As indicated in the Second Quarter Review of Monetary Policy in November 2010, a Sub-Committee of the Central Board of the Reserve Bank (Chairman: Shri Y. H. Malegam) was constituted to study issues and concerns in the MFI sector. The Committee submitted its report in January 2011. In the Monetary Policy Statement 2011-12, it was announced that the broad framework of regulations recommended by the Committee has been accepted by the Bank.
Attention of Authorised Dealer Category-I (AD Category-I) banks is invited to A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 39 dated November 01, 2011, wherein the Rupee value of the special currency basket was indicated as Rs.69.09329 effective from September 20, 2011. AD Category-I banks are advised that a further revision has taken place on October 20, 2011 and accordingly, the Rupee value of the special currency basket has been fixed at Rs.71.668914 with effect from October 25, 2011.
CIT Vs Meera Chatterjee (Delhi High Court)- In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not held that it is possible to compute and calculate the cost of acquisition of the tenancy rights in the hands of the original tenant Ram Krishan Dalmia. The said exercise was not undertaken by him in the assessment order. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not required to determine, decide and compute income from capital gains under Section 45.
Two farmers fed up with alleged bribery demands emptied three bags filled with slithering snakes in a busy tax office in northern India, an official said Wednesday. The 40 or so snakes of different sizes and species — including at least four deadly cobras — sent clerks and villagers climbing atop tables and scurrying out the door to escape the office in Basti, about 186 miles (300 kilometers) southeast of Lucknow, said Uttar Pradesh state official Ramsukh Sharma.
The Reserve Bank of India having considered it necessary in the public interest and being satisfied that for the purpose of enabling the Bank to regulate the credit system to the advantage of the country, it is necessary to give the directions set out below, hereby, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45JA, 45K, 45L and 45M of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), and of all the powers enabling it in this behalf, hereby gives the Directions hereinafter specified.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 45JA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and of all the powers enabling it in this behalf, and in partial modification of Notification No. DNBS. 193 dated DG (VL)-2007 dated February 22, 2007, the Reserve Bank hereby notifies as follows, namely.
In paragraph 3A, the following sentence may be added as sub clause No. (IV)- “Based on the criteria set forth by the Bank in the Notification viz; Non-Banking Financial Company- Micro Finance Institutions (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2011 dated December 02, 2011 for classification of NBFCs as NBFC-MFIs, whether the non-banking financial company has been correctly classified as NBFC-MFI as defined in the said Directions with reference to the business carried on by it during the applicable financial year
JDIT-OSD(IT) Vs. Harvard Medical International USA (ITAT Mumbai) The payment in question was purely for the purpose of advising, recommending and assisting in relation to healthcare projects. It was also for conducting education and training programmes. It was also for the purpose of review and giving feed back of various aspects and new cardiac hospital to be set up, recommendation on planned patient care delivery system.
In Re Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault (AAR)- It is true that a Double Taxation Avoidance Convention has to be construed on its terms. On a literal construction paragraph 5 would lead to the position that the transfer of shares of ShanH in this case, can be taxed only in France. But the contention of the Revenue is that the situs of the underlying assets cannot be ignored and the underlying assets and controlling interest are that of a company incorporated in India and a resident of India.
CIT Vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. (Delhi HC) – Tribunal noticed that there were two coursed open to it. First course was to draw an adverse inference against the assessee and second course was to restore the matter back to the AO. It chose second course only on the ground that the quantum of amount involved was high, that is hardly a ground or justification for restoring and giving premium to the assessee for its negligence.
