1 January2011

2

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

3 January2011

CPE AND OTHER PROGRAMS - January & February, 2011Date/Day Topic /Speaker Venue/Time CPE Credit

DISCLAIMER : The Bangalore Branch of ICAI is not in anyway responsible for the result of any action taken on the basisof the advertisement published in the newsletter. The members, however, bear in mind the provision of the code of ethics whileresponding to the advertisements. The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Branch Newsletter are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect that of Bangalore Branch of ICAI.

Note : High Tea at 5.30 pm for programmes at 6.00 pm at branch premises.

Advertisement Tariff for the Branch NewsletterColour full pageOutside back ` 30,000/-Inside front ` 24,000/-Inside back ` 24,000/-

Advt. material should reach us before 22nd of previous month.

Inside Black & WhiteFull page ` 15,000/-Half page ` 8,000/-Quarter page ` 4,000/-

Editor : CA. Shambhu Sharma H.

Sub Editor : CA. Prasad S.R.

05.01.11 Gold - The other currency & Branch Premises 2 hrsWednesday its importance in an investment portfolio 06.00pm to 08.00pm

CA. Shubha Ganesh

08.01.11 National Convention for CA Students Sophia School Auditorium, -Saturday & “SAMMILANA - Meeting for Better Cause” Basaveshwara Circle09.01.11 (Near Chalukya Hotel)Sunday Details at page no: 16

10.01.11 Workshop on Communication Skills Branch Premises 16 hrsMonday to (8 days evenings for 2 hrs each) 06.00pm to 08.00pm21.01.11 Delegate Fee: `̀̀̀̀ 2000/-Friday Details at page no: 15

12.01.11 Easy Exit Scheme - 2011 - Under Section 560 Branch Premises 2 hrsWednesday of the Companies Act 06.00pm to 08.00pm

Sri. B N Harish,ROC, BangaloreCA. Rajendra Rao

19.01.11 Social Audit and Microfinance Imbroglio Branch Premises 2 hrsWednesday CA. S Balakrishnan 06.00pm to 08.00pm

22.01.11 One day Seminar on Banking & Insurance The Chancery Pavillion, 6 hrsSaturday Delegate Fee: `̀̀̀̀ 1,000/- Residency Road, Bangalore

Details at page no: 17 09.00am to 05.30pm

26.01.11 Republic Day Celebrations Branch Premises -Wednesday Flag Hoisting by Dr. A S Vishnu Bharath, FCA 09.30am onwards

Past Chairman of SIRC of ICAI

28.01.2011 Seminar on Basics in International Taxation Branch Premises 12 hrsFriday & Delegate Fee: `̀̀̀̀ 1500/- 10.00am to 05.30pm29.01.2011Saturday Details at page no: 18

02.02.11 Opportunities for CAs in Healthcare Sector Branch Premises 2 hrsWednesday CA. K Govind Rajan 06.00pm to 08.00pm

4

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

TAX UPDATES NOVEMBER 2010CA. Chythanya K.K., B.Com, FCA, LL.B

VAT, CST, ENTRY TAX,PROFESSIONAL TAXPARTS DIGESTED:

a) 2010-11(15) KCTJ Part 8

b) 2010 69 Kar. L. J. Part 11

c) 35 VST – Part 2 to 5

d) 5 GST – Part 3 & 5

Reference/Description

2010 (69) Kar . L.J. 623 (Tri.)(DB) :Addison & Company Ltd.,Bangalore v. State of KarnatakaIn the instant case the KarnatakaAppellate Tribunal in the context ofthe Karnataka Tax on Entry of GoodsAct, 1979 (KTEG Act) held that Toolsviz., drill bits, reamers and cuttersused in industrial machinery could notbe considered as parts or accessoriesof industrial machinery under Entry52 of First Schedule to the KTEG Act,for purpose of levy of entry tax. TheTribunal, in the absence of a definitionof the term ‘Tool’ in the KTEG Actreferred to the Karnataka Sales TaxAct, 1957, (KST Act) wherein underEntry 1(iii)(e) of Part ‘M’ of SecondSchedule such Tools were separatelyconsidered as wear parts orconsumables for purpose of levy ofsales tax. The Tribunal noted thatwhen under the KST Act such toolswere not considered as parts oraccessories of machinery, and in theabsence of any notification issuedunder Section 3(1) of the KTEG Act,specifying rate of tax leviable inrespect of such tools, held that Entrytax could not be levied in respect ofsuch tools by bringing the said goods

under Entry 52 of First Schedule tothe KTEG Act.

[2010] 35 VST 321 (Gauhati):Meghalaya Bitchem Pvt. Ltd. &another v. State of Meghalaya &othersThe back-drop to the instant case isthat by Section 8(5) of the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) asamended with effect from May 11,2002, the power of the States to grantexemption of sales tax for sale ofgoods in the course of inter-State tradeor commerce came to be restricted tothe sale by the dealer only to anotherregistered dealer. However, prior tothe coming into force of the 2002amendment, no such restriction wasplaced upon the power of the Statesto grant the sales tax exemption. TheHigh Court noted that the saidamendment could not, therefore, haveany retrospective effect.The instantcase dealt with a matter wherein thePetitioner acting upon theunequivocal assurance made by theState under the Meghalaya IndustrialPolicy, 1997 (assuring subsidies,incentives and assistance to small-scale, medium and large scalecategories of industries in the Stateand notified the Meghalaya Industries(Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001on April 12, 2001 providing that alleligible units would be entitled tosales tax exemption) set up a plant forproduction of bitumen emulsion andallied modified bituminous productsinvesting a project cost to the orderof Rs. 268.71 lakhs. The High Courtheld that the Notification dt. April 12,

2001 allowing exemption in respectof sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce notnecessarily to a registered dealer didnot fall foul of Section 8(5) of theCentral Sales Tax Act, 1956 prior toits amendment, which came into forceonly with effect from May 11, 2002.It was noted that the notification dt.April 12, 2001 was, therefore, notcontrary to law. The High Courtfurther noted no evidence was shownby the State that public interest wouldbe prejudiced if it was required tocarry out the promise. Neither was itthe case of the State that therepresentation was made outside theauthority or power of its officials tomake. Under the circumstances, theHigh Court held that the State wasbarred by the doctrine of promissoryestoppel from issuing the notificationdated 5th September 2005 (whichconfined the exemption only toregistered dealers or theGovernment), which, ex facie, wasbad in law. The Court noted that thePetitioner had, therefore, made out aclear case for the application of thedoctrine of promissory estoppel. TheHigh Court therefore held that theNotification dt. September 5, 2005,the assessment order dt. February 15,2007 and the notice of demand dt.February 20, 2007 emanatingtherefrom were to be quashed.

INCOME TAXPARTS DIGESTED:a) 328 ITR – Part 2 to 5

b) 194 Taxman – Part 3 to 6

c) 195 Taxman – Part 1

d) 5 ITR(Trib) – Part 6 & 9

e) 6 ITR(Trib) – Part 1 to 4

f) 126 ITD – Part 4

g) 127 ITD – Part 1 to 4

5 January2011

h) 42-B BCAJ – Part 2

i) 59 TCA – Part 5

Reference/Description

[2010] 328 ITR 202 (Patna): GaneshFoundry & Casting Ltd. v. ITAT &anotherIn the context of search and seizure,the High Court of Patna held that thediscovery of payments violative ofSection 40A(3) would render theamounts assessable as undisclosedincome. The Court noted that thetransactions were not only violativeof Section 40A(3) but also were actsof fraud and were directly and clearlyrelatable to the materials found duringthe course of search and seizure.Theaforesaid judgement cannot be takenas a ratio as the facts of the case arepeculiar involving fraud.[2010] 328 ITR 342 (Delhi): CIT v.Sahib Chits (Delhi) (Pvt.) Ltd.In the context of Section 194A andthe money received on chit fund, theDelhi High Court noted that the chitagreement would not fall under‘money lending’ and the same couldnot be regarded as ‘debt incurred’.The Court therefore held that the bidamount disbursed could not be treatedas interest payable on moneyborrowed so as to attract theprovisions of Section 194A.[2010] 328 ITR 405 (Karn): DGIT(Exemptions) & another v. JockeysAssociation of IndiaIn the instant case the Karnataka HighCourt held that the ChiefCommissioner and Director Generalof Income-tax (Exemptions) videCircular-cum Notification F.No. 400/235/95-IT(b) dt. 23-5-1996 havejurisdiction to grant waiver of interestonly in cases covered by category 2(a) to (e) mentioned in the saidcircular.

[2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC): SargamCinema v. CITThe Apex Court in the instant caseheld that the AO could not havereferred the matter of the Appellantto the Departmental Valuation Officerwherein the books of account of theassessee had never been rejected.[2010] 328 ITR 515 (SC): Assist. CITv. Dhariya Construction Co.The Apex Court in the instant caseheld that the opinion of the DistrictValuation Officer (DVO) could not bethe basis for reopening of assessmentunder Section 147. The Apex Courtwhile holding so noted that theopinion of the DVO per se is notinformation for the purposes ofreopening assessment under Section147. For the purpose of reopening theassessment the AO has to apply hismind to the information, if any,collected and must form a beliefthereon.[2010] 328 ITR 600 (Ker): CIT v.Kumbazha Tourist Home (Dissolved)The instant case dealt with the liabilityto capital gains on the dissolution ofthe firm and the distribution of thedepreciated assets among the partners.The Kerala High Court held that insuch a case the transaction wascovered under the provisions ofSection 45(4). While so holding theHigh Court also distinguished theapplication of Section 50(1) vis-à-visSection 45(4). The Court noted thatwhat was contemplated under Section50(1) was sale of depreciated assetsby the assessee, whereas what iscovered by Section 45 (4) wasdistribution of assets in the course ofdissolution of the firm. Therefore, thedistribution of depreciated assetamong the partners in the course ofdissolution of a firm was not coveredby Section 50(1), but had to be

assessed under Section 45(4) of theAct.[2010] 7 taxmann.com 82 (Ahd.-ITAT); [2010] 194 Taxman (BN –XIV) Part 3 : ThakorlalHarkishandas Intwala v. ITOIn the context of exemption fromcapital gains under Section 54F, theAhmedabad Tribunal held that thewhere the assessee had deposited thesale proceeds in normal saving bankaccount as against the schemespecified by the Central Government,the proviso to Section 54F wouldapply against the assessee and hecannot be given any benefit underSection 54F. Therefore if the assesseedoes not deposit the sale proceeds asper Section 54F(4) in the notifiedbank account scheme, he would notbe entitled for any benefit underSection 54F.[2010] 194 Taxman 477 (Ker): B.Raveendran Pillai v. CITIn the instant case the assessee hadpurchased a hospital with its land,building, equipments, staff, name,trademark and goodwill as a goingconcern. In the context of depreciationclaimed by the assessee on the saidgoodwill, the High Court of Keralaheld that since an amount was paidtowards goodwill for ensuringretention and continued business inhospital, it was certainly paid foracquiring business and commercialrights and was comparable withtrademark, franchise, copyright, etc.,referred to in first part of clause (ii)of Section 32(1) and therefore thedepreciation claim had to be allowed.[2010] 194 Taxman 495 (Delhi);[2010] 42-B BCAJ 161 (Delhi-HC):DIT v. Jacabs Civil Incorporated/Mitsubishi CorporationIn a case where the assessee was anon-resident, and the entire tax was

6

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

to be deducted at source on paymentsmade by payee to it, the Delhi HighCourt held that, that being the casethere was no question of payment ofadvance tax by the assessee and,therefore, it would not be permissiblefor revenue to charge any interestunder Section 234B on the assessee.(It was noted that under Section209(1)(d), the tax ‘deductible orcollectible at source’ has to be reducedfrom the advance tax payable. S. 195casts an obligation on the payer todeduct tax at source. Therefore, theentire tax is to be deducted at sourcewhich is payable on such paymentsmade by the payee to the non-resident.)Further the Court noted thatSection 234D inserted by the FinanceAct, 2003 w.e.f. 1.6.2003 is in thenature of a substantive provision andwas applicable only from assessmentyear 2004-05 onwards.[2010] 194 Taxman 518 (Ker.):Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v.Assist. CITIn the instant case the High Court ofKerala held that the discount given bythe assessee, a mobile cellularoperator, to distributors in course ofselling of sim cards and rechargecoupons under pre-paid scheme ofgetting a connection was, insubstance, a payment for services tobe rendered by distributors to assesseeand, so much so, it would fall withindefinition of ‘commission orbrokerage’ under Section 194H.[2010] 8 taxmann.com 22 (Jp.-ITAT); [2010] 195 Taxman (BN – V)Part 1;[2010] 6 ITR (Trib) 147(Jaipur) : Gyan Chand Batra v. ITOIn the instant case the Jaipur Tribunalheld that the deeming fiction asprovided in Section 50C ( forconsidering the full value of

consideration as the value adopted forstamp duty) in respect of the words“full value of consideration” was tobe applied only for the purposes ofSection 48. The Tribunal noted thatthe words “full value ofconsideration” as mentioned in otherprovisions of the Act is not governedby the meaning of full value ofconsideration as contained in Section50C (which has got a restrictiveapplication).Therefore, it was heldthat net consideration under theExplanation to Section 54F(1) of theAct means the actual full value ofconsideration and not the deemed oneunder section 50C.[2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom.);[2010] 42-B BCAJ 161 (Bombay-HC): CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.In the instant case the Bombay HighCourt dealt with the provision ofSection 147 post the insertionExplanation 3 to the said Section withretrospective effect as from 1-4-1989vide the Finance Act 2009. The HighCourt held that an explanation to astatutory provision is intended toexplain its content and cannot beconstrued to override it or to renderits substance and core as nugatory.The Court further held that post theamendment to the said Section, theAO not only has power to assess orreassess income which has escapedassessment and which was the basisof formation of belief, but also thatincome which comes to his noticeduring the course of proceedingsunder the said Section. It implies thateven though the notice issued underSection 148 containing the reasons forreopening the assessment does notcontain a reference to a particularissue with reference to which incomehas escaped assessment, yet the AO

may assess or reassess the income inrespect of any issue which hasescaped assessment, when such issuecomes to his notice subsequently inthe course of theproceedings.However the Court alsoheld that if after issuing a notice underSection 148, the AO accepts thecontention of the assessee and holdsthat the income, for which he hadinitially formed a reason to believethat it had escaped assessment has amatter of fact not escaped assessment,then it is not open to the AO toindependently assess some otherincome and if he intends to do so thena fresh notice under Section 148would be necessary.[2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 540 (Chennai):Chandrakumar v. Assist. CITIn the instant case the ChennaiTribunal reading the provisions ofSections 32(2), 71(2A) and 72harmoniously held that theunabsorbed depreciation under thehead “Profits and gains of businessor profession” could not be set offagainst income under head the“Salary”.[2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 570 (Mumbai):Milan Sharad Ruparel v. Assist. CITIn the instant case the sale proceedsof the capital assets (shares) receivedby the assessee were utilized orappropriated for different purpose andthe assessee had no personal funds toacquire a residential house. Theresidential house was purchased fromout of the loans borrowed from thebank. In these circumstances, theMumbai Tribunal held that since thesale proceeds or the capital gainaccrued to the assessee were notwholly appropriated towards thepurchase of the residential housewithin the specified period, the

7 January2011

assessee was not entitled to claimexemption of whole capital gainunder Section 54F of the Act. Onlywhatever amount was utilized inpurchase of a residential house fromout of the said capital gain only waseligible for the correspondingdeduction under Section 54F.[2010] 6 ITR (Trib) 22 (Delhi): Smt.Shobha Rani Shah v. ITOIn the instant case the Delhi Tribunalheld that for the purpose ofcomputation of interest underSections 234A and 234B, the samehad to be computed as from the firstrelevant date under the provisions ofSections 234A & 234B and not fromthe date tax was actually deducted atsource. In the instant case the AOcomputed the interest after deductingthe tax at source from the amount ofassessed tax as from the actual dateof tax deducted at source by the bankand not from the first date from whichinterest had been charged. TheTribunal noted that there was no suchprovision in Sections 234A and 234Bthat if the tax was deducted by thepayer on a later date, for the purposeof computation of interest under thesetwo sections the amount of such taxshould be deducted from the amountof assessed tax with effect from suchlater date. When interest income ofthe assessee was made liable to taxfor the relevant assessment year ofwhich such income was related to, taxdeducted therefrom had to be reducedfrom the amount of assessed tax forthe purpose of calculation of interestunder Sections 234A and 234B fromthe first date of the period for whichinterest was being charged and notfrom the later date being the date ofactual deduction of tax by the payer,i.e., the bank.

[2010] 6 ITR (Trib) 48 (Delhi):Assist. CIT v. Smt. Bharti SharmaThe instant case dealt with theprovisions of Section 44AB and theconsequent penalty leviable underSection 271B in a case where the auditas mandated under the former Sectionhas not been complied with. TheDelhi Tribunal observed that theprovisions of Section 44AB mandatethat where the total sales, turnover orgross receipts of the business carriedon by the assessee exceed the limitsprescribed in the section the assesseeis duty bound to get his accountsaudited. Therefore it follows that in acase where an assessee carries onmore than one business and theturnover of all the businesses takentogether is more than the specifiedlimits he has to get the accounts of allthe businesses audited. Failure on thepart of the assessee would make himliable to penalty under Section 271B.The Tribunal held that for the purposeof Section 44AB turnover of all thebusiness has to be considered but theprovisions of Section 271B would bepressed in operation in respect of thefailure only and not in respect ofaccounts which have been audited. Inother words penalty cannot beimposed in respect of the businesswhose books of account have beenaudited and filed on or before the duedate specified in the Act.[2010] 6 ITR (Trib) 81 (Bangalore):SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assist.CITThe instant case primarily dealt withthe various aspects in the context oftransfer pricing.The TPO had workedout the arm’s length price on the basisof man hour rate charged by theassessee to its associated enterprisehad also clarified the said rate was

within the range reported by theNASSCOM. Subsequently the TPOabandoned the same and adopted thetransactional net margin method asthe most appropriate method fordetermining the arm’s length price.The Tribunal held that having adopteda particular method for comparing theprice derivation for the purpose of thearm’s length price, it was not open tothe TPO to switch over to anothermethod.The tribunal held that as theasseessee company had shown itsmargin at 6%, all comparables withless than 6% margin should berejected.Further in the context ofseveral transactions and thereinclusion or otherwise for the purposeof comparability was reasoned out bythe Tribunal as follows:1) In thematter of foreign exchangefluctuation gains the Tribunal heldthat the same was an integral part ofthe sales proceeds of an assesseecarrying on export business and hadto be included in the computation ofthe operating margin of the assessee-company.2) In the matter ofincome-tax refund credited as othermiscellaneous income in the accountsof the assessee-company the Tribunalheld that the same could not beincluded in the operating profits forthe purpose of arriving at the profitlevel indicator because the operatingprofit of an assessee is to be computedwithout considering the income-taxpayments as well as income-taxrefunds.3) Where anagreement to purchase was terminatedbecause the assessee could acquire abetter property on more favourableterms, and this resulted in payment ofcompensation, it was held that thesame was not a regular operatingexpenditure of the assessee but an

8

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

extraordinary item. Therefore, theamount of Rs. 1.05 crores could notbe treated as part of the operatingexpenditure of the assessee.TheTribunal also observed that theproviso to Section 92C(2) substitutedby the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 waswith effect from October 1, 2009 andwould be applicable to the assessmentyear 2009-10 and onwards. For theassessment year 2003-04 old provisoonly was to be applicable. TheTribunal observed that the old provisogave an option to the assessee to adopta price different from the arithmeticalmean by an amount not exceeding 5percent of such arithmetical mean, i.e.,the assessee has an option to claim thetax payer’s marginal relief at 5 percentwith reference to the arithmeticalmean irrespective of the range ofactual deviation between the margindisclosed by the assessee and theaverage mean margin. The assesseewill get a standard deduction of 5percent and the assessee’s arm’slength price will be increased to 15percent and thereafter the differenceof 5 percent between 20 percent and15 percent alone shall be added asarm’s length price adjustment.[2010] 6 ITR (Trib) 182(Ahmedabad): ITO v. Harley StreetPharmaceuticals Ltd.In the instant case the AhmedabadTribunal held that the provisions ofSection 50C could not be invoked onthe purchaser. The assessee hadpurchased land and the AO madeaddition under Section 69B on basisof additional stamp duty paid byassessee invoking Section 50C. TheTribunal held that Section 50C wasnot applicable to purchaser.[2010] 6 ITR (Tri) 196 (Kolkata):D.J. Shah Foundation v. DIT

(Exemption)The Tribunal in the instant case heldthat any circular issued by the Boardwhich was favourable to the assesseewould be binding on the Department.In the context of Section 80G(5)(vi)and Circular No. 5 dated 3-6-2010 theTribunal held that the approvals(recognition as a charitable institutionand availing of exemptions therein)expiring on or after October 1, 2009were deemed to be extended inperpetuity till specific withdrawalunder the said Board’s Circular.Therefore in the said case where theDirector of Income-Tax (Exemption)had granted exemption only for theassessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13,the Tribunal directed theDIT(Exemption) to grant exemptiontill withdrawal in accordance withlaw.[2010] 6 ITR (Trib) 407(Visakhapa tnam):Hindus tanShipyard Ltd. v. Dy. CITIn the instant case the benefit ofwaiver of interest on loans borrowedfrom the Government was notdisclosed in the profit and lossaccount but same was shown as a partof the notes to account. The statutoryauditors of the company had given aqualified certificate, more particularlyregarding the non-incorporating ofwaiver benefits. The reason providedby the assessee for not incorporatingthe waiver benefits in the books ofaccount was that the Government ofIndia had stated in its report toParliament that the impact of capitalrestructuring would be reflected in thecompany’s records only after thereceipt of approval of minimumalternate tax exemption from theGovernment, and the same militatedagainst the principles of mercantile

system of accounts. The Tribunalobserved that since the assessee haddisclosed the details of capitalrestructuring proposal approved bythe Government of India in the notesto the accounts, any reference madeto the profit and loss account shallinclude the notes also. The Tribunalheld that the AO had to consider boththe profit and loss account and thenotes to the accounts to determine the“book profit” for the purpose ofsection 115JA of the Act. Thereforethe Tribunal held that the AO wasentitled to recompute the book profitsby including the effect of waiverbenefits which had already accrued tothe assessee. The interest amountwaived by the Government of Indiawas to be included in the computationof “book profit” for the purpose ofsection 115JA of the Act.[2010] 126 ITD 131 (Chennai):Assist. CIT v. Goyal DressesIn the instant case the assessee was apartnership firm consisting of 7partners who were related to eachother. During the relevant accountingyear one of the partners namely ‘P’retired from the firm. The remaining6 partners continued business andaccording the partnership wasreconstituted. In view of the claimmade by ‘P’, the remaining partnersagreed to release one property of thefirm. In the said context the ChennaiTribunal held that ‘distribution ofcapital assets on dissolution of a firmor otherwise’ as stated in Section45(4) could not be extrapolated tobring retirement of one of the partnerswithin its ambit. Further the Tribunalwhile rendering its judgement notedthat in the present case there wasretirement of only one partner.Therefore dealing with the expression

9 January2011

‘distribution’ the Tribunal noted thatthe same necessarily involves the ideaof division between several personswhich is the same as payment toseveral persons. In this view of thematter, the term used in Section 45(4)‘distribution of capital assets on thedissolution of a firm or otherwise’cannot be extrapolated to bringretirement of one partner into theambit of this section.[2010] 126 ITD 141 (Bang.) :Siemens Public CommunicationsNetworks Ltd. v. CITThe Bangalore Tribunal in the instantcase held that where there weresurplus funds which were availablefrom export-oriented undertaking andthe same was utilized for otherundertaking, the interest derived onthe same on notional basis cannot beconsidered for purpose of deduction

under Section 10B as there was nonexus between interest income andexport.[2010] 127 ITD 74 (Bang.) :Karnataka Instrade Corpn. Ltd. v.Assist. CITIn the context of Section 41(1), theBangalore Tribunal held that the merefact that balances written back arestatutorily to be assessed by a fictionas business income under Section41(1), it would not justify allowanceof any expenditure if no business hasactually been carried on by theassessee during relevantperiod.Further the Tribunal also heldthat in the absence of any businesscarried on by the assessee in yearunder appeal, there was no questionof treating brought forwarddepreciation as current year’sdepreciation for purpose of granting

allowance and the assessee was notentitled to set off brought forwarddepreciation against profits assessedunder Section 41(1).[2010] 42-B BCAJ 155 : G o l d e nStables Lifestyle Centre Pvt. Ltd. v.CIT ITA No. 5145/Mum./2009, dt.30.09.2010In the instant case the MumbaiTribunal held that the provisions ofSection 40(a)(ia) are not applicable toexpenditure which has accrued priorto 10-09-2004 when the Finance Act,(No 2) 2004 got the presidentialapproval. However the TribunalFurther held that the amendment toSection 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act,2010 which extends the time limit forall TDS payable throughout the yearhas been introduced as a curativemeasure and therefore would apply toearlier years also.

Adv

t.

Adv

t.

INVESTMENT BANKING COURSEA u s t a l G r o u p

WWW.AUSTALGROUP.NET/EDUCATION

LIVE CLASSROOM TRAINING

COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL MODELING AND

VALUATION ANALYSIS COURSE

Class Format

All 8 sessions (4 hours each) are tailored for personalizedinstruction using the case study approach. Each studentfollows the banker teaching the class and builds the financialmodels along with him.

Course Materials

INTRODUCTION AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS

COMPREHENSIVE VALUATION ANALYSIS

INTEGRATED CASH FLOW MODELING

COMPLETE LBO MODELING

MERGER (ACQUISITION) MODELING

INVESTMENT BANKING PROCESS AND BESTPRACTICES, INTERVIEW SKILLS AND RESUME REVISION

For More Information:

Please email us at info@austalgroup.net or sign upon our website at www.austalgroup.net/education.Please visit our website to view all our offerings.

10

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

Background:

The Central Governmentintroduced service tax under thecategory of ‘renting of immovableproperty’ with effect from01.06.2007. Service tax was levied onany service provided or to be providedin relation to renting of immovableproperty for use in the course offurtherance of business or commerce.The levy of service tax on renting ofimmovable property has been a matterof debate since the date it wasproposed to be introduced. In thisregard, two High Courts havepronounced contrary judgments onlevy of service tax on renting.

The levy of service tax onrenting of immovable property hasbeen a matter of debate since the dateit was proposed to be introduced. TwoHigh Courts have pronouncedcontrary judgments on levy of servicetax on renting. While the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana has upheld theconstitutional validity of levy ofservice tax on renting of immovableproperty, the Delhi High Court hasheld that renting per se is not a serviceand no service tax is leviable.

In April 2009, the Delhi HighCourt ruled in the case of Home

RECENT DEVELOPMENT ONLEVY OF SERVICE TAX ONRENTING OF IMMOVABLEPROPERTY – RULING OF THEHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &HARYANACA. N.R. Badrinath, B. Com., Grad C.W.A., F.C.A.,CA. Madhur Harlalka, B. Com., F.C.A.

Solutions Retail1 that mere renting ofimmovable property does not amountto any service and thus no service taxis payable. Further, it was held thatonly if any other services in relationto renting are provided, then suchother services would attract servicetax and further that the notificationNo. 24/2007 dated 22.05.2007 andcircular Circular No. 98/1/2008 dated4.1.2008 issued thereunder were ultravires, the levy of service tax. TheCentral Government has filed aspecial leave petition (SLP) before theHonourable Supreme Courtchallenging this decision of the Delhihigh Court. Thereafter, the CentralGovernment amended the definitionof renting of immovable property toinclude the activity of mere rentingwithin the meaning of taxableservices. This amendment waseffected on 01.07.2010 with

retrospective effect from 01.06.2007.

In the meanwhile, the HighCourt of Punjab & Haryana (P&H)has now in the case of Shubh TimbSteels Ltd vs. Union of India andAnother2, upheld that renting ofimmovable property is a service andlevy of service tax on renting isconstitutionally valid. Further, it hasalso upheld the retrospectiveamendment made by the CentralGovernment. This Article takes a lookat the key principles held in the

judgment delivered by the High Courtof P&H.

High Court of P&H Held:

In what appears to be one of thelandmark judgements in service taxmatters, the High Court of P&H hasobserved that service tax is adestination based consumption taxand is not a charge on business buton a consumer and is leviable onservices provided. It is thus, a valueadded tax. Further, even if it is heldthat transaction of transfer ofimmovable property did not involvevalue addition, the provision cannotbe held to be void in absence ofencroachment on State List.

This service tax levy being inaddition to income tax and propertytax, on the question whether it willbe harsh, it has been held that so longas the levy is within the legislative

The levy of service tax on renting of immovable property has been amatter of debate since the date it was proposed to be introduced. TwoHigh Courts have pronounced contrary judgments on levy of service taxon renting. While the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has upheld theconstitutional validity of levy of service tax on renting of immovableproperty, the Delhi High Court has held that renting per se is not a serviceand no service tax is leviable.

12009-TIOL-196-HC-DEL-ST 2 2010-TIOL-765-HC-P&H-ST

11 January2011

competence, it is not a matter for HighCourt to analyse the same.

Service element exists:

It is held that the levy of servicetax is on the service element involvedtherein and not on land or buildingper se. Thus, levy of service tax onrenting is outside the scope of Entry49 of State List and the power ofUnion Legislature is undoubted underEntry 92C read with 97 of Unit List.Hence, levy of service tax on rentingis constitutionally valid.

The levy of service tax is onactivity relating to land and building(i.e. renting). The services may be‘property based’ or ‘performancebased’. Renting of immovableproperty for commercial purposes iscertainly a service and has value forthe service receiver. Thus service taxis rightly levied on considerationreceived for allowing use of thepremises for commercial purposes.

The aspect of service element inrenting transaction is certainly anindependent aspect covered underEntry 92C read with Entry 97 of theUnion List. Thus, it cannot be heldthat renting of property did notinvolve any service as service couldonly be in relation to property and notby renting of property. Nevertheless,it may be noted that Courts haveupheld the levy of service tax inrelation to property in respect of (1)Mandap Keepers, (2) Pandal /Shamiana (Section 65 (105) (zzw)),(3) Convention Service (Section 65(105) (zc)) and (4) Right to useproperties for business purposesunder business support service(Section 65 (105) (zzzq)).

Constitutional Validity:

The question before the HighCourt of P&H was whether levy ofservice tax on renting was covered

under Entry 49 of List II (State List)exclusively and not covered by Entry92C or 97 of List I (Union List). TheHigh Court while analysing the samehas relied on various judicialprecedents and noted that it is a well-settled law on interpretation of scopeof tax entries and that theconstitutional scheme of distributionof legislative powers between Unionand State legislatures is under Article246 of the Constitution. Every tax islevied on an object or an event oftaxation and that the subject of tax isdistinct from incidence of taxation.

It has observed that the tax onland and building is covered underEntry 49 of State List, tax on incomeaccrued from property is coveredunder Entry 82 of Union List and thewealth tax on capital value of assetsincluding land and building is undercovered Entry 86. The levy of servicetax is on property service is coveredunder the Entry 92C read with 97 ofUnion List.

On the question whether there isan overlap in the powers of theCentral and the State Government tolevy tax on immovable propertyrelated transactions, it has observedthat the subject of tax falling in powerof one particular legislature in oneaspect may also fall within thelegislative power of another in otheraspects. Such overlapping isunavoidable and the same transactionmay involve two or more events indifferent aspects. In this context, theHigh Court has illustrated the twotaxes, viz., Central Excise duty andSales Tax, the former levied on

manufacture and the latter in respectof sales. It has observed that in onesense there is overlap, but in law thereis no overlapping - the levy of servicetax is on renting (i.e. on activityconnected with Building and Land)and levy of property tax is on Buildingand Land per se. Hence, the levy ofservice tax and property tax is ondifferent aspects and is notoverlapping.

The entries in the Union and theState lists being merely topic and filedof legislation, they must receive aliberal construction by a broad andgenerous spirit, widest possibleinterpretation and not in narrowpedantic sense. The Constitutioncontains three lists with large numberof entries and hence there is bound tobe some overlapping among them.Even if there is overlapping of entries,the doctrine of pith and substance hasto be applied to determine as to whichentry does a given piece of legislationrelate to.

The High Court has furtherobserved that under the State list, thelevy of tax on property does notexclude levy of tax on services inrelation to property. A tax on oneaspect of subject matter did notexclude tax on another aspect of thesame subject matter. In view of thissettled legal position, there is noconflict in levy of service tax onrenting service by the CentralGovernment under Entry 49 of theState List and Levy of service tax iscovered under 92C read with 97 ofthe Union List.

It is held that the levy of service tax is on the service element involvedtherein and not on land or building per se. Thus, levy of service tax onrenting is outside the scope of Entry 49 of State List and the power ofUnion Legislature is undoubted under Entry 92C read with 97 of UnitList. Hence, levy of service tax on renting is constitutionally valid.

12

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

It is held that the levy of servicetax is on the service element involvedtherein and not on land or buildingper se. Thus, levy of service tax onrenting is outside the scope of Entry49 of State List and the power ofUnion Legislature is undoubted underEntry 92C read with 97 of Unit List.Hence, levy of service tax on rentingis constitutionally valid.

Retrospective amendment of thedefinition:

The High Court has observedthat it is well settled that competentlegislature can always clarify orvalidate a law retrospectively. Itcannot be held to be harsh or arbitrary.Object of validating law is to rectifythe defect in phraseology or lacunaand to effectuate and to carry out theobject for which earlier law wasenacted. Hence, levy of service taxon renting retrospectively is valid.

Differentiation with Delhi HighCourt:

The Delhi High Court held thatany services provided ‘in relation to

renting of immovable property’ wastaxable services and that the activityof renting per se is the primaryactivity and does not qualify as aservice in relation to renting. Theactivity of renting does not entail anyvalue addition and consequently, theNotifications and Circular/s issuedthereunder are ultra vires.

Now, in terms of theretrospectively amended definition,the High Court of P&H has held thatmere renting of immovable propertyis also a service and that the levy ofservice tax is constitutionally valid.Hence, it is relevant to note that unlikethe High Court of Delhi, the HighCourt of P&H has considered theconstitutional validity. Further, whilethe decision may be contradictory, itmust be noted that the reasons andprinciples relied upon are different.

A Look beyond…

It is envisaged that theobservations by the High Court wouldhave a bearing on the disposal of writpetitions filed before other High

Courts on this matter. In themeanwhile, it must be noted that thereare several judgements by variousHigh Courts on the relevance orapplicability of a High Court rulingin other States / Union Territories.While certain judgements support theview that the same would be a bindingon all subordinate authorities acrossthe Country and not only in therelevant State, there are certain otherconflicting judgements upholding theview that the judgement would beapplicable only in the relevant Stateand would only have a persuasivevalue in other States / UnionTerritories. In the light of theconflicting decisions, we believe thatthe judgement of the High Court ofP&H be considered to only have apersuasive value in other States /Union Territories.

A final solution in the light of theconflicting decisions on this vexatiousissue of levy of service tax on rentingservices can come only from theSupreme Court.

If the P&H High Court ruling isREVERSED by the Supreme Court

Action taken /proposed to be

taken

If the P&H High Court ruling is UPHELD bythe Supreme Court

Lessor Lessee Lessor Lessee

If service tax iscollected from thelessee andremitted to theexchequer by thelessor

If service tax isnot collectedfrom the lesseeand not remittedto the exchequerby the lessor

No liability

Liable to be payservice taxtogether withinterest. Judicialprecedents existto support waiverof penalty.

CENVAT Credit may be claimed,subject to conditions prescribedtherein.

Depending upon the contractingterms between the lessor and lessee,the lessee may have to reimburse theservice tax to the lessor. The claim ofCENVAT credit may be disputed thatsupplementary invoice is notprescribed document for availmentof CENVAT credit.

Wouldnot beentitledto claimrefund.

Noliability

Will be entitled toclaim refundsubject to thecondition that noCENVAT credit isclaimed.

No liability

13 January2011

Easy Exit Scheme, 2011(under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956)

Salient Features:1. This scheme is in force from 1st

January 2011 to 31st January 2011.2. Applicable to 'defunct companies'

as defined in the scheme.3. Procedures(a) Any defunct company desirous of

getting its name strike off theRegister under Section 560 of theCompanies Act, 1956 shall make anapplication in the Form EES, 2011;

(b) The Form EES, 2011, should befiled electronically on the Ministryof Corporate Affairs portal namelywww.mca.gov.in accompanied byfiling fee of ` 3,000/-;

(c) In case, the application in FormEES, 2011, is not being digitallysigned by any of the director orManager or Secretary, a physicalcopy of the Form duly filled in, shallbe signed manually by a directorauthorised by the Board ofDirectors of the company and shallbe attached with the applicationForm at the time of its filingelectronically;

(d) In all cases, the Form EES, 2011,shall be certified by a CharteredAccountant in whole time practiceor Company Secretary in wholetime practice or Cost Accountant inwhole time practice;

(e) The company shall disclosepending litigations if any, involvingthe company while applying underthis Scheme;

(f) The Form shall be accompanied byan affidavit annexed at Annexure-A of Form EES, 2011, which shouldbe sworn by each of the existingdirector(s) of the company before aFirst Class Judicial Magistrate orExecutive Magistrate or OathCommissioner or Notary, to theeffect that the company has notcarried on any business sinceincorporation or that the company

did some business for a period upto a date (which should bespecified) and then discontinued itsoperations and has not carried onany business after the 1st April,2008, as the case may be;

(g) The Form EES, 2011 shall furtherbe accompanied by an IndemnityBond, duly notarized, as annexed atAnnexure B of Form EES, 2011, tobe given by every directorindividually or collectively, to theeffect that any losses, claim andliabilities on the company, will bemet in full by every directorindividually or collectively, evenafter the name of the company isstruck off the register ofCompanies;

(h) The Company shall also file aStatement of Account annexed atAnnexure C, prepared as on datenot prior to more than one monthpreceding the date of filing ofapplication in Form EES, 2011,duly certified by a statutory auditoror Chartered Accountant in wholetime practice, as the case may be.

(i) In the case of 100% Governmentcompanies, if no Board is inexistence, an officer not below therank of Deputy Secretary of theconcerned administrative Ministrymay be authorized to enter his nameand other details in Form EES, 2011and in Annexure A, B and C in placeof name and other details of thedirectors and also to sign the saiddocuments before filing.

(j) The Registrar of Companies, onreceipt of the application, shallexamine the same and if found inorder, shall give a notice to thecompany under section 560(3) ofthe Companies Act, 1956 by e-mailon its e-mail address intimated inthe Form, giving thirty days time,stating that unless cause is shown

to the contrary, its name be struckoff from the Register and thecompany will be dissolved;

(k) The Registrar of companies shall putthe name of applicant(s) and dateof making the application(s) underEES, 2011, on daily basis, on theMCA portal www.mca.gov.in,giving thirty days time for raisingobjection, if any, by thestakeholders to the concernedRegistrar;

(l) In case of company(s) like Non-Banking Financial Company(s),Collective Investment ManagementCompany(s) which are regulated byother Regulator(s) namely RBI,SEBI, the Registrar of Companies,at the end of every week, after theScheme commences, shall sendintimation of such companiesavailing EES, 2011, during thatperiod to the concernedRegulator(s) and also an intimationin respect of all companies availingEES, 2011, during that period to theoffice of the Income TaxDepartment giving thirty days timefor their objection, if any;

(m) The Registrar of Companiesimmediately after passing of timegiven in sub-paras (j) to (l) and onbeing satisfied that the case isotherwise in order, shall strike itsname off the Register and shall sendnotice under sub-section (5) ofsection 560 of the Companies Act,1956 for publication in the OfficialGazette and the applicant companyunder this Scheme shall standdissolved from the date ofpublication of the notice in theOfficial Gazette.

For further details, please visit :http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/CircularEES_3dec2010.pdf

14

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

Extention of last date for complying with the requirements of CPE hours creditfrom 31st December, 2010 to 31st March, 2011 - (27-12-2010)

For information of the members

Sub: Extention of last date for complying with the requirements of CPE hours credit from 31st December,2010 to 31st March, 2011This is for kind information of the members that the Council of the Institute has decided to extend the CPE Blockperiod of 3 years ending on 31st December, 2010, by three months, i.e. to 31st March, 2011.

IMPORTANT DATES TO REMEMBER DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2011

5th Jan. 2011 Payment of Central Excise Duty for the month of December 2010Payment of Service Tax for the month of December 2010 (in case of persons other thanindividual, proprietor & partnership firms)Payment of Service Tax for the Quarter 3 (Oct - Dec,10) of 2010-11 in case of individual,proprietor & partnership

6th Jan 2011 Payment of Service Tax for the month of December 2010 (in case of persons other thanindividual, proprietor & partnership firms)Payment of Service Tax for the Quarter 3 (Oct - Dec,10) of 2010-11 in case of individual,proprietor & partnership

6th Jan 2011 E-Payment of Central Excise Duty & Service Tax for the month of December 20107th Jan 2011 Payment of TDS Deducted for the month of December 201010th Jan 2011 Filing of monthly returns of Central Excise for the month of December 201015th Jan 2011 Filing of form 27Q for quarter ending December 2010

Filing of form 24Q, 26Q, & 27Q for quarter ending December 2010Payment of Central Excise Duty for the Quarter Ending December 2010 (For Manufacturersavailing SSI Exemption).Filing of Quarterly Return of Central Excise for the quarter ending December 2010 (forDealers registered under the Act)Payment of Provident Fund for the month of December 2010Filing of VAT 120 under KVAT Laws for the month of December 2010

20th Jan 2011 Filing of VAT 100 under KVAT Laws for the month of December 2010Payment of Professional Tax for the month of December 2010Filing of Quarterly Return of Central Excise for the quarter ending December 2010 (ForManufacturers availing SSI Exemption)

21st Jan 2011 Payment of Employee State Insurance for the month of December 201025th Jan 2011 Filing of Monthly returns of Provident Fund for the month of December 2010.

Certificate Course on IFRS at Bangalore CentreWe are pleased to announce that 6th Batch of Certificate Course on IFRS at Bangalore Centre is scheduled to takeplace on 22nd January 2011 subject to the minimum registration of 50 candidates. For further details please contact– 080-30563541 / 3542

Certificate Course on International Taxation at Bangalore CentreWe are pleased to announce that next batch of Certificate Course on International Taxation at Bangalore Centreis scheduled to take place on 22nd January 2011 subject to the minimum registration of 50 candidates. For furtherdetails please contact – 080-30563541 / 3542

15 January2011

Workshop on Communication Skills

Get Over Your FEAR of Public SpeakingThis is a unique workshop on public speaking being organised by the Bangalore Brach. In this workshopthe participants get to learn the skills required to be an effective Public Speaker and overcome the fearof facing an audience.

What participants would achieve at the end of the course?

Introduce yourself effectively. Write and Deliver speeches effectively. Be effective in expressions and gestures. Be effective in voice modulation.

Unique features:

Learning by practice, i.e. by speaking in front of audience. Mentors guide participants to prepare speeches. Experienced speakers will demonstrate and provide educational speeches on the projects designed

to improve the communication skills and help the speakers to prepare and deliver their speechesin an effective way.

Co-ordinator: CA. Subramaniam Chittur

Duration: 16 hours - 8 sessions of 2 hours each spread over two weeks - Mondays,Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays

Date & Time: 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 19th & 20th Jan 2011between 06.00pm & 08.00pm

Venue: Branch Premises Fees: `̀̀̀̀ 2,000/- for members

16 hrsCPE

Restricted to 30 participants on First Come First Serve basis.

For further details please contact:Mrs. Roopashree

Tel: 080-30563500 / 3513 Email: blrregistrations@icai.org

S.No Date Day Occasion1. 14th January Friday MAKARA

SANKRANTI2. 26th January Wednesday REPUBLIC DAY3. 2nd March Wednesday SHIVARATHRI4. 4th April Monday UGADI5. 22nd April Friday GOOD FRIDAY6 15th August Monday INDEPENDENCE

DAY7. 31st August Wednesday RAMZAN8. 1st September Thursday GANESH

CHATURTHI

List of Holidays for Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI for the year 2011S.No Date Day Occasion

9. 27th September Tuesday MAHALAYAAMAVASYA

10. 2nd October Sunday GANDHI JAYANTHI11. 5th October Wednesday AYUDHA POOJA12. 25th October Tuesday NARAKA

CHATURDASI13. 26th October Wednesday DEEPAVALI14. 1st November Tuesday KANNADA

RAJYOTHSAVA15. 7th November Monday BAKRID16. 25th December Sunday CHRISTMAS

16

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

“SAMMILANA” - Meeting for Better CauseTWO DAY NATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR STUDENTS AT BANGALORE

SATURDAY, 8TH JANUARY 2011 (DAY 1)

Time Session / Speaker09:30AM Inaugural Session

CA. Amarjit ChopraPresident, ICAICA. G. RamaswamyVice-President, ICAI

11:00AM TEA BREAK11:30AM DTC - Issues

Session Chairman:CA. K. K. ChytanyaStudent Speaker:Mr. Sagar B. V.

12:30PM Auditing in an ERP EnvironmentSession Chairman:CA. Babu JayandranStudent Speaker:Ms. Sanjana Hegde

01:30PM LUNCH BREAK02:30PM Interactive Session with the

Chairman & Vice ChairmanBoard of Studies, ICAICA. Vinod JainChairman, Board of Studies, ICAICA. V. MuraliVice-Chairman, Board of Studies, ICAI

03:30PM Road Map to IFRSSession Chairman:CA. M.P. Vijayakumar, ChennaiStudent Speaker:Mr. Narasimhan E.

04:30PM TEA BREAK05:00PM Personality Development &

Communication SkillsSri.Kathiravan

05:30PM Felicitation to Past SICASA Chairmenof Bangalore Branch

06:00PM Entertainment - Dance by“Ms. Manjula Paramesh & Group” &Rock Music by “Black & White” followedby Dinner

SUNDAY, 9TH JANUARY 2011 (DAY 2)

Time Session / Speaker09:00AM Strategies for success in CA exams

Padmashri CA.T. N. ManoharanPast President, ICAI

Spiritual and Motivational ThoughtsPadmashri Mathoor KrishnamoortiExecutive DirectorBharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bangalore

10:30AM Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)Session Chairman:CA. D. R. Venkatesh

Student Speaker:

Mr. Siddharth K. & Ms. Vibha

11:30AM TEA BREAK

11:45AM Companies Amendment Bill, 2009Session Chairman:Sri. M. R. Gopinath

Student Speaker:

Ms. Pratibha B. B.

01:00PM LUNCH BREAK

02:00PM GST-Way forwardSession Chairman:CA. S. Venkataramani

Student Speaker:

Ms. Dhanashree Prabhu & Mr. Ashfaq

03:00PM Valedictory Function

Note: Blood Donation Campby CA students arranged on 09.01.2011between 09.00AM & 01.00PM.

For further details, contact:

Mrs.ANURADHA RAO, 080-30563511

Registration Fee:1. Rs. 400/- Per Resident Student2. Rs. 500/- Per Outstation Student (including 2 days and 1 night accommodation)

Organized By Board of Studies, ICAI

Hosted By Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI & Bangalore Branch of SICASADate: 8th & 9th of January 2011 (Saturday & Sunday)

Venue: Sophia Auditorium, Sophia School, Basaveshwara Circle,Bangalore - 560 001 (Near Race Course)

17 January2011

One day Seminar on

“Banking & Insurance”Organized by

Banking & Insurance Committee of SIRC of ICAI

Hosted by

Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI

Saturday, 22nd January 2011

at : The Chancery Pavillion,Residency Road, Near Richmond Circle, Bangalore

between 09.00am & 05.30pm

Timing Session Speaker

09.00am – 09.30am REGISTRATION & INAUGURATION

09.30am – 11.00am OPPORTUNITIES IN INSURANCE SECTOR CA. S N JAYASIMHAN,& REGULATORS PERSPECTIVE JOINT DIRECTOR,

IRDA, HYDERABAD

11.00am - 11.15am TEA

11.15am – 01.15pm PRACTICAL APPROACH TO CONCURRENT CA. D VENKATARAMAN, AUDIT OF BANKS UNDER CBS ENVIRONMENT SALEM

01.15pm – 02.15pm LUNCH

02.15pm – 03.45pm PRACTICAL APPROACH TO AUDIT OF CA. P S PRABHAKAR, INSURANCE COMPANIES CHENNAI

03.45pm – 04.00pm TEA

04.00pm – 05.30pm PANEL DISCUSSION - OPEN HOUSE CA. P R SURESHCA. S N JAYASIMHANCA. D VANKATARAMAN

6 HrsCPE

Delegate Fees: `̀̀̀̀ 1,000/- for Members `̀̀̀̀ 1,500/- for Non Members

Restricted to 300 delegates on First Come First Serve basis.

For further details please contact:Mrs. Roopashree

Tel: 080-30563500 / 3513 Email: blrregistrations@icai.org

18

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011

Two day Seminar on“Basics in International Taxation”

Organized by

Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAIFriday, 28th & Saturday, 29th January 2011 at Branch Premises

between 10.00am & 05.30pm

Timing Session Speaker

Friday, 28th January 2011

09.30 am to 10.00 am Registration & Inauguration

10.00 am to 11.30 am International Taxation - Basics CA. C. S. Srinivas

11.30 am to 11.45 am Tea

11.45 am to 01.15 pm Concept of Residential Status CA. G. S. Prashanth

01.15 pm to 2.00 pm Lunch

02.00 pm to 03.30 pm Permanent Establishment & Business Profits CA. K. L. Prashanth

03.30 pm to 03.45. pm Tea

03.45 pm to 05.30 pm Certification u/s. 195, Form 15CA & 15CB CA. Narendra Jain

Saturday, 29th January 2011

09.30 am to 11.30 am Royalty & Fees for Technical Services (FTS) CA. B. P. Sachin Kumar

11.30 am to 11.45 am Tea

11.45 am to 01.15 pm Tax Credits CA. D. S. Vivek

01.15 pm to 2.00 pm Lunch

02.00 pm to 04.00 pm Discussion on Transfer Pricing CA. B. P. Sachin KumarCA. N. R. Rani

04.00 pm to 04.15. pm Tea

04.15 pm to 05.15 pm International Tax Provisions unde r DTC CA. Vinay N Sanji

Delegate Fees: `̀̀̀̀ 1,500/- for Members `̀̀̀̀ 2,000/- for Non Members

Restricted to 200 delegates on First Come First Serve basis.

For further details please contact:

Mrs. RoopashreeTel: 080-30563500 / 3513 Email: blrregistrations@icai.org

12 HrsCPE

19 January2011

20

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

January2011