SEBI regulations require that the offer document shall contain adequate disclosures so as to enable investors to take well informed investment decisions. Further, a merchant banker is required to exercise due diligence and satisfy himself about all the aspects of the issue including the veracity and adequacy of disclosures in the offer documents.
The Trojan horse employs a powerful two-step process to commit the electronic crime. First, the virus lies in wait until a customer with an infected computer visits an online banking site, steals their login credentials and tricks the victim into divulging additional personal information such as debit card information. Then, after the stolen card number is used for a fraudulent purchase, the virus intercepts any further visits to the victim’s banking site and scrubs transaction records clean of any fraud. That prevents — or at least delays — consumers from discovering fraud and reporting it to the bank, buying the fraudster critical extra time to complete the crime.
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Girnar Exports (IPAB)- The four appeals are against the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks at Chennai in three proceedings and the Deputy Registrar at Kolkata in one. The mark is Red Label. Application No. 397359 is for registration of the mark which is a label consisting of the word Red Label with a colour scheme of red and yellow in Roman and Arabic character in respect of tea (Class 30) which is the subject matter of TA/47/2003/TM/CH.
In the Finance Act 2006, Section 80C of Income Tax Act 1961 was amended to include deposits placed with a scheduled bank to qualify for deduction under 80C. The amount of investment up to Rs.1,00,000 under the notified deposit scheme will be eligible for deduction under Section 80 C of Income Tax Act for individuals / Hindu Undivided Families. In terms of the amendment a deposit scheme has been introduced with certain value added features for the benefit of customers.
To constitute interstate sales, one of the basic requirement is that there should be sale. If a person sends goods outside from its state to its branch office in another state then it is not sale because you cannot sell goods to yourself. Similarly if a dealer sends goods to its agent in another state who stocks and sells goods on behalf of the dealer, such agent is called consignment agent and such stock transfer is also not considered as interstate sales since there is no sales involved in it, sales will take place when such agent will sell goods. But to prove such stock/branch transfer, F form is required to be produced as proof.
Seeking to enhance role of auditors in ensuring solvency of banks, the Reserve Bank of India wants chartered accountants to ask pointed questions concerning risk assessment and capital adequacy of lenders.
Addl. CIT Vs. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited (ITAT Kolkata) – Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines ‘loan or deposit’ & Section 269T defines ‘loan or deposit’ and the common word loan means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay.
In order to guard against possible leakage of names figuring in the secret bank accounts lists it has received from foreign shores, the CBDT has ordered the I-T department to obtain a signed undertaking from any government entity or department who demands the data for their own probe.
CCE Vs. Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court)- This Court has already held in the aforementioned decision that effect of making the registration certificate applicable from retrospective date under the trade mark law is based on the principle of deemed equivalence to public user of such mark whereas such deeming fiction cannot be extended to the excise law and that the same is only confined to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the assignment of the trade mark in question granted in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties was on 6.10.1998, which is subsequent to the date of registration of the case by the Department, which was done on 19.9.1998.
DCIT Vs. Diamond ‘R’ US (ITAT Mumbai) – Exchange loss on refund of advances received from the customers is concerned, the same indeed constitutes admissible deduction irrespective of whether or not the amount so received were diverted to use by partners. It is so for the elementary reason that the proximate cost of loss having been incurred is receipt of advances from the customers and refunding the same-an exercise which is clearly in the course of normal business operations.
