SEBI tweaks rules for IPOs, buybacks and takeovers

by | posted in: Company Incorporations, e-filing of MCA Returns, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs | 0
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Thursday eased several rules relating to Initial Public Offers (IPO), rights issues, buybacks and takeovers. The regulator’s board approved these changes as also those relating tenures of managing directors of market intermediaries. The capital markets watchdog reduced the time for announcing the price band of initial […]
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Thursday eased several rules relating to Initial Public Offers (IPO), rights issues, buybacks and takeovers.

The regulator’s board approved these changes as also those relating tenures of managing directors of market intermediaries. The capital markets watchdog reduced the time for announcing the price band of initial public offers (IPO) from five working days before the opening of the issue to two working days. This will give companies more time to fix the price band.

 

Companies now need to provide investors with financial disclosures — for public issues and rights issues — for only three years. Currently, information is provided in the offer documents for five years. Also, companies need to provide only consolidated audited financial disclosures in the IPO offer document; audited standalone financials of the issuer and subsidiaries must be disclosed on the company website.

 

Following a board meeting on Thursday, the capital markets regulator tweaked the buyback norms. The buyback period has been defined as the time between the board resolution or the date of declaration of results for a special resolution authorizing the buyback of shares and the day on which the shares are paid.

Also, Sebi has amended the takeover rules. It has given companies additional time to revise the open offer price upwards till one working day before the start the tendering period.

 

The Sebi board also approved some recommendations of R Gandhi committee on regulations relating to market infrastructure institutions (MIIs). For rights issues the threshold for submission of the draft letter of offer to Sebi has been increased to Rs.10 crore as against the earlier prescribed Rs 50 lakh. The regular also tweaked the rules relating to the underwriting of all non-SME public issues. If 90% of the fresh issue of share is subscribed, the underwriting will be restricted to that portion only. Accordingly, the requirement to underwrite 100% of the issue without regard to the minimum subscription requirements has been deleted.

 

Sebi also reduced minimum anchor investor size to Rs 2 crore from the existing Rs 10 crore, for SME issuances. This will allow companies to attract more anchor investors for an issue.

 

The board has permitted eligible domestic and foreign entities to hold up to 15% shareholding in case of Depository and Clearing Corporation. Moreover, multilateral and bilateral financial institutions, as notified by the government, have also been recommended to hold up to 15% in an MII. Moreover, Sebi has decided to limit the tenure of managing directors of an MII for a for a maximum of two terms of up to 5 years each or up to 65 years of age, whichever is earlier. The requirement would also apply to incumbent MDs of MIIs.

 

The regulator is also looking into the issues regarding IPO ICICI Securities in ICIC AMC bought the large stake.The regulator had sought details of a significant investment made by ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund in the IPO of ICICI Securities. “Yes we are looking into that, and we have sought some information from them, and we are yet to get their replies,” Tyagi said.

 

Source: Financial Express

Companies Act Compliance: Consequences of not filing Annual Return

by | posted in: Company Incorporations, e-filing of MCA Returns, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs | 0
Last week, the Parliament cleared a bill to further amend the Companies Act.

The financial statements and annual returns of all company must be filed on time with the ROC / MCA each year. As per Companies Act, 2013, non-filing of annual return is an offence, consequences of which affect the directors, as well as the company.

Hence, it is a must for every company to file with the MCA:

1. The annual return within 60 days of the Annual General Meeting and

2. The Financial Statement, within 30 days of the Annual General Meeting.

The various consequences and the penalties for not filing annual return of a company (Forms MGT-7 & AOC-4) are highlighted here.

A. Consequences – for Directors

The Directors of a company are responsible for ensuring the compliance of the company with all applicable rules and regulations. When a company defaults on compliance or dues payable, the Directors are held responsible for the default. The following are penal consequences for a Director of a company for default of non-filing of the Annual Return.

Director Disqualification

In case a company has not been filed its Annual Return for three continuous financial years, then every person who has been a director or is currently the director of the specific company could be disqualified under the Companies Act, 2013. If a Director is disqualified, his/her DIN would become inactive and the person would not be eligible to be appointed as a Director of any company for a period of five years from the date of disqualification. Further, disqualified Directors would not also be allowed to incorporate another company for a period of five years.

Fine & Imprisonment

A director of the company can be punished if the company has not been filed even after 270 days from the date when the company should have originally filed with additional penalty. Any Director who has defaulted in the filing of annual return of a company can also be penalized with an imprisonment of a term extended up to six months or with a fine of an amount not lesser than fifty thousand rupees and it might extend up to five lakh rupees, or with both imprisonment and fine. However, this provision provided under the Companies Act, 2013 is rarely used.

In addition, if any information filed by a Director or any other person in the annual return is false by any nature or if he/she failed to mention any fact or material that is true can be punished with imprisonment for a term  which is not lesser than six months and which could extend up to 10 years. Further, he/she can also be liable for payment of a fine which is not lesser than the amount subject to the fraud involved and it may extend to an amount three times of the sum concerned with the fraud.

B. Consequences of Default – For Company

The following are some of the penal consequences for a company that has not filed its annual return:

Penalty

Normally, the Government fee for filing or registering any document under the Companies Act required or authorized to be filed with the Registrar is Rs.200. A private limited company would be required to file form MGT-7 and form AOC-4 each year and the government fee applicable if filed on time would be Rs.400. In case of delay in filing of annual return, the penalty as mentioned would be applicable:

The penalty for not filing a company’s annual return (Form MGT-7 and Form AOC-4) is increased to Rs.100 per day w.e.f.July 1, 2018.

Strike-Off

In case the company has not filed its Annual Return for the last two financial years continuously, then such companies would be termed as an “inactive company”. On such a classification, the bank account of the company could be frozen. Further, the Registrar could also issue a notice to the Company and initiate strike-off of the company from the MCA records.

 

In case you need any assistance to file annual return for your company, you can contact us at Director@Sunkrish.com

Shell companies crackdown: Govt removes exemptions from ITR filing

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
The Union Budget 2018-19 has rationalised the I-T Act provision relating to prosecution for failure to furnish returns.

Seeking to crackdown on shell companies, the government has proposed to remove exemption available to firms with tax liability of up to Rs 3,000 from filing I-T returns beginning next fiscal.

The Union Budget 2018-19 has rationalised the I-T Act provision relating to prosecution for failure to furnish returns.

Thus, a managing director or a director in charge of the company during a particular financial year could be liable for prosecution in case of any lapse in filing I-T returns for any financial year beginning April 1.

“The income tax departments would now track investments by these companies. Also, the focus will be on those firms that show less profit and also those who file I-T returns for the first time,” a senior finance ministry official said.

There are around 12 lakh active companies in the country, out of which about 7 lakh are filing their returns, including annual audited report, with the ministry of corporate affairs. Of this, about 3 lakh companies show ‘nil’ income.

The Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act provided that if a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of income, he shall be punishable with imprisonment and fine.

However, no prosecution could be initiated if the tax liability of an assessee does not exceed Rs 3,000.

The government has amended the provision with effect from April 1, 2018 and removed the exemption available to companies.

“In order to prevent abuse of the said proviso by shell companies or by companies holding benami properties, it is proposed to amend the provisions… so as to provide that the said sub-clause shall not apply in respect of a company,” it said.

The official said that as many as 5 lakh are companies not filing returns and they could be a potential source of money laundering. “These could be small firms which are engaged in honest business, but there could be some which are a potential threat. We have to look into the data.”

Nangia & Co Managing Partner Rakesh Nangia said though the amendment has been brought about to prevent abuse by shell companies/benami properties, checks similar to those placed in the law for invoking GAAR, should be in place to avoid genuine hardship.

“Though the taxman may be driven by compulsions to ensure proper tax compliance, care must be taken while taking such action. In most developing countries, prosecution for tax matters is applied only in cases of serious tax frauds and not in general compliance matters,” Nangia said.

The Budget announcement follows the recommendation of the task force on shell companies, which was set up in February last year.

In the government’s fight against black money, shell companies have come to the fore as they are seen as potential for money laundering.

Till the end of December 2017, over 2.26 lakh companies were deregistered by the MCA for various non-compliances and being inactive for long.

Shell companies are characterised by nominal paid-up capital, high reserves and surplus on account of receipt of high share premium, investment in unlisted companies, no dividend income and high cash in hand.

Also, private companies as majority shareholders, low turnover and operating income, nominal expenses, nominal statutory payments and stock in trade, minimum fixed asset are some of the other characteristics.

Since last year, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) — the apex policy making body of the I-T department — has been sharing with the MCA specific information like PAN data of corporates, Income Tax returns (ITRs), audit reports and statement of financial transactions (SFT) received from banks.

 

Source: Times of India

Govt wants early warning system on shell companies

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
Qualified accounts can be flagged on the ministry’s portal, thereby, helping regulators to keep a check on suspicious entities

The ministry of corporate affairs (MCA) says work has begun for an “early warning system” regarding shell companies.

 

The term is used to refer to a company without active business operations or much of assets. This by itself isn’t illegitimate but they could be used as a manoeuvre for financial operations of a suspect or illegitimate nature.

 

Currently, there is no way to check shell companies systemically, an official said. Chartered accountants (CAs) do come out with qualified accounts of such companies but these come in a random way on the ministry’s MCA21 portal. Qualified accounts refer to bits of information about which CAs have doubts or disagreement with the audited entity’s management.

 

After the hoped-for early warning system comes, qualified accounts would be flagged on the ministry’s portal, helping it and other regulators to check on such entities. “We are yet to work out the nitty gritty of this system but are on the job,” another official said.

graphHe said this would do away with the current system of random inspections to identify such companies. The portal will have filings by CAs in such a way that regulators will be alerted, he said.

 

Earlier, minister of state for corporate affairs P P Chaudhary had said the government would try to use the information technology tool of artificial intelligence in this regard.

 

CAs told Business Standard that an early warning system by itself wouldn’t change things by much. There should also be stringent norms to make auditors more independent. One of them said it is a company’s promoters who appoint the auditor, which means the latter does not retain the independence to openly report facts. So, a CA’s appointment would need to move away from promoters.

 

The ministry had recently issued rules to limit the number of subsidiaries a company may have — no more than two layers. This will apply prospectively but existing companies have to disclose details of their entire list of subsidiaries to the registrar of companies within 150 days. Banks and insurance companies are excluded from this rule.

 

With no limit on the number of subsidiaries, regulators found it difficult to track illicit transactions.

 

Source: Business Standard

ITR filing date extended to October 31

by | posted in: Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0

Tax payers who were supposed to file their income tax returns by September 30 now have some more time on their hands. The government has extended the deadline to file income tax returns for such tax payers until October 31.

“The ‘due-date’ for filing Income Tax Returns and various reports of audit prescribed under the Income-tax Act,1961 has been extended from 30th September, 2017 to 31st October, 2017 for all taxpayers who were liable to file their Income Tax Returns by 30th September, 2017,” Ministry of Finance said.

This time tax payers will have to quote their 12-digit Aadhaar number or the 28-digit Aadhaar enrolment number while filing the income tax return.

You will have to keep the Form 16, which you got from their employer handy. If you don’t have it, get it asap. Download the Form 26AS from the Income Tax e-filing website. Form 26AS is a consolidated tax statement which states tax credit statement of all taxes received by the Income Tax Department against your PAN number. You will need it to tally with your Form 16.

Availability of the detail of bank accounts in which the refund is to be credited is a precondition for direct credit of refund in bank accounts. Refund generated on processing of return of income is currently credited directly to the bank accounts of the tax-payers. Non-residents, who are claiming refund but do not have bank accounts in India may furnish details of one foreign accounts in ITR for issuance of refund.

Bank accounts details

A tax payer is also required to disclose his/her bank account number along with the IFSC code. However, dormant accounts which have been in use for the past three years or more need not to be mentioned.

Mandatory disclosure

According to the Income Tax Department now, tax payers have to disclose information of cash deposited in their bank account aggregating to Rs 2 lakh from November 11 to 30 December, 2016.

Ensure that ITR is compliant with amount deposited in bank accounts during the period of demonetisation

Besides that, if any assessee has any unexplained income or investments, he has to report such unexplained income in the new ITR forms and such amount will be taxable at the tax rate of 60 percent plus surcharge and cess.

Tax deductions

  • If you are claiming tax deductions under 80C, you should keep the following details handy:
  • Investment details (eg: LIC, PPF, NSC)
  • Home loan
  • LTA
  • Medical

Consequences of Late filing of Return

According to ClearTax, if there are any taxes which are unpaid, penal interest at 1 per cent per month or part thereof will be charged till the date of payment of taxes .Also Penalty of Rs 5,000 may be charged. The penalty is not levied in all cases and depends upon the circumstances of the case.

For returns of FY 2017-18 and onwards, penalty of Rs 5,000 will be charged for returns filed after due date but before 31st December. If returns are filed after 31st December, a penalty of Rs 10,000 shall apply. However, penalty will be Rs 1,000 for those with income upto Rs 5 lakh.
Who has to file?

Every person whose gross total income exceeds the taxable limit must file an Income Tax Return (ITR)

Who has to file?

Every person whose gross total income exceeds the taxable limit must file an Income Tax Return (ITR)

Who has to e-file?

  • Individuals & HUF having total income exceeding Rs 5 lakh or claiming any refund in the return (excluding individuals of the age of 80 years or more who are furnishing return in Form no. ITR-1 or ITR-2).
  • Individual or HUF, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident, having any foreign asset/income or claiming any foreign tax relief.
  • Persons filing ITR in Form no. 3, 4, 5 or 7.

 

Source: Business Today

 

 

Banks’ auditors under lens: RBI seeks explanation on differences in write-downs

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs | 0
According to RBI data, PSU banks in FY17 have written off Rs 81,683 crore against Rs 2.49 lakh crore in the past five years.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has questioned scores of auditors at 27 public sector banks on the process and logic they had used to compute and report write-downs at the lenders, two people close to the development told ET.

The RBI has sought written explanation on differences in the write-down assessments by its own inspectors and those certified by the auditors. A write-down is a reduction in the estimated and nominal value of an asset, and is charged off as a loss to the profit and loss account for the relevant period. In some cases, the RBI has also questioned the provisioning methodology and non-performing asset (NPA) figures arrived at by the auditors at a few public sector banks, sources told ET.

The banking regulator is examining whether auditors at these state-run lenders followed RBI guidelines on write-downs, provisioning and NPAs. “This is part of RBI’s annual assessment. Auditors will have to explain how they provisioned for NPA and how they calculated write-downs,” said a person aware of the matter.

The write-downs, NPA and provisioning figures arrived at by the auditors and RBI inspectors differ by up to 10%.

WRITE-DOWNS & PROVISIONING
According to RBI data, PSU banks in FY17 have written off Rs 81,683 crore against Rs 2.49 lakh crore in the past five years. In a few cases, the audit reports of some of these lenders do not reflect these write-downs, said one of the persons cited above. Most banks do not separately report write-downs in their accounts, combining them often with quarterly provisioning.

Most Indian public sector banks use more than one auditor due to the enormous size of their balance sheets. Most auditors are mid-to-small Indian firms that audit several branches. The 27 public sector banks collectively employ 115 auditors, according to data analysed by the ET Intelligence Group.

According to the people in the know, auditors at State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, Allahabad Bank and Bank of India (BoI) were sent the show-cause notices about two weeks ago.

ET’s detailed email queries to the regulator and the affected lenders – SBI, PNB, BoB, IDBI, Indian Overseas Bank, Canara Bank, BoI, Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) and Allahabad Bank – did not elicit any response.

REGULATOR HAS PRIVILEGED ACCESS’
According to a major bank’s auditor who did not wish to be identified, the differences are not unexpected. “The RBI has access to information an auditor may not. Like, if a loan in bank X has gone toxic, the auditor of bank Y may not know, but the RBI would,” he said. He added that there is a time lapse between auditors preparing an account and the RBI conducting inspections. “What you must look at is the impact on the P&L of a bank due to divergence. In most cases, that is not much,” he said.

To be sure, there may have been ‘technical’ errors in interpreting the writedown rules, resulting in the differences. “There is a direct impact of the new accounting standards on the way write-downs are arrived at,” said a senior executive at a top audit firm. “Under the old accounting system, the rules around write-downs were not as precise, and there is a possibility that some auditors may have ignored this.”

Source: Economic Times