The decision to make half-yearly internal audits obligatory for stock broking houses spells doom for smaller firms that are already burdened with low-trading turnover, dipping revenues and increased policy levies. According to a section of brokers, half-yearly internal audits will not only be difficult to implement, but also make a dent in their earnings kitty.
In a bid to check the rise in court cases against corporate houses for company law violations, the government is set to give more powers to its officials to deal with such offenses out of court. The framework proposed in the new company law envisages that company disputes should not be dragged to the court.
The country’s most powerful regulators, SEBI and RBI, may soon be left with fewer responsibilities if the government has its way. The finance ministry is thinking of taking away the regulators’ mandate to develop markets so that their regulatory concerns and caution on new products and markets do not come in the way of developing new instruments and markets.
It has been decided that in all the Corporate cases selected for scrutiny as per the guidelines contained in the Action Plan document 2008-09 which have returned income of Rs.5 crore or more and where provisions of FBT apply, assessment order shall also be passed under section 115WE after scrutiny of all such cases.
CIT vs. Gold Coin Health – The recommendations of the Wanchoo Committee and the CBDT Circular make it clear that the amendment to Expl. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) was to make explicit what was otherwise implicit i.e. that penalty can be imposed even in a case where the assessment results in a loss.
Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Where the department sought condonation of delay of several months in filing appeals in several matters and explained the reasons for the delay in a casual and negligent manner and without giving even the basic details,
State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) -Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable.
Import authorizations for a restricted item if so directed by the competent authority, shall be issued for import through one of the sea ports or air ports orICDs or LCS, as per the option indicated, in writing, by the applicant. Authorization holder shall register the same at the port specified in the authorization and thereafter all imports against said authorization shall be made only through that port, unless the authorization holder obtains permission from customs authority concerned to import through any other specified port.
In exercise of powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, as amended, the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes the following correction in the Public Notice No.27 (RE-2005)/2004-09, dated 14th July, 2005, read with Public Notice No.14 (RE-2006)/2004-09 dated 30th May, 2006 and Public Notice No.91 (RE-2007)/2004-09 dated 11th December, 2007.
The concerned licensing authorities of DGFT shall call back all authorizations for import of rough marble blocks/slabs issued under Policy Circular No.12 dated 27.6.2008 and under Policy Circular No.13 dated 30.6.2008 and indicate the port of registration on these licences, as per the option exercised by the license holder.
