Background of Companies Bill, 2011 – The Ministry of Corporate Affairs took up a comprehensive revision of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) in 2004 keeping in view that not only had the number of companies in India expanded from about 30,000 in 1956 to nearly 7 lakhs, Indian companies were also mobilizing resources at a scale unimaginable even a decade ago, continuously entering into and bringing new activities into the fold of the Indian economy. In doing so, they were emerging internationally as efficient providers of a wide range of goods and services while increasing employment opportunities at home. At the same time, the increasing number of options and avenues for international business, trade and capital flows had imposed a requirement not only for harnessing entrepreneurial and economic resources efficiently but also to be competitive in attracting investment for growth. These developments necessitated modernization of the regulatory structure for the corporate sector in a comprehensive manner.
Our accession to the designation ‘chartered accountant’ turned into reality after a prolonged struggle of our accountants, who were trained and educated in India, and were socially and professionally perceived different despite an equality in their abilities and rightfulness to audit accounts of companies in India, with their contemporary Chartered Accountants, who got their formal education from one of the British chartered societies.
Withdrawal of the facility of re-investment – It has been decided that henceforth re-investment period shall not be allowed for all new allocations of debt limit to FIIs/sub-accounts. Thus, limits acquired in the bidding sessions henceforth shall expire/lapse on either sale or redemption at maturity of the debt investments. These limits then shall again be allocated in subsequent bidding processes.
Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing, as is evident from his signature on the acknowledgement slip on 14.3.2011. It is, therefore, inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). and also the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol v UOI, dated 17th September, 2009 (BHC).
These rules may be called the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Rules, 2012. The provisions of rule 3, so far as it relates to insertion of rule 23 in the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Rules, 1961, shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint which shall not be later than six month from the date of issue of this notification.
Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – Assessee has raised a specific ground that order passed u/s 143(3) was not valid in as much as there is no proof of valid service of notice u/s 143(2) within the limitation period of 12 months, as per proviso to section 143(2). We further find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not properly given a finding on this issue. He has only observed that the grounds and the arguments of the assessee are not very strong. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should pass a speaking order on this issue incorporating his specific finding in this regard. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the same afresh.
ACIT Vs Chetan Durgadas Mehra (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer considered the sale of shares by the assessee to the firm in which he is a Partner as a non genuine transaction. Consequently he re-worked out the P&L account as stated in page 8 of the assessment order and determined the loss from the business at a lesser figure of Rs.52,56,153/- as against Rs.1,95,98,779/- incurred by the assessee in the business of purchase and sale of shares and securities.
MASTER CIRCULAR No. DNPD/1/2012, dated 2-1-2012 – The Exchange may consider introducing derivative contracts on an index, if weightage of constituent stocks of the index, which are individually eligible for derivatives trading, is atleast 80%. However, no single ineligible stock in the index shall have a weightage of more than 5% in the index. The index on which futures and options contracts are permitted shall be required to comply with the eligibility criteria on a continuous basis. The Exchange shall check whether the index continues to meet the aforesaid eligibility criteria on a monthly basis. If the index fails to meet the eligibility criteria for three consecutive months, then no fresh contract shall be issued on that index. However, the existing unexpired contracts shall be permitted to trade till expiry and new strikes may also be introduced in the existing contracts.
Notification No. 1/2012-Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 read with sub-clause (vii) of clause (c) of sub-section (8) of section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely:-
A committee set up by market regulator Sebi to examine IPO-related issues is looking into a proposal to allow companies to sell shares through electronic Initial Public Offers (e-IPOs). The proposed move would enable companies to sell shares electronically. Under such a system, investors would bid for shares online and would not be required to sign any papers physically.
