No. 488 (E) dated July 11, 2014.

5. AD-Category I banks may bring the contents of this circular to the notice of their constituents and customers concerned.

6. The directions contained in this Circular have been issued under Section 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1992 (42 of 1999) and are without prejudice to permissions/approvals, if any, required under any other law.

Please follow and like us: