Claims for re-imbursement of subvention amount may be submitted to the Chief General Manager-in-Charge, Urban Banks Department, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Garment House, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 on a quarterly basis starting from quarter ended June 30, 2013 in the format as per Annex III.
Rule 9(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005 requires that every banking company, and financial institution, as the case may be, shall identify the beneficial owner and take all reasonable steps to verify his identity.
So far exercise of jurisdiction vested upon the Company Court under Section 446(2) of the Act is concerned, in my view and also in view of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, it is already settled that this Court have ample power to adjudicate and determine all questions that arises in winding up. Such questions include eviction of trespassers from property of the Company (in liquidation) and the Company Court also by a summary order can direct eviction of a trespassers from the Company property. But Company Court must follow the law of the land in regard to such eviction.
Notice cannot be issued when returns are pending – Notice cannot be issued unless the return which has already been filed has been disposed of – CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC); Bhagwan Das Sita Ram (HUF) v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 563 (SC).
The Stock Exchanges are advised to report to SEBI, the action taken in this regard in the Monthly/Quarterly Development Report.
In partial modification of the aforesaid Facility Notices, it is decided that all matters relating to 100% EOUs/EHTP/STPs, Customs Bonded Warehouses and other Customs related work in the jurisdiction of Mysore, which are currently under Service Tax and EOU Division, are now attached to their respective Central Excise Ranges under the jurisdiction of the concerned Divisions of Mysore Commissionerate
An application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be made in vague terms and it cannot be used as a power to conduct a roving enquiry in these proceedings and to ascertain as to whether there is any act of misfeasance on the part of erstwhile directors.
From the proviso to Section 92C(4), it is evident that no deduction in Chapter VI-A is to be allowed in respect of the income which is enhanced after the computation of income in the said Section. Thus, the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Chapter VI-A in respect of the addition made as per the TPO’s order.
In Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma [2008] 8 SCC 321 it was reiterated that sufficient cause should be understood in pragmatic and practical manner. The test is that the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction or negligence on part of the appellant.
Given the fact that the assessee had acted only as a broker and could not claim any ownership on the sum of Rs. 14.79 crores and that the receipt of the money was only for the purpose of taking demand drafts for the payment of the differential interest payable by Indian Bank and that the assessee had actually handed over the said money to the Bank,
