Confidence Petroleum bags contract worth Rs 42-cr from PSUs
The company has received contracts from Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (HPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL).
The contracts include assistance for bottling 3 lakh cylinders for BPCL at Kollam and 1.2 lakh cylinders for HPCL at Trivandrum, both with a contract duration of 10 years. Additionally, the company will assist in bottling 90,000 cylinders for IOCL at Murbad over a three-year term.
The company said that it has already participated in the tender issued by IOCL for Sarangpur and has been shortlisted for the same. The Letter of Intent (LOI) is expected to be issued shortly, confirming the allocation.
Confidence Petroleum India is a fully integrated LPG & CNG company. Its segments include LPG Cylinder Manufacturing and auto LPG and CNG dispensing stations.
The companys consolidated net profit surged 129.61% to Rs 22.80 crore on 46.67% jump in revenue from operations to Rs 924.81 crore in Q4 FY25 over Q4 FY24.
The counter declined 9.35% to Rs 50.59 on the BSE.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Tax woes for joint holders: Flawed reporting rules kindle reassessment fears
In India, it is common practice to have all assets and investments, and even bank accounts, in joint names with a spouse or child. This makes it convenient to transfer the asset or investment to the spouse or child or encashed in the event of the demise of the original investor, who would normally be the first holder of the asset or investment. However, dark clouds are now hovering over such joint holders, thanks to the systems and procedures of the Income Tax department. Every mutual fund is required to file an annual statement of financial transactions (SFT) with the Income Tax department, reflecting the names of persons who have acquired units of ₹10 lakh or more during the year. Also Read: Can AI manage your stock portfolio? Zerodha users are trying Similarly, reporting is required by every company issuing bonds or debentures or shares of ₹10 lakh or more to a person, every listed company buying back shares of ₹10 lakh or more from a person, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar of Assurances in respect of transactions of purchase of immovable property of ₹30 lakh or more, are required to report such transactions in the SFT. These transactions are then collated PAN-wise by the department and reflected in the investors', purchasers or sellers' PAN. Unfortunately, the rules provide that where a transaction is recorded in the name of more than one person, the aggregate amount of the transaction has to be reported for all the persons, i.e., not only the first holder but also the joint holders. Therefore, three years ago, many joint holders received emails from the Income Tax department showing such transactions in their names and asking them to confirm or deny such transactions. Given the fact that the transactions were those of the first holder and not their own, and were large and often disproportionate to the joint holders' own incomes, almost all joint holders replied online to reject the information. The online dropdown menu provided only 5 options as the response: Information is correct, Source is receipt of gift which is not taxable, Information is not fully correct, Information relates to other PAN/Year, and Information is duplicate/included in other information. The most appropriate one being—Information relates to Other PAN, which was selected, giving the PAN of the first holder as the one to whom the investment belonged. Also Read: Things you must know if you are thinking of getting a bank locker After 3 years, such joint holders have now received emails from the Income Tax department stating that their feedback has been rejected by the source. The feedback received from the joint holders was sent to the respective mutual fund, Registrar, company, etc, which had filed the SFT, and they were asked whether the feedback was correct. Given the manner in which the rules require reporting of the same transaction as that of each holder, including each joint holder, the mutual fund, etc., had no choice but to report the feedback as incorrect. The concern that all these joint holders would now have is that their assessments for those years may be threatened with reassessment by the tax authorities, a long and tiresome process. A similar thing has happened in the past in relation to joint holders of non-resident Indian (NRI) bank deposits (see Mint article, 9 May 2023). Reassessment proceedings will result in unnecessary wastage of time for both taxpayers and tax officials, all thanks to a defective process and system. Besides, taxpayers would have to pay tax professionals to represent them in such proceedings. And at the end of it all, what would be achieved? Nothing, besides the dropping of the reassessment proceedings. A sheer waste of valuable resources without any benefit to anyone. Why can the tax systems not be built with greater care to deal with such common situations? It is well known that joint holding is a very common phenomenon in India. Could there not have been an item in the drop-down menu, 'Joint holder for convenience", and asking for the PAN of the actual investor? That would have resolved all these problems, even if the rule required the mutual fund to provide the names of all joint holders against the investment. Also Read: DSP MF breaks new ground with India's first retail offshore fund from GIFT City The fallout of such e-mails has been that mutual fund compliance officers have been inundated with protests from joint holders about how they could have stated that the feedback is incorrect. The officers have to explain to irate investors that they have not made a mistake—the problem lies with the defective rules and systems of the tax department. Meanwhile, joint holders wait with bated breath for the next round of attacks on them from the tax department. Gautam Nayak is a partner at CNK & Associates LLP. Views are personal
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Not under investigations, matter relates to India Cements: UltraTech on CCI direction
NEW DELHI: The country's leading cement maker UltraTech, on Saturday said it is not under investigation by the fair trade regulator CCI over alleged contravention of competition norms in tenders floated by state-run oil major ONGC. "It is clarified that the Company is not under investigation in this Case No. 35 of 2020 before the Competition Commission of India ("CCI"). The company has neither received any order from the CCI in this case nor have the company's financials been sought by the CCI," said the Aditya Birla group flagship firm in a BSE filing. It further said that its newly acquired entity India Cements Ltd (ICEM) is a party in case No 35 of 2020 and the South-India-based manufacturer is exploring legal options over the same. "The India Cements Ltd (ICL), a subsidiary of the Company, is party to Case No. 35 of 2020 and is separately making appropriate disclosures in this regard, while exploring legal options," it said. India Cements, which was earlier promoted by the Srinivasan family, was acquired by UltraTech in December 2024. It had acquired a 32.72 per cent stake from promoters and promoter group entities, along with a 22.77 per cent stake from the market of the Tamil Nadu-based company. Meanwhile, in a separate filing on Saturday, India Cements said it is "yet to receive a full version of the investigation report of the Director General, under the Competition Act, 2002". It is currently assessing its legal options and "there is no finding by the CCI at this stage against ICEM and no financial penalty has been levied". Earlier, in May this year, CCI had directed India Cements, along with Dalmia Bharat Cements and Shree Digvijay Cements and their executives to submit financial documents, after its Director General in its investigations found contravention of competition norms. The CCI direction came over a complaint filed by ONGC alleging cartelisation in its tender. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has also directed to submit their audited financial statement, including balance sheet and profit and loss account, within eight weeks of the order. Besides, CCI has also directed their executives to submit detailed financials and income tax records for five years, along with formal responses to the investigation report. On Friday, Dalmia Bharat, in a regulatory filing, said CCI is yet to hear in the matter or pass any formal order. "DCBL remains committed to full regulatory compliance and is cooperating with the authorities," it said. The CCI direction came over a complaint filed by ONGC alleging cartelisation in its tenders. Following this, the fair trade regulator had on November 18, 2020, directed its probe unit Director General to look into the issue. The DG had submitted the report of its investigation on February 18, 2025, in which found contraventions of the competition regulations. It had found that India Cements, along with Shree Digvijay Cement and Dalmia Cement, with a middleman named Umakant Agarwal, engaged in anti-competitive collusion. Later, CCI on May 26, 2025, considered the investigation report and in a four-page order also directed the cement manufacturer to submit income derived from sales to alleged contraventions by the PSU. The CCI notice also mentioned if there is non-furnishing of the financial details or incomplete/false information, within the time frame by the companies, then they would be liable under section 45 of the Act.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Gold prices may be volatile as Trump's tariff deadline approaches: Analysts
Gold prices may see heightened volatility in the coming week as investors track a crucial July 9 tariff deadline, policy signals from major central banks, including the US Federal Reserve, and key global macroeconomic data, analysts said. "These factors could influence the near-term trajectory of gold prices," analysts said, adding that traders are expected to remain cautious ahead of any major policy cues or geopolitical developments. The 90-day suspension of Trump tariffs on imports from several countries, including India, ends on July 9, reviving the risk of a 26 per cent additional duty on Indian goods entering the US. "Going ahead, the focus will be on the interest rate cuts by key central banks, especially US Fed Reserve, the outcome of trade negotiation between US and its trading partners, incoming global economic data, which could impact the near-term gold prices," Pranav Mer, Vice President, EBG, Commodity & Currency Research at JM Financial Services Ltd, said. Investors will also closely monitor the release of the US Fed's FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) meeting minutes. Last week, the precious metal futures for August delivery rose Rs 1,563, or 1.61 per cent, on the Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX). N S Ramaswamy, Head of Commodities Desk and CRM at Ventura, said gold prices in the international market, currently at USD 3,345 per ounce, could remain under selling pressure due to the solid US macroeconomic data that dented hopes of a July interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve. Despite some corrective rallies, Ramaswamy stated that "the short-term outlook favours consolidation and corrective upward movements, followed by a likely continuation of the broader downward trend". Ramaswamy, however, said fiscal deficit worries in the US and impending Trump tariffs decision could trigger fresh volatility and lift demand for the yellow metal. Central banks added a net 20 tonnes of gold to global gold reserves in May, he said. Prathamesh Mallya, DVP, Research, Non-Agri Commodities and Currencies at Angel One, said gold prices continue to be supported by a weakening US dollar and ongoing geopolitical concerns. "Dollar weakness has been a key part of gold prices rising in 2024 as well as in 2025. This trend will continue for the rest of the year," Mallya said. Meanwhile, JM Financial's Pranav Mer also pointed to persistent central bank purchases, and increased retail and institutional investments via ETFs as factors bolstering the long-term bullish case for gold prices.
