Reference is invited to paragraphs 98 and 99 (extracts enclosed) of the Monetary Policy Statement 2012-13 announced on April 17, 2012 on Implementation of KYC/AML Guidelines. RRBs/ StCBs/CCBs are aware that risk categorization of customers as also compilation and periodic updation of customer profiles and monitoring and closure of alerts in accounts by banks are extremely important for effective implementation of KYC/AML/CFT measures. It is, however, observed that there are laxities in effective implementation of the Reserve Bank’s guidelines in this area, leaving banks vulnerable to operational risk. Banks should, therefore, ensure compliance with the regulatory guidelines on KYC/AML/CFT both in letter and spirit.
Circular No.14/ 2012 – Customs he correct classification of Road-Rail–Vehicle or Rail Cum Road Vehicle was examined in the Board. The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI), Rule 1 inter alia states that,…for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes…. Note 4 (a) to Section XVII states that, For the purposes of this Section, vehicles specially constructed to travel on both road and rail are classified under the appropriate heading of Chapter 87…
Due to unavoidable circumstances, the examination Centre of 200 candidates bearing Roll No. from 218290 to 218489 for CPT (Common Proficiency Test – Examination) to be held on 17th June, 2012 has been changed to DOON PUBLIC SCHOOL, B-2, PASCHIM VIHAR, BEHIND LAXMI NARAYAN MANDIR, NEW DELHI-110 063 ( in place of St. Mathew’s Public School, A-6 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110 063).
We wish to inform you that the Annual Licentiate Subscription for the year 2012 -13 became due for payment w.e.f. 1st April, 2012. The last date for payment of fee is 30th June, 2012. You are requested to please remit Rs.1000/- by demand draft/local cheque at par in favour of `The Institute of Company Secretaries of India’ payable at New Delhi on or before 30.06.2012.
Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 – Exemption from the provisions of Sections 15,16,21,23,31 and in respects of section 47 (1) (2) (3) and (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 to all Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and Information Technology Establishment in the State of Andhra Pradesh –Extension of exemption for a further period of one year with effect from 30.05.2012– Orders –Issued.
Reckoning point to compute the time limit will be drawing of last panchnama in respect of any authorization issued in a particular case. However, it has already been held that the last panchnama as relevant for Explanation 2 to section 158BE will be the panchnama which show the conclusion of the search. Panchnama dated 3rd January, 2003 in the present case has not recorded the conclusion of search, but, it was a mere formality to revoke prohibitory order passed on 21st December, 2002. Therefore, the limitation was to be reckoned from 21st December, 2002.
The Chennai Tribunal in the case of Quintegra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) of the Act in the case of amalgamation. In that case the CIT(A) held that differential amount between share issued and net assets taken over, being balancing figure, did not represent income assessable under Section 28(iv) of the Act. The view of CIT(A) had been upheld by the Tribunal.
Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
The Karnataka HC has held that the reduction in the share of partners after the reconstitution of partnership firms does not amount to a taxable transfer. Further, it reaffirmed that, tax planning within the frame work of law is permitted.The principles laid down in this decision can also be applied to the limited liability partnerships, in similar circumstances.
The taxpayer instead of developing the land, transferred the development rights in respect of part of the land to a separate construction company.As per the agreement, the taxpayer jointly with the trust was required to convey the land to the proposed buyers. Instead of developing land, the taxpayer parted with the development rights in respect of part of the land forever. The possession of the land had also been given during the year along with development rights. This was an independent activity having no connection with the development of the remaining part of the land.
