It has been decided that the all-in-cost ceiling as specified in A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 99 dated March 30, 2012 will continue to be applicable till March 31, 2013 and subject to review thereafter. All other aspects of ECB policy remain unchanged.
Deliberating upon various contours of corporate regulation, experts at a High Level Round Table here today agreed that new age corporate regulation has to be growth oriented, transparent and inclusive. The Round Table, organised by the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA, under the aegis of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs) and George Washington University of the U.S.A., brought together judges, lawyers, researchers, industry professionals and policy makers from the USA and India to discuss contemporary issues in corporate regulation.
Notification No. 56/2012-Customs (ADD) Seeks to modify final anti-dumping duty on imports of Cable Ties, originating in, or exported from the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan and imported into India, imposed vide Notification No. 44/2009-Customs dated 30th April, 2009
As per extant instructions on Interest Rates on Deposits, RRBs on request from the depositor, should allow closure of a term deposit, a deposit in the form of daily deposit or recurring deposit, to enable the depositor to immediately reinvest the amount lying in the aforesaid deposits with the same bank in another term deposit.
Notification No.55 /2012-Customs (ADD) Seeks to levy anti-dumping duty on imports of Sodium Hydrosulphite, originating in, or exported from People’s Republic of China, for a further period of five years
It has been decided to extend the time up to March 31, 2013 for banks to ensure withdrawal of non-CTS 2010 Standard cheques and replace them with CTS-2010 Standard cheques. However, it may be noted that the residual non-CTS-2010 Standard cheques that get presented in the clearing system beyond this extended period will continue to be accepted for the clearing but will be cleared at less frequent intervals.
G.S.R.889 (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), read with rules 18, 20 and 22 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)
G.S.R. 888(E). – Whereas, in the matter of import of Vitrified Porcelain Tiles (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under Chapter 69 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Act) and originating in, or exported from the People’s Republic of China (China PR) and United Arab Emirates (UAE) (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries), the designated authority, vide its final findings in notification No.37/1/2001-DGAD, dated the 5 th February, 2003 in the original anti-dumping case published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 5 th February, 2003 had come to the conclusion that—
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 Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 748 (E), dated the 3rd August, 2001, namely:-
Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Continental & Eastern Agencies (Delhi HC)- In the case reported as (1967) 66 ITR 613 (SC) Ram Laxman Sugar Mills v,Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is open to the manager of a joint Hindu Family as representing the family to agree to become a partner with another person. The partnership agreement in that case is between the manager and the other person and by the partnership agreement no members of family, except the manager acquires a right or interest in the partnership. The junior members of the family may make a claim against the manager for treating the income or profits received from the partnership as a joint family asset, but they cannot claim to exercise the rights of partners nor be liable as partners.
