The modification of the previous directive referred to in this directive shall not in any manner whatsoever affect any action taken by the Reserve Bank under the previous directive and shall not absolve any primary cooperative bank from its liability in respect of any contravention of or any non compliance with the provisions of the said directive.
The above limits of credit exposure to housing, real estate and commercial real estate would be applicable from the date of this circular. UCBs having exposure in excess of the above limits may initiate steps to align their exposure to the revised limits within a period of six months from the date of this circular.
Accordingly, it has been decided to exempt UCBs, which maintain capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (CRAR) of 12 per cent or above on a continuous basis, from the extant mandatory share linking norms. This exemption would be effective from the date of this circular.
xclusion from the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – The Bank of Rajasthan Limited We advise that the name of “The Bank of Rajasthan Limited” has been excluded from the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 by notification DBOD.No.PSBD/2866/16.01.056/2010-11 dated August 18, 2010.
S. O… (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Board, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Cus (N. T.), dated, the 3rd August 2001, namely: –
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) as amended, read with Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014.
In a recent ruling in the case of Nimbus Communications Ltd v. ACIT [2010–TI1-21-ITAT-MUM-T9, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), while deciding the case in favour of the assessee, ruled that for determination the of arms’ length price (“ALP”), any one of the methods as prescribed in section 92C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) must be followed. The Tribunal also ruled that levying interest on outstanding trade balances is different from interest charged on loans and cannot be compared.
ADIT (Int. Tax) v. Bank International Indonesia – ITAT held that provision made for doubtful debts will be required to be added back to the net profit as per the profit and loss account while computing the Book Profit for the purpose of determination of Minimum Alternate Tax , subsequent to the amendment to Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , with retrospective effect from 1 April, 2001.
The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of ‘bona fide difference of opinion’ arising in the context of application of most appropriate transfer pricing method. The Tribunal has ruled that any addition to income arising as a result of bona fide difference of opinion cannot be used as a basis for levy of penalty.
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in its recent ruling in the case of ACIT v. Vedaris Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd [2010-TII-10-ITAT-DEL-TP] has held that selection of comparable uncontrolled transactions (“comparables”) for determining arm’s length price (“ALP”) should be done with reference to Rule 10C(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”).
