The title of the current session Banking Sector: Resilience to Risk and Shock is also very topical. Maintaining resilience to risk and shock is an integral part of bank management and also bank regulation and supervision. However, the events of the last few years have underscored like never before the importance of ensuring that the banking sector builds up its ability to handle the headwinds of adverse events with relative equanimity. Over the years, many practices have been exposed in financial institutions that point to the importance of risk management and controls. Efforts have been ongoing, across the globe, to develop a risk management framework to identify where the key risks lie, and set out how they are to be managed. But, mishaps continue to surface, clearly indicating that the development of a fool proof risk management system is still a work in progress and whatever level of sophistication and advancement we reach, shocks are unavoidable.
DIT Vs. Rio Tinto Technical Services (HC Delhi) – The payment in the present case is for furnishing of evaluation report. The fee paid is for the said purpose. To collect and collate the information and furnish evaluation report, the assessee was required and it was necessary to undertake certain tests, mapping and studies.
ADIT(IT) Vs Aditya Vikram Global House Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Royalty payment pursuant to a technical collaboration agreement in accordance with the Industrial policy of the Government of India, is exempt in the hands of the foreign company under clause (a) of Section 10(6A) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also held that approval of the Reserve Bank of India is sufficient confirmation that the technical collaboration agreement is in accordance with the Industrial Policy.
Taurus Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- It was held that the new export-oriented unit of the assessee cannot be said to be formed by the reconstruction or splitting of a business already in existence. The Tribunal has also held that it is not necessary for the assessee to produce its products so as to become eligible for claiming exemption under section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
De Beers India Prospecting Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai) – it was held that prospecting and examining are important activities to undertake mining. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the taxpayer had commenced its business from the time it started the prospecting activity and therefore, non-prospecting related expenditure is deductible under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) even though it was incurred prior to commencement of mining.
DCIT Vs. J.K. Investo Trade (India) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Issue before the Tribunal was that Whether non-compete fees payable pursuant to a joint venture agreement for transfer of manufacturing division, through a Scheme of arrangement, which is sanctioned by the High Court is taxable in the year of Appointed Date or Year of sanction of the Scheme or on receipt?
An Act further to amend the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:— Short title and commencement. 1. (1) This Act may be called the Company Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 2011.
A Delhi court today allowed the CBI to interrogate for three more days in custody a Central Excise Department superintendent and an alleged middleman, arrested in connection with receiving around Rs 40 lakh as bribe for not taking action against two businessmen. Special judge Talwant Singh extended the CBI custody of superintendent Lallan Ojha and alleged middleman Hemant Gandhi after they were produced before him.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee held discussions on ways to step up revenue collection for 2011-12 with top officials of Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) and Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Chennai. An official release said the meeting discussed steps for augmentation for revenue in the remaining part of the financial year.
CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd (Delhi High Court) – The argument of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner for reopening U/s. 147. Instead, it was taken from the CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi, who was not competent to approve even when he was a higher Authority inasmuch as Section 151 of the Act specifically mentions Joint Commissioner as the Competent Authority. This contention of the respondent-assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal thereby quashing the assessment proceedings. The contention of the Revenue that it was merely an irregularity committed by the AO and was rectifiable under Section 292B of the Act, has not been found convincing by the Tribunal. Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent.
