Search This Blog

August 31, 2010

Features of New DTC proposed

Following are the highlights of the Direct Tax Code bill placed in the Lok Sabha by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Monday (30.08.2010)

* Income tax exemption limit proposed at Rs. 2 lakh per annum, up from Rs. 1.6 lakh
* 10 percent tax on annual income between Rs. 2-5 lakh, 20 percent on between Rs. 5-10 lakh, 30 percent for above Rs. 10 lakh
* Tax burden at highest level will come down by Rs. 41,040 annually
* Proposal to raise tax exemption for senior citizens to Rs. 2.5 lakh from Rs. 2.4 lakh currently
* No mention about tax exemption to women in proposed bill
* Corporate tax to remain at 30 per cent but without surcharge and cess
* MAT to be 20 percent of book profit, up from 18 percent
* Proposal to levy dividend distribution tax at 15 percent
* Exemption for investment in approved funds and insurance schemes proposed at Rs. 1.5 lakh annually, against Rs. 1.2 lakh currently
* Proposed bill has 319 sections and 22 schedules against 298 sections and 14 schedules in existing IT Act

August 26, 2010

Rope Tightening againest the brandname PWC

The SEBI Act (Section 11) has wide amplitude and empowers the regulator SEBI to take within its sweep a CA, if his activities are detrimental to the investors or the securities market, the Bombay High Court observed in its order on the Price Waterhouse vs SEBI case.
The order was made available on the Court's Web site on Wednesday.
The Court on August 13 had ruled that SEBI can regulate the securities market but cannot regulate the profession of Chartered Accountants. SEBI has the powers to issue show cause notices to CA firms and individual CAs.

High Court proceedings
Among the observations made by the High Court was that “by taking remedial and preventive measures in the interest of investors and for regulating the securities market, if any steps are taken by the SEBI, it can never be said that it is regulating the profession of the Chartered Accountants.” SEBI was also empowered by law so far as listed Companies were concerned, said the Court order.
“The auditors on their part have been appointed by shareholders by majority and they owe a duty to all shareholders and are required to give a correct picture of the financial affairs of the company,” observed the High Court.
The High Court also rapped SEBI for not acting on the petition given to it by PW which prompted the audit firm to move court. The High Court observed that, as a result, the question as to whether the SEBI has committed error in not passing any order on the application has become academic.
In sum, the Court said that a CA firm like PW by virtue of being auditors of Satyam which was at one point considered a blue chip company with a defining influence on the securities market can be said to be persons associated with the securities market within the meaning of the SEBI Act.
While SEBI had no powers to debar a CA firm or a CA from practising, it could safeguard investor interest by taking appropriate remedial steps including keeping a person (including a CA) at a safe distance from the securities market.
The PW petitions were rejected and their prayer for leave to appeal to Supreme Court was also rejected. SEBI has been directed not to undertake inquiry proceedings against PW for a period of four weeks so that the audit firm could file a special leave petition against this High Court order in the Supreme Court.

Satyam case
PW which had been issued a show cause notice by SEBI in the Satyam fraud, had sought direction from the High Court on whether SEBI has jurisdiction over CA firms and CAs in this matter as they were governed by ICAI.
SEBI had initiated proceedings against PW in the Satyam case under provisions of Section 11,11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act against PW with respect to fabrication and falsification of accounts, non compliance with auditing standards and dissemination of misleading and spurious information.

August 21, 2010

SC decides in favor of Banks : Banks can directly recover from gurantor too

The Apex Court provided the secured creditors some relief with its recent pronouncement in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, Allahabad High Court (judgment dated: 26th July, 2010) where it held that all the alternatives available to the borrower must be exhausted before the High Courts can interfere with the debt recovery proceedings.

In the past several of the High Courts have ignored the Supreme Court’s views by entertaining applications under Article 226 of the Constitution causing delay in the proceedings, defeating the purpose of providing for an alternative remedy under the very legislation itself.

The Supreme Court has interfered with the decision of the High Court and said that –
“While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance….. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters.”

In Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others (1985) 1 SCC 260 it was held that

“Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only
where statutory remedies are entirely ill- suited to meet the demands of extraordinary
situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where
private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. ….”

In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others
(2009) 1 SCC 168, the Court highlighted the parameters which are required to be kept in view by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It says the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other

In several such cases the Supreme Court has held that the High Courts should not neglect the availability of statutory remedies and must take great caution, care and circumspection before exercising discretion in addressing such matters.

In the present case as well the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad had stayed the recovery proceedings initiated by the United Bank of India on the plea of the guarantor of a loan. United Bank of India had provided for a term loan facility of Rs. 22,50,000/- to Pawan Color Lab and the guarantor, Satyawati Tondon had provided for the guarantee of repayment of the loan by mortgage of the property. The account became non performing and while the bank proceeded to take action against the borrower u/s 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, the guarantor, faced with imminent threat of losing the mortgaged property, filed a writ petition with the Hon’ble High Court, praying for restraining the bank to take any coercive action. In response to this the bank directed the borrower to pursue remedial action available u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The High Court did not pay heed to the bank’s plea and passed an impugned order restraining the bank from taking action u/s 13(4) of the Act. The High Court held that the bank should have exhausted all the means of recovery against the borrower before proceeding against the guarantor and that mere notice u/s 13(2) is not enough.

DRT Act and SARFAESI are special legislations that were enacted to offload the burden of the existing regular courts and to ensure that there is no unwarranted stumbling block in the recovery of debt proceedings by the banks and the financial institutions, as the delay in resolution would affect the financial health of these institutions and the economy as a whole. The legislation provided for standalone powers to the secured creditors to enforce security interests and carry out recovery proceedings without the intervention of the courts. However a lot of borrowers in the past have been approaching the High Courts with frivolous cases, dissecting the course of action prescribed by law in an attempt to impede the recovery procedure, leaving the secured creditors in tumultuous situation. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the present case is a welcomed pronouncement.

August 19, 2010

The Customer wanting to make FD in Bank.

An Incident from Rural Branch

Clerk: Pure sahar mein tujhe yehi Branch mili thi marne k liye, subah subah aa jate hai deposit banwane...

After much heated arguments:

Customer: Mein mandir mein daan de dunga.. Lekin kabhi State bank mein deposit nahin dunga....

Clerk: Are ja ja ... bade aate hain tere jaise....

(Please note that i have not witnessed any such kind of incident its just a joke i have heard from someone)

Duty Free Scrips

What are duty-free scrips?

Duty free scrips are paper authorisations that allow the holder to import inputs that go into manufacture of products that are exported or machinery used for producing such goods without paying duties equivalent to the printed value. For instance, if a duty free scrip is valued at 10 lakh, the holder can use it to import such goods without paying duties up to 10 lakh.

Who gets duty-free scrips?

Duty free scrips are given to exporters under various export promotion schemes of the government such as the focus product, focus market, market-linked focus product schemes and the vishesh krishi gram upaj yojana. Under these promotional schemes, incentives are given for exporting identified products and targeting specific markets fixed at a certain percentage of the export value. It is also used to reimburse duties on imported inputs under schemes such as the DEPB scheme, the export promotion capital goods scheme, the duty free import authorisation scheme and the advance authorisation scheme.

Do the receivers of the duty-free scrips necessarily have to use these to import goods?

Duty free scrips are both transferable and non-transferable. If the scrips are transferable, the holder may not import goods himself but can sell it in the market at a discount. However, if the scrips are non-transferable and come with an actual-user condition, they have to be used by the holder to import inputs or capital goods duty free.

What determines whether the duty-free scrips would be transferable or not?

Duty free scrips are transferable for all promotional schemes except for the services sector’s `served from India’ scheme. They are non-transferable for all duty reimbursement schemes except the DEPB scheme.

August 18, 2010

Firm Registeration Number to be quoted on every attestation

Announcement on – Requirement to mention the firm registration number allotted by ICAI in all reports issued, including certificates, by members of the ICAI - (16-08-2010)


Attention of the members is invited to the announcement regarding requirement relating to mentioning the firm registration number in the audit reports and resolution passed by the company for appointment of statutory auditors, published on page 1312 of the February 2010 issue of the Journal.

The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, in terms of the decision taken at the 296th meeting held in June 2010 has decided to extend the requirement to mention the firm registration number to all reports issued pursuant to any attestation engagement, including certificates, issued by the members as proprietor of/ partner in the said firm. The requirement shall apply where such firm registration number has been allotted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

The Council further decided to make this requirement effective for all attestation reports/ certificates issued on or after 1st October, 2010.

August 17, 2010

Rules with a Girl

1. The woman always makes the rules
2. These rules are subject to change without notice
3. No man can possibly know all the rules
4. The woman is never wrong
5. If it appears the woman is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding caused by something the man did or said
6. The man must apologise immediately for causing the misunderstanding
7. The woman can change her mind at any time
8. The man must never change his mind without the opinion/consent of the woman
9. At all times, what is important is what the woman meant, not what she said.

Check loading time of your Website

By Pasting your Website Address here this thing will show you in how much time does your website load
Customer-Teri Cow Ki 1 Ankh Kharab Hai, Fir Bhi Tu 25,000 Maang Raha He.

Santa-Tuzze Cow Doodh Pine Ke Liye Leni Hai Ya Nain-Matkka Ke Liye

August 14, 2010

PWC trying every unethical and unprofessional way to save its skin.

Is this what we expect from so called leaders of the profession.

First they don't do the things right , then they have not got guts to face/own up their actions.

Bombay HC says market regulator can take action to safeguard shareholder interest.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) can proceed with its inquiry against audit firm Price Waterhouse for its alleged role in the Satyam scam.

The court, however, has directed the regulator to stay the proceedings for four weeks so that Price Waterhouse can file a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court.
A division bench comprising Justice P B Majmudar and Justice R M Savant heard the petition filed by Price Waterhouse, challenging Sebi’s jurisdiction over audit firms that are registered with The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).

Sebi had issued a show cause notice to Price Waterhouse for allegedly acting “recklessly” and “negligently” while auditing the books of erstwhile Satyam Computers.

“In the case of listed companies, Sebi has the power to take remedial and preventive action to safeguard the interest of the shareholders,” observed the bench. It, however, noted that “if any professional has to be barred, it can be done only by the body that regulates it”.

The observations of the bench assume significance in the backdrop of the debate on whether Sebi can debar Price Waterhouse, if proved guilty, from working with any of the listed companies.

“We are informed that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has disallowed the writ petition of Price Waterhouse challenging Sebi’s jurisdiction over accounting and auditing professionals. We await the High Court written order, which we will examine to decide our next course of action,” Price Waterhouse said in a statement.

The bench, in its verdict, highlighted the point that it has restricted itself to the question raised in the petition on whether Sebi had jurisdiction over audit firms. “We will add a word of caution here. We have limited ourselves to the question whether there is total lack of jurisdiction or there is some jurisdiction... Sebi has powers to pass orders in the aforesaid manner,” the bench said.

The submission of Price Waterhouse in the court had said “unless the question of jurisdiction is decided, Sebi should not be allowed to proceed against the petitioners (Price Waterhouse) on allegations raised in the show cause notice”.

“If they have violated any norms of the accounting profession, it has to be looked into by ICAI and not Sebi because they lack technical knowledge,” it added.

G Ramaswamy, vice president, ICAI, said the court has not made any mention against ICAI’s powers to regulate the profession. “The case was in connection with alleged violations of Sebi rules by the audit firm. And in such cases, Sebi has the right to issue notices if there is a violation.”

“Whenever there is a complaint against the professional standards of ICAI members, Sebi, as well as all other regulators, always write to us, and we initiate disciplinary action against them,” he said, adding ICAI had already initiated disciplinary action in the Satyam case.

On its part, Sebi said its action was to ensure such episodes do not recur and by issuing a show cause notice, its intention was not to regulate the profession of chartered accountants but to safeguard the interest of shareholders.

“There is nothing wrong in issuing a show cause notice to avoid any such issue in future that can affect the interest of shareholders. Normally, investors are influenced by financial conditions of listed companies and take investment decisions based on it,” it said.

On Wednesday, Sebi counsel Ravi Kadam argued in the court that auditors have a direct relationship with shareholders and in this matter have acted “recklessly” and “negligently”. Shareholders incurred losses due to falsification of the Satyam balance sheet, he added.

August 13, 2010

Happy over some concrete Step

Today i have moved in the direction of my long term dream to enter into practice.

Today received the firm approval from from ICAI under the name of Jindal Goyal & Associates.

Happy like anything :)

Wish more friends join us and we could create our own identity in this CA world.

Bless us Sh. Ganesh

August 12, 2010

Visit to Rice Shelling Unit

Today i visited a rice shelling unit in Kaithal, Haryana to inspect its securities offered for the purpose of Bank Loan.

Borrower: Sir, yahan se le k wo wahan tak.... Jahan us Diwar pe Nirma likha hai na wahan tak saari property hamari hai...

Me : Ya ya
(Saaale Nirma chod yahan mujhe woh diwar nahin dikh rahi)
Actually i forgot my glasses home :-)

August 10, 2010

Start Menu Location

Start Menu Location

in XP

Find it in C:\Documents and Settings\username\Start Menu\Programs\Startup

In Windows 7

C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu
(Copy this location and paste it in run space available in start menu)

August 7, 2010

Troubling my mind

Today i feel like god should have given me supervision or something.

My eyesight is depleting. Its not that i don't know the reasons.My Total exposure to computer/TV screens during a day are as follows;-

TV - Home - 1 hours
Computer - Office - 8 Hours
TV/Computer- Home - 3 Hours

Total 12 Hours.

For half of the day everyday i am exposing my eyes to these men made bloody ***#$* screens. Can't they make anything natural or something that does not effect the eyes at all.

But all i want is that god or these inventors must do something, what i want to ignore is that everything is in my hands. I have to do something about it.

Wellllllllll from now onwards i will reduce my exposure and try some Ayurvedic tips for eyesight improvement.

I desperately need to pull back from this point as i really hate that chashmish look. It looks like a spare part or a accessory on you.

August 5, 2010

My views on recent violence

We have a state where people just believe in violence and not even fear of their life. Their expectation from people of mainland India is to support them for uncalled protests and violence. First they kill their own people (kashmirie pundits) and force them to flee and become refugee in their own country, then demand for army withdrawal. When army is withdrawn, they start having problem with para military and latest with their own police and state Govt. Till now no one from us understood what do they want? The message coming from Vally is that people only believe in violence.

They flee away Hindu's from the state, want none of Indian law to be applied to them, throw stones at forces and then they expect that we should maintain calm and come forward for dialogues.

I believe that at least they should take names. At least take names against whom you are protesting, give specific demands what you want instead of just holding rallies and destroying public property. Every home has problems and life in Pakistan is no better than here.

Kashmir is such a beautiful place, the main source of income here is tourism. With such kind of acts and disturbance so often you can't complain later on that tourists are not coming in the seasons. These things have long lasting effects.

My only question, why only such trouble is in Kashmir and not in any other state of India.

Please live peacefully, Kashmir is such a pleasing place.

August 4, 2010

Regularisation of contractual employees challenged

Chennai, Aug 2 2010 (PTI): The State Bank of India's move to regularise the services of nearly 7000 persons appointed on contract basis was challenged in the Madras High Court today. When a writ petition in the matter came up before Justice V Ramasubramanian, he ordered that the matter be adjourned to August 4, subject to the outcome of the petition. In his petition, B Jayakumar of Coimbatore submitted he was a B.E.(Mechanical) graduate and was appointed as Customer Relationship Associate in clerical cadre in SBI in March 2008 in pursuance of a May 2007 notification and after an exam. He had put in more than two years of service in the management and was eligible for promotion as Trainee Officer.He also had the requisite qualification. The petitioner said SBI sought to absorb those appointed on contract to Junior Management Grade Scale (JMGS)-1, overlooking eligibility of persons like him. Jayakumar pointed out that the Supreme Court had time and again held that backdoor entry into any service was liable to be prohibited. He said SBI started recruiting employees directly to marketing and recovery sections in 2004 on the basis of special contract service rules.The bank's present action would affect promotion prospects of clerical staff recruited after five-level selection processes, whereas contract staff were hired merely through an interview, he said. The petitioner said the bank's action was tainted with malafide.

August 2, 2010

India says no to Banking Sector Tax on a commoan man

India has not agreed to a “one size fits all” solution in the European Union Plan of taxing banks and has emphasized that such a tax is not appropriate for India, even though it may be appropriate for other countries e.g. in some European countries.
In the G20 meetings, India did not agree to the banking sector tax in India as our banks are strongly regulated, we did not have to bail out our banks using tax payers’ money during the recent financial and economic crisis, and we already have other measures such as a statutory liquidity ratio (SLR) and the cash reserve ratio (CRR) that impose costs on the financial sector. We have emphasized that we will persevere with a path of financial sector reforms to support rapid and inclusive growth in the real economy, and also increase systemic stability in the financial sector.

Several other countries inter-alia including Australia, Canada, and Brazil also held the view that “one size fits all” cannot be the solution. The G-20 finally agreed on the principle that tax payers should not pay for the cost of rescue offinancial sector . However, it also agreed that there are a range of policy options to achieve that and the exact mechanism should be based on country circumstances.

This information was given by Minister of State for Finance, Shri Namo Narain Meena in a written reply to a Question in Lok Sabha today