The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India has been updating/notifying the FDI policy through issue of Consolidated FDI Policy Circular. Accordingly, Government has notified the latest FDI policy changes vide FDI Policy Circular 1 of 2012 dated April 10, 2012 and the same is available at Government website www.dipp.gov.in. In order to bring uniformity in the sectoral classification position for FDI as notified under the Consolidated FDI Policy Circular with the FEMA Regulation, the revised position on Annex A and Annex B of Schedule 1 to Notification No. FEMA 20/2000-RB dated 3rd May 2000, has been suitably revised and is enclosed.
The Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) for debit and credit cards has hitherto been similar in India. The debit card is a secured product with the card usage being linked to the availability of funds in the accounts of the customers. Credit cards, on the other hand, are a part of the unsecured credit product portfolio of the issuers. The credit card usage is linked to the credit limit sanctioned by the issuer and carries with it an element of credit risk. Thus given the different nature of the two products, there is no rationale for having a similar MDR for debit and credit cards. Further, it is observed that debit cards are mostly being used for withdrawal of cash at ATMs.
By virtue of offering personal guarantee and collateral security for the benefit of the company, the liquidity position of the assessee had gone down. In the strict sense if it is to be construed the amount forwarded by the company to the assessee was not in the shape of advances or loans. The arrangement between the assessee and the company was merely for the sake of convenience arising out of business expediency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to hold that the amount withdrawn by the assessee partakes the character of deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e).
In a Working Paper published by the Reserve Bank of India has argued that the guidance given by Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is not appropriate for India. The finding is based on the analysis of annual banking data for the last 60 years since 1950-51. The authors have also showcased an alternative capital buffer guidance reflecting, among other things, the current status of economic development and the underlying banking business model in India. Using the annual data since 1990-91, the authors have empirically verified the performance of the alternative buffer guidance vis-à-vis the BCBS guidance. The salient findings of the research are:
Monetary policy transmission is a process through which monetary policy decisions affect the economy in general and the price level in particular. It is a complex process, wherein the transmission of policy actions to market interest rates and further to real sector may proceed through several channels. Therefore, monetary policy transmission mechanism is still considered to be a “black box”. In this context, this paper, using SVAR models on quarterly data for 1996-97:1 to 2011-12:1, examines the relative importance of various transmission channels of monetary policy to output growth and inflation in India.
The Mission statement indicates RBI’s renewed commitment towards providing a safe, efficient, accessible, inclusive, interoperable and authorised payment and settlement systems for the country. Payments systems will be driven by customer demands of convenience, ease of use and access that will impel the necessary convergence in innovative e-payment products and capabilities.
DIC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd vs. ADIT Article 2(1) of the applicable tax treaty provides that the taxes covered shall include tax and surcharge thereon. Once we come to the conclusion that education cess is nothing but an additional surcharge, it is only corollary thereto that the education cess will also be covered by the scope of Article 2. Accordingly, the provisions of Article 11 and 12 must find precedence over the provisions of the Income Tax Act and restrict the taxability, whether in respect of income tax or surcharge or additional surcharge – whatever name called, at the rates specified in the respective article.
It is a fact that the assessee was employed as ‘Service Provider’ and during the period under dispute he was providing the service from Bangalore in India. As per the Co¬operation agreement dated 14.12.2004 entered into between the assessee and the Polish Company, the function of the assessee was ‘to support establishing and preparing organization of the company’s representative office in India by the date of 31st May 2005’. We are of the view that the function to support establishing and preparing organization can at best be termed as a management function but cannot be equated with ‘Top Level Managerial Position’.
Delhi High Court has upheld that ‘payment on account of goodwill is similar to assets like patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences referred to in the definition of the block of assets in the senses that the function of all these assets is to restrict their misuse and to earn maximum profits in the business. The function of goodwill acquired by the assessee also is the same in view of the fact that it maximizes the profits of the company. Since the function of intangibles defined in the Act and the intangible acquired by the assessee is the same, the assets are similar. Therefore, the assessee’s goodwill being a valuable commercial asset similar to other intangibles specified in the definition of block of assets is eligble to depreciation’.
