COMMITTED FOR THE GROWTH OF BUDDING PROFESSIONALS
Wednesday, 31 December 2014
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2015
Dear All,
New Year 2015
May u all cash every moment of
it....
Tuesday, 30 December 2014
Advertisement expense cannot be disallowed merely because same were exorbitant
CIT Vs. Discovery Communication India (Delhi High Court ), ITA 1297/2010, Date of Decision: 24.11.2014
Advertisement expenditure was incurred
in terms of the license agreement granting the distribution rights to
the assessee by the associated enterprise, Discovery Asia Inc. Under
this agreement, the respondent assessee had procured right to
distribute the signals of Discovery Channel and Animal Planet Channel and right to collect revenue arising or generated from distribution. Accordingly,
the assessee had received subscription revenue of Rs 23.46 crores, Rs.
37.49 crores and Rs. 39.89 crores from the cable operators in the three
assessment years. The agreement mandated and required that the assessee
to develop and expand viewership of the Discovery Channel and Animal
Planet Channel, which had started with a status of a “free to air channel” and made transition to a “pay channel”. Increased viewership obviously meant increased subscription revenue and earnings.
It was manifest and self-evident that the assessee would have
undertaken publicity, advertisement and incurred expenditure on
increasing awareness and greater market retention, penetration and
expansion. Thus, the finding of the appellate authorities was that
advertisement expenditure was related to and had direct nexus with the licence agreement for distributorship and subscription fee collection.
There was a separate agreement between
the respondentassessee and associate enterprises under which the
assessee had acted as an advertisement sale representative. As an
advertisement sale representative, the assessee was entitled to 15% of
the gross receipts as its income for the services rendered and performed
by them. The balance 85% was transferred to the associated enterprise
abroad.
The Assessing Officer‟s enigmatic and
equivocal pronouncement that the entire advertisement revenue should
have been retained as income is mere an incantation. The programmes were
prepared and aired in India by the foreign associate enterprise, which
had incurred expenditure or paid for the software and airing them. The
finding that the entire or 100% expenditure on advertisement expenses
were incurred for higher and increased advertisement revenue, is
fanciful and reflects a spirit of creativity than realism. Unintendedly,
the Assessing officer, as noticed below, impeached and transgressed
into the domain of international transaction price fixation, without
realising that the Transfer Pricing officer had accepted the price. The
Assessing Officer, as noticed below under section 37(1) of the Act,
cannot go into the question of reasonableness of advertisement or any
other expense.
The Assessing Officer, thus,
fallaciously and wrongly held that the entire expenditure, on
advertisement, incurred by the assessee related only to the
advertisement sales commission or receipt and was not incurred to
increase subscription fee by promoting the two channels.
Noticeable, the entire subscription fee was retained by the assessee
and nothing was repatriated or paid to the associated enterprises
abroad.
Section 37 (1) of the Act.
Under Section 37(1) of the Act any
expenditure not being in the nature of expenditure described in Sections
30 to 36 of the Act, has to be allowed as a deduction in computing
income chargeable under the head “Profit and Gains from Business and
Profession”, if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) it is not
capital expenditure; (b) it is not personal expenditure; and (c) it
should be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
The first two conditions are negative in
nature, while the third condition or requirement is positive. It is not
the case of the Revenue that the expenditure on advertisement was
capital or personal in nature. The expression „expenditure‟denotes idea
of spending or paying out. It is not the case of the Revenue that the
expenditure was not incurred or was not genuine, but fictious. 10.2. The
question raised is whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively
for the purpose of assessee‟s business. The words „wholly and
exclusively‟though not synonymous, and are sufficiently wide, but are
not restricted to expenditure solely incurred for the purpose of earning
of profits. For an amount spent as an admissible expenditure under
Section 37(1), the same should be for the purpose of business and not
for the purpose of earning income. (see Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) and CIT vs. Birla Spinning and Weavings Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC). In CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 (SC), it has been observed :
“The expression
“for the purpose of the business” is wider in scope than the expression
“for the purpose of earning profits”. Its range is wide : it may take in
not only the day to day running of a business but also the
rationalization of its administration and modernization of its
machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business
and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation,
coercive process or assertion of hostile title; it may also comprehend
payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to
commence or for carrying on of a business; it may comprehend many other
acts incidental to the carrying on of a business.”
Thus, any expenditure which is laid down
for business which in the present case consisted of distribution of
channels and earning of subscription revenue, advertisement agency
commission etc. would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of
business and allowable.
Whether an expenditure was wholly and
exclusively incurred or laid out for the purpose of business of
profession, must be determined from the angle and as per the assessee s
perspective and choice. It is subjective. What one assessee may want to
incur, another may not like to incur the same or similar expenditure.
The quantum may also differ and vary. Section 37(1) does not curtail or
prevent an assessee from incurring an expenditure which he feels and
wants to incur for the purpose of business. Expenditure incurred may be
direct or may even indirectly benefit the business in form of increased
turnover, better profit, growth etc. As long as the expenditure incurred
is “wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of business, the Assessing
Officer cannot by applying of his own mind, disallow whole or a part of
the expenditure. The Assessing Officer cannot question the
reasonableness by putting himself in the arm-chair of the businessman
and assume status or character of the assessee. However, exception can
be created by a statutory provision like Section 40A(2), when the
revenue as per the statutory mandate may have jurisdiction to examine
the issue of price/consideration. For incurring advertisement
expenditure, in the relevant years, there were no statutory
stipulations.
When expenditure is incurred for
assessee‟s own business, the mere fact that the expenditure would inure
or benefits a third party or the third party incidentally obtains some
advantage, would not affect or distract from the finding that the
expenditure was wholly and exclusively was for assessee‟s business. For
example, a retail trader may advertise
different products which may incidentally benefit the manufacturers,
but this does not mean that advertisement expenditure fails to meet the
requirement of “wholly and exclusively”. Law in this regard is well
settled. Relevant would be to refer to authoritative pronouncement of
the Supreme Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad, [1960] 38 ITR 601, observing: -
“In deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible
expenditure one has to take into consideration questions of commercial
expediency and the principles of ordinary commercial trading. If the
payment or expenditure is incurred for the purpose of the trade of the
assessee it does not matter that the payment may inure to the benefit of
a third party (Usher’s Wiltshire Brewery Ltd. v. Bruce [6 Tax Cas 399].
Another test is whether the transaction is properly entered into as a
part of the assessee’s legitimate commercial undertaking in order to
facilitate the carrying on of its business; and it is immaterial that a
third party also benefits thereby (Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
[(1951)SCR594]. But in every case it is a question of fact whether the
expenditure was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade
or business of the assessee. In the present case the finding is that it
was laid out for the purpose of the assessee’s business and there is
evidence to support this finding.”
In CIT v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club, [1961] 41 ITR 414, Supreme court followed the earlier judgment in Chandulal Keshavlal(supra) to hold : -
“The question as
to whether the expenses of running the school for jockeys is deductible
has to be decided taking into consideration the circumstances of this
case. The business of the respondent was to run race meetings on a
commercial scale for which it is necessary to have races of as high an
order as possible. For the popularity of the races run by the respondent
and to make its business profitable it was necessary that there were
jockeys of requisite skill and experience in sufficient numbers who
would be available to the owners and trainers because without such
efficient jockeys the running of race meetings would not be commercially
profitable. It was for this purpose that the respondent started the
school for training Indian jockeys Therefore any expenditure which was
incurred for preventing the extinction of the respondent’s business
would, in our opinion, be expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out
for the purpose of the business of the assessee and would be an
allowable deduction. This finds support from decided cases. In CIT v.
Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [(1951) SCR 594 ] this Court held that in
order to justify a deduction the disbursement must be for reasons of
commercial expediency; it may be voluntary but incurred for the
assessee’s business; and if the expense is incurred for the purpose of
the business of the assessee it does not matter that the payment also
enures to the benefit of a third party.”
In Sassoon J. David and Co Pvt Ltd, Bombay v. CIT, Bombay, (1979) 3 SCC 524, the Supreme Court has held: -
“21. The
next contention urged on behalf of the Department was that since Davids
and Tatas were indirectly benefited by the retrenchment of the services
of the employees of the Company and payment of compensation to them and
since there was no necessity to retrench the services of all the
employees, the expenditure in question could not be treated as an
expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes of the
Company. It has to be observed here that the expression “wholly and
exclusively” used in Section 1 0(2)(xv) of the Act does not mean
“necessarily”. Ordinarily it is for the assessee to decide whether any
expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business.
Such expenditure may be incurred voluntarily and without any necessity
and if it is incurred for promoting the business and to earn profits,
the assessee can claim deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act even
though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. It
is relevant to refer at this stage to the legislative history of Section
37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which corresponds to Section 1 0(2)(xv)
of the Act. An attempt was made in the Income Tax Bill of 1961 to lay
down the „necessity‟ of the expenditure as a
condition for claiming deduction under Section 37. Section 37(1) in the
Bill read “any expenditure … laid out or expended wholly, necessarily
and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be
allowed ….” The introduction of the word “necessarily” in the above
section resulted in public protest. Consequently when Section 37 was
finally enacted into law, the word „necessarily‟
came to be dropped. The fact that somebody other than the assessee is
also benefited by the expenditure should not come in the way of an
expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of
the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by law.”
As per the findings recorded by the
Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the respondent
assessee was engaged in the business of distribution of television
channels and had retained 100% of the subscription As per the agreement
between the respondent assessee and the associated enterprise, it was
the obligation and the duty of the respondent assessee to advertise and
promote the channels. Similarly, the assessing was acting as a selling
agent for advertisements to be aired on the channels. It was entitled to
retain 15% of the gross-receipts as income and pass on or transfer 85%
of the gross receipts to the foreign enterprises.
Thus, one of the functions being
performed by the assessee was to advertise and promote the channels and
to earn subscription revenue. Another function was to secure/procure
advertisements. The assessee earned 15% commission for the last
mentioned function. The assessee was earning revenue in view of the said
functions being performed. Expenditure incurred on advertisement was
clearly relateable and laid out for the purpose of business of the
respondent assessee and was not extraneous or unconnected with the same.
Consequently, it could not have been disallowed as was done by the
Assessing Officer on the ground that it was not laid or incurred wholly
or exclusively for the purpose of business.
Wednesday, 24 December 2014
.jpg)
Thursday, 18 December 2014
Union Cabinet approves GST Constitution Amendment Bill
The Union Cabinet, on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 has approved
the Constitutional Amendment Bill on Goods and Services Tax (“GST”),
taking a step towards the rollout of an ambitious Indirect Tax reform to
rationalise Central and State Indirect Taxes into a harmonised GST expecting to
raise revenues and boost growth.
The Government aims to implement GST by April 1, 2016. The Government
hopes to introduce the Bill in the current winter session of the Parliament.
The Bill needs to be approved by a 2/3rd majority of the House.
After this, it needs to be endorsed by at least half of the State Assemblies
(15).
Major points of agreements are as under:
·
The Petroleum products
have been included in GST but will be taxed at zero rate for three years,
implying that States will be able to tax these for that period.
·
Alcohol and Tobacco
would be kept out of GST.
·
Entry tax to be included
in GST, thereby making it a comprehensive tax.
·
The Centre has agreed to
compensate the States for revenue loss for five years. Further, the Centre will
provide full compensation for the first three years and then progressively reduce
it.
·
The States will be
having substantial representation in the proposed GST council, where they will
be having 2/3rd of the voting power.
The stalemate between the Centre and the States was broken after
Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley held a series of meetings over the past few
days with State Finance Ministers to address their concerns including
compensation. He had also announced compensation of Rs. 11,000 crore to make up
for the cut in the Central Sales Tax (CST) rate to 2% from 4% and assured an
additional sum in the coming budget. The issue of CST compensation had been a
key irritant.
The Finance Minister has further said that it would be important
for all stake holders to ensure GST covers all transactions including
petroleum, real estate and electricity in due course, if not immediately. Thus
even if some of the products / services are kept out of GST initially, we may
expect them to be included within the purview of GST in the course of time.
With the expectation that the Bill will now be tabled in the
Parliament in the current winter session, we can hope that GST regime may get
implemented from April 2016.
Wednesday, 17 December 2014
Saturday, 13 December 2014
No clubbing of interest-free loan given by ‘Shahrukh Khan’ to his wife from whom she had purchased assets
IT : 'Shahrukh Khan' gave interest-free loan to his wife, Gauri Khan, who in turn, purchased a residential house and jewellery from said loan amount. The department clubbed the value of loan amount in the net wealth of 'Shahrukh Khan'. Extending cash loan, to wife does not come within the definition of asset as provided under Section 2(ea) of the wealth tax Act, thus, it could not be said that there was a transfer of asset; the impugned loan amount was not includible in net wealth of assessee
Facts:
| (a) | Shahrukh Khan (assessee) gave interest free loan to his wife, Gauri Khan, who, in turn, purchased residential house and jewellery in her name from such loan amount. | |
| (b) | The Assessing Officer ('AO') opined that the loan given by the assessee to his wife would be treated as indirect "transfer of asset" within the meaning of section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act. Accordingly, he clubbed the value of loan amount in the net wealth of the assessee. | |
| (c) | On appeal, the CIT(A) affirmed the view of the AO against which the assessee had filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. |
The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:
| (1) | Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 provides as under: | |
| In computing the net wealth of an individual, there shall be included, the value of any asset which are held by spouse of such individual to whom such assets have been transferred by the individual, directly or indirectly, otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart. | ||
| (2) | Extending cash loan, to wife does not come within the definition of asset as provided under Section 2(ea) of the wealth tax Act, thus, it could not be said that there was a transfer of asset as alleged by the department. | |
| (3) | The instant case was not of tax avoidance as in the instant case assessee gave the loan to his wife and the same was duly declared. There is distinction between the term "transfer" and "loan". In act of transfer, some legal interest is created in the transferee over the subject matter of transfer, whereas in case of lending, except a possessory interest, which may be momentary also, no other interest is created. | |
| (4) | In the instant case, the wife of assessee was having independent source of income, filing her return and even subsequently repaid part of the loan. Therefore, there was no "transfer of asset" or "colourable device", as assessee was not the owner of "any asset" which was transferred to the wife, rather a new property was purchased from a third party out of the interest free cash loan taken by the wife from her husband. | |
| (5) | The CIT(A) had opined that it amounts to indirect transfer of asset within meaning of Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act. This angle of CIT(A) was on weak footing as in the instant case there was no transfer of asset rather interest-free loan was given by the assessee to his wife. | |
| (6) | Thus, the impugned loan amount was not includible in wealth of assessee. Accordingly the order of CIT(A) was to be reversed. |
Thursday, 11 December 2014
Electronic Mode of Payment- Who required to Pay Taxes online
Income Tax Rules provide that the following persons shall pay tax electronically (i.e. internet banking facility or through credit/debit cards) on or after the 1st day of August, 2008:
i. A company; and
ii. A person (other than a company), to whom the provisions of section 44AB of the Income-Tax Act 1961 are applicable.
As per the report of Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC):
i. With effect from 01.10.2014, it is mandatory for all Central Excise assesses and service provider/tax payer to electronically pay duty through internet banking.
ii. E-payment of duty is mandatory for Accredited Clients Programme (ACP) importers paying duty of ₹ 1.00 lakh or more per Bill of Entry.
Further, Government in August 2011 had asked Public Sector Banks (PSBs), FinancialInstitutions (Fls) and Public Sector Insurance Companies (PSICs) to deal with payments to staff, vendors, suppliers and disbursement of loans and payments towards instalments and investments only through direct credit to accounts.
This was stated by Shri Jayant Sinha, MoS in the Ministry of Finance in written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha.
Sunday, 30 November 2014
Income Tax Returns need not be disclosed under RTI - HC
A person who is said to be an informer of the Income Tax Department sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 information and all the records available with the Income tax department in respect of nine assessees.
The CIC allowed the appeal and directed the PIO to provide inspection of the records and also other information sought for.
The assessees whose records have been sought for, are in writ before the Delhi High Court.
The High Court observed,
The income tax returns filed by an assessee and further information that is provided during the assessment proceedings may also include confidential information relating to the business or the affairs of an assessee. An assessee is expected to truly and fairly disclose particulars relevant for the purposes of assessment of income tax. The nature of the disclosure required is not limited only to information that has been placed by an assessee in public domain but would also include information which an assessee may consider confidential. As a matter of illustration, one may consider a case of a manufacturer who manufactures and deals in multiple products for supplies to different agencies. In the normal course, an Assessing Officer would require an assessee to disclose profit margins on sales of such products. Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party.Assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings where assessee has to produce material to substantiate their return of income. Income tax has to be assessed by the income tax authorities strictly in accordance with the Income Tax Act, 1961 and based on the information sought by them. In the present case, the respondent wants to process the information to assist and support the role of an Assessing Officer. This has a propensity of interfering in the assessment proceedings and thus, cannot be considered to be in larger public interest. The CIC had proceeded on the basis that the income tax authorities should disclose information to informers of income tax departments to enable them to bring instances of tax evasion to the notice of income tax authorities. This reasoning is flawed as it would tend to subvert the assessment process rather than aid it. If this idea is carried to its logical end, it would enable several busy bodies to interfere in assessment proceedings and throw up their interpretation of law and facts as to how an assessment ought to be carried out. The propensity of this to multiply litigation cannot be underestimated. Further, the proposition that unrelated parties could intervene in assessment proceedings is wholly alien to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income tax returns and information are provided in aid of the proceedings that are conducted under that Act and there is no scope for enhancing or providing for an additional dimension to the assessment proceedings.
The High Court held that the information furnished by an assesse can be disclosed only where it is necessary to do in public interest and where such interest outweighs in importance, any possible harm or injury to the assesse or any other third party. However, information furnished by corporate assessees that neither relates to another party nor is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, can be disclosed.
Sunday, 23 November 2014
CONTROVERSY RELATING TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF PUJA EXPENSES UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT
INTRODUCTION
In India, people have immense faith in God and thus some amount of money is always deployed by people for Him. People, on regular basis, expend certain amount of money in performing different types of puja. These expenses are debited while preparing the Profit and loss account of the business concern of a person. But whether the same is allowed as deduction while computing the total income of the assessee for the Income Tax purpose? This question has always been in controversy and various judgements have been pronounced, both in favour and against the view that the expenses incurred in relation to the any puja can be claimed as deduction under the Income Tax Act.
EXPENSES ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT
In Income Tax Act, a person can claim the deduction of an expense from the income derived from business and profession. The expenses which are incurred for the business purpose are only allowed as deduction u/s 30 to 44 DB of the I.T.Act, 1961. Not all but specific expenses are only allowed as deduction as business expenses in the Income Tax. However, there is a residuary section, sec 37(1), under which the expenses not covered under the specific sections 30 to 36, the deduction for those expenses can be claimed under this section provided certain other conditions are fulfilled.
As per sec. 37(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”.
Thus, for claiming the deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act following conditions are to be fulfilled:
· Such expenditure should not be covered under the specific sections i.e. sections 30 to 36
· The expenditure should not be of capital nature
· The expenditure should be incurred during the previous year
· The expenditure should not be of personal nature
· The expenditure should have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession
· The business should be commenced.
The expenses incurred by the assessee in relation to any puja performed especially during the inauguration of the new office and at the time of Diwali Pujan do not fall under any specific Sec of the I.T.Act where the deduction of the same can be claimed. But, the same can be claimed as deduction under the residuary sec 37(1) of the Act provided the abovementioned conditions are fulfilled.
ADVERSE VIEW
However, various courts have taken a contrary view and have upheld disallowance of expenses relating to any puja treating them either as a personal expense of the director of the company and not the business expenditure. The High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sanghameshwar Coffee Estates Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 203 and the Bombay High Court in the case of Kolhapur Sugar Mill Ltd. [1979] 119 ITR 387 has held that pooja is performed by the followers of a particular religion or faith. A company, which is only a juristic person, cannot claim to profess, practice, or follow any religion or faith. It was held that a company, which is a creation by legal fiction and not a real person made up of flesh and blood, cannot profess any religion and therefore, performance of pooja cannot be said to be the need of business.
However, the High Courts in the above cases did not consider the fact that any expenditure incurred by the director for or on behalf of the company has to be treated as a business expense. The pooja performed would motivate the employees and workers to contribute to the development and progress of the business of the company.
FAVOURABLE VIEW
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. [1982] 134 ITR 458 has held that “no curbs can be placed on the discretion of the assessee to provide the type of recreation, which, according to it, would best advance the interest of the business. If the recreation provided, even if it is in the nature of the religious activity, has direct nexus with the welfare of a class of workers engaged by the assessee, it is wholly immaterial if the recreation provided is directly or indirectly connected with the religious tenets of a section of the society”.
Reliance can be placed in the case of Brijramandas and Sons [1983] 142 ITR 509 wherein the Allahabad High Court has held that Ganeshjiki Pooja expenses, which Hindu traders do in a customary way at the time of Mahurat or opening of their account books on the auspicious occasion of Diwali, are to be treated as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business and is therefore allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
AMBIGUOUS CBDT CIRCULAR
CBDT in its Circular no. 13/A/20/68-IT(A-II) dated 3.10.1968 has stated that as the expenses incurred on the occasion of Diwali and mahurat are in the nature of business expenditure, it has been decided not to lay down any monetary limits for the purpose of their allowance in the income-tax assessments subject to the Income-tax Officer being satisfied that the expenses are admissible as a deduction under the law and are not expenses of a personal, social or religious nature.
CONCLUSION
In our opinion, puja expenses incurred by the assessees are not personal expenses and are incurred wholly and exclusively for the business and should be allowed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Judiciary has taken different views on different occasions and CBDT circular has confounded the problem by giving the discretion to the assessing officer in the matter.
Thus, one has to wait for the authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court in the matter to clinch the issue. It is better that the business associations/ chambers of commerce can request the CBDT to unambiguously clarify the allowability of the same. After all, people’s faith in the providence to bring prosperity through business has inextricable linkage with the business of the assessee and as rightly held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, puja is a sort of recreation provided to the employees.
|
Company Secretary to act as compliance officer: SEBI
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 21:
Market regulator SEBI has mandated the appointment of Company Secretary as compliance officer for the purpose of the newly-framed listing regulations.
“This is a welcome move by SEBI as it will strengthen the compliance ecosystem in listed companies,” SN Ananthasubramannian, former President of the Company Secretaries Institute, said.
Besides fixing responsibility of compliance of listing regulations on the Company Secretary, the secretarial audit report requiring verification and reporting compliance/non-compliance of listing regulations by practicing Company Secretaries under the Company Law, will over time, facilitate better regulatory oversight and enhance improved compliance, he said.
The latest SEBI requirement widens the area of responsibilities of a Company Secretary and makes him solely responsible for compliance of listing regulations, according to capital market observers.
(This article was published on November 21, 2014)
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
IMPORTANT E-MAIL IDS OF DEALING OFFICIALS FOR STUDENT RELATED QUERIES
IMPORTANT E-MAIL IDS OF DEALING OFFICIALS FOR STUDENT RELATED QUERIES
S.NO. TYPE OF QUERY E-MAIL ID OF THE CONCERNED OFFICIAL
1 REGISTRATION LETTER AND IDENTITY CARD ankur.aggarwal@icsi.edu
2 NON-RECEIPT OF STUDY MATERIALS
(Foundation/ Executive/Professional) anju.gupta@icsi.edu /store@icsi.edu
3 PAPER-WISE EXEMPTION/ SWITCHOVER TO
NEW SYLLABUS dd.garg@icsi.edu
4 NON-RECEIPT OF STUDENT COMPANY SECRETARY/
FOUNDATION COURSE BULLETIN ankur.aggarwal@icsi.edu
5 CHANGE OF ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID, PHONE NUMBER
AND OTHER PARTICULARS ankur.aggarwal@icsi.edu
6 CLASS ROOM TEACHING surya.mishra@icsi.edu
7 COMPUTER TRAINING vinny.mehta@icsi.edu
8 ADMIT CARD/ ROLL NUMBER FOR EXAMINATIONS enroll@icsi.edu
9 ISSUE OF PASS CERTIFICATES siyaram@icsi.edu
10 ISSUE OF TRANSCRIPTS siyaram@icsi.edu
11 EXEMPTION FROM TRAINING hema@icsi.edu
12 ANY MANAGEMENT TRAINING / APPRENTICESHIP monika.arora@icsi.edu/
13 TRAINING RELATED QUERY shrutib.gupta@icsi.edu
14 15 DAYS' SPECIALISED TRAINING nidhi@icsi.edu
15 STATUS OF ACS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION Yogesh.singh@icsi.edu
16 NON-RECEIPT OF MEMBERSHIP NUMBER meenakshi.gupta@icsi.edu
17 OUT OF STOCK POSITION OF STUDY MATERIALS store@icsi.edu
18 REFUND OF FOUNDATION/ EXECUTIVE/
PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION FEE dinesh.kumar@icsi.edu
19 REFUND OF FOUNDATION / EXECUTIVE REGISTRATION FEE shalini@icsi.edu
20 REFUND OF PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME REGISTRATION FEE dd.garg@icsi.edu
21 MARK SHEETS exam@icsi.edu
22 VERIFICATION OF MARKS exam@icsi.edu
23 VERIFICATION OF STUDENT QUALIFICATION siyaram@icsi.edu
24 MERIT-CUM-MEANS ASSISTANCE & MERIT SCHOLARSHIPS exam@icsi.edu
25 ICSI STUDENT EDUCATION FUND TRUST surya.mishra@icsi.edu
26 ENROLLMENT TO PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME dd.garg@icsi.edu
27 TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AT THE WEBSITE info@icsi.edu
28 REGISTRATION DENOVO/ EXTENSION dd.garg@icsi.edu
29 CHANGE OF ELECTIVE SUBJECT dd.garg@icsi.edu
30 ANY OTHER QUERY (SPECIFY) surya.mishra@icsi.edu
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
WISH ALL YOU HAPPY DIWALI
May This Diwali be as bright
as ever.
May this Diwali bring joy,
health and wealth to you.
May the festival of lights
brighten up you and your near
and dear ones lives.
May this Diwali bring in u the
most brightest and choicest
happiness and love you have
ever Wished for.
May this Diwali bring you the
utmost in peace and
prosperity.
May lights triumph over
darkness.
May peace transcend the earth.
May the spirit of light
illuminate the world.
May the light that we
celebrate at Diwali show us
the way and lead us together
on the path of peace and
social harmony
Monday, 1 September 2014
MCA LATEST CIRCULARS
MCA has abolished concept of maximum useful life of asset; allows flexible life supported by technical advice.
*************
Saturday, 30 August 2014
Combined List of Applicable Sections and Rules of ‘Companies Act, 2013′ & ‘Companies Act, 1956′
Combined List of Applicable Sections and Rules of ‘Companies
Act, 2013′ & ‘Companies Act, 1956′
Applicable Section of ‘The Companies Act, 2013′
Section
2 Clauses (1) to (28), (29)[ except sub-clause (iv) ] , (30) to (40) , (41)
[except first proviso], (42) to (66), (67)[except sub-clause (ix) , (68) to
(95); Sections 3, to 6, 7 (except sub-section (7), 8 (except sub-
section (9), 9 to 13,
14 (except second proviso to sub section (1) and sub- section (2)), 15 to 47,
49 to 54, 55 except sub-section (3) , 56 to 60, 61 except proviso to clause (b)
of sub-section (1), 62 except sub- sections (4) to (6), 63 to 65, 67 to 70, 71
except sub- section (9) to (11), 72 , 73, Sub-section (1) of 74, 76 to 96 ,100
to 118, 119 (except sub-section (4)), 120 to 123, 126 to 129, 133 to 139, 140
[except second proviso to sub-section (4) and sub-section (5), 141 to 168, 169
except sub-section (4), 170 to 211, 212
[except sub –section
(8) to (10)]; 214, 215, 216 [except sub-section (2)], 217, 219, 220, 223,
224[except sub- section (2) and (5)], 225, 228, 229, 366, to 369, 370[except
proviso], 371, 374, 379 to 389, 390, Sub- section (1) 391, 392 to 398, 399
except reference of word Tribunal in sub- section (2), 400 to 414, 439, 442 to
464 and 467 to 470 ; Schedule I, II, III,IV,V,VI and VII.
Rules under ‘The Companies Act, 2013′ which have been notified
and are applicable for December 2014 Examinations
Companies (Registration
of Charges) Rules, 2014
Companies (Management
and Administration) Rules, 2014
Companies (Declaration
and Payment of Dividend) Rules, 2014.
Companies (Accounts)
Rules, 2014.
Companies (Audit and
Auditors) Rules, 2014.
Companies (Appointment
and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014
Companies (Meetings of
Board and its powers) Rules 2014
Companies (Appointment
and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules, 2014.
Companies (Inspection,
Investigation and Inquiry) Rules, 2014
Companies (Authorized
to Registered) Rules, 2014
Companies
(Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014
Nidhi Rules, 2014.
Companies
(Registration of Foreign Companies) Rules, 2014.
Companies
(Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014.
Companies
(Miscellaneous) Rules, 2014.
NCLT (Salary, allowances
and other terms and conditions of service of president and other members)
Rules, 2013
NCALT (Salaries,
Allowances and other terms and conditions of service of chairperson and other
members) Rules, 2013
Companies (Cost
Records and Audit) Rules, 2014
Applicable Sections of ‘The Companies Act, 1956′
Sections 10,10E,10F,
Proviso to sub section (1) of section 31, Sub-section (2A) of section 31, 58A
(5), (8) &(10), Proviso to section 80A(l) and 80A(2), Sub- section (4), (5)
&(7) of section 81, 94A, 100 to 107, 117B(4), Sub- section (4) & (5) of
section 117C, 167, 168, 186, 196(4), 205A, 205B, 205C, 210A, Proviso to sub
section (3) of section 225, 237, 243, Sub-section (1A) of section 247, 250,
250A, 251, Sub-section (4) of section 284, 390 to 394, 394A, 395, 396, 396A,
397, 398, 399, 401 to 404, 406, 407, 425 to 560, proviso to section 577, 580,
581, 581A to 581ZT, 582 to 587, 589, 590, 602(b) & (c), 621A, 622, 634A,
635B, 645, 652, to 655 and 658.
The Rules under the Companies Act, 1956 which continue to be in
force as on 30th June, 2014 and applicable for December 2014 Examinations:
Companies (Court)
Rules, 1959
Companies Liquidation
Accounts Rules, 1965
Companies (Official
Liquidator’s Accounts) Rules, 1965
Companies Law Board
Regulations, 1991
Companies Law Board
(Fees on Applications and Petitions) Rules, 1991
Company Law Board
(Qualifications, Experience and other conditions of service of members) Rules,
1993
The Offices of the
Company Law Board Benches (Destruction of Records) Rules,1980
Investor Education and
Protection Fund (Awareness and Protection of Investors) Rules, 2001
Producer Companies
(General Reserve) Rules, 2003
Companies (Accounting
Standards) Rules, 2006
Companies (Filing of
Documents and Forms in Extensible Business Reporting Language) Rules, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)