The Authority proposes to issue the Regulations on IRDA (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements for Life Insurance Companies) Regulations, 2011. Accordingly, the Authority has prepared the Draft Regulations (attached as pdf and doc. documents) for the same. In this regard, comments/suggestions of all stake holders (including insurers, policyholders, academics, analysts etc.) on the Exposure Draft are invited
In order to streamline the period of validity of registration for Common Proficiency Course (CPC), Professional Competence Course (PCC)/ Integrated Professional Competence Course (IPCC) and Final levels of Chartered Accountancy Course, the Council at its 303rd Meeting held on February 10-12, 2011decided as under: CPT students: Initial registration for Common Proficiency Course (CPC) is valid for 3 years.
Ministry has observed that some listed companies have shown abnormal figure of their shareholders in their Annual Return (e-form no. 20B) filed with the Registrar of Companies. It appears that the signatories of e-form 20B of above companies including certifying practicing professionals have not verified the figures of number of shareholders from the records of the company. It can also be inferred that by putting figure of only 1 (one shareholder) in a listed company, the practicing professionals have not discharged their duties prudently and are liable for professional misconduct.The signatory Directors and company secretaries of these companies are also liable for furnishing wrong information in the Form.
ACIT, Gandhinagar Vs Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd (ITAT Ahemdabad) – Only such items which are specifically mentioned in the Explanation to section 115JB need to be excluded or included, as the case be, and nothing more can be brought in. All the three items listed above do not feature in the Explanation. Otherwise, the disallowance u/s.14A would be material in computation of the normal process of income while the second item interest on investment in bonds stands already included in the book profit. As far as the prior period expenses are concerned, there is no such mention in the explanation. The assessment order on the other hand is silent as to under which category it is being included for the matter to be further analysed. Therefore, as the matter stands, none of the three items can be added for computation of book profit.
LIC Housing Finance Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)-The provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notif ied with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the AO had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the AO is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The AO must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record.
Siel Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/- being amount claimed by the assessee u/s 43B of the IT Act. The assessee was asked to establish the facts from the records and from the bank accounts, but the same was never produced. Assessee contended before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that certificate of CA is sufficient for allowing such deduction. When the factual evidence was again called for, it was stated that the details were related to 10 years old bank record and the same is not readily available. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that assessee has failed to establish the evidence of such payments before the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage and also before him. hence, he sustained the disallowance of Rs. 18,49,950/-.
CIT vs. Gopal Purohit – (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the Department’s Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom). The Tribunal has achieved a pure finding of fact that the assessee was engaged in two different types of transactions. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for the purpose of business. The tribunal has correctly applied the principle of law in accepting the position that it is open to an assessee maintaining two separate portfolios: one relating to investment in shares and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. The tribunal held that delivery based transactions in the present case should be treated as those in the nature of investment transactions, and the profit received thereof should be treated either as short-term or, as the case may be, long-term capital gain, depending on the period of holding.
