Skip to main content

Posts

For money don’t huddle RBI to banks

‘Space out when raising funds; Sebi mulling securitisation platform’ In a bid to avoid crowding the market, the Reserve Bank of India ( RBI) has suggested that banks should not come altogether to raise capital from the market; they can probably consult each other to decide upon the timing to raise fresh capital from the market. "What we are telling banks is that simultaneously all of them shouldnt be coming together. Then there will be a problem. There should be a proper sequence for it. These are the strategies they can adopt," said RGandhi, RBI deputy governor, at the India Securitisation Summit organised by the National Institute of Securities Markets ( NISM). Every additional capital investment from the government was always welcome for public sector banks ( PSBs), he added. " We have been guiding the banks and others also for the next five years to compile the full requirement of BaselIII where large amount of capital is required. What we are suggesting is t

Exchanges fine companies for not having women directors

The BSE, Asias oldest stock exchange, has penalised 530 firms for not appointing women on their boards. Similarly, the National Stock Exchange ( NSE) has sent notices to 260 companies, an NSE spokesperson said. Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India ( MSEI), formerly known as MCX Stock Exchange, has sent notices to three companies, its spokesperson said. The Securities and Exchange Board of India ( Sebi), the capital markets regulator, had asked all listed companies to make these appointments by March 31, 2015. Sebi had prescribed an escalating penal structure for those not meeting the deadline. Those complying between April 1 and June 30, were to pay a fine of Rs.50,000. The BSE has 5,711 companies listed on it, while the NSE has about 1,300. MSEI has 108. Sebi had ordered a daily penalty of Rs.1,000, in addition to Rs.50,000 fine, on those who miss the June deadline. Business Standard, New Delhi, 14th July 2015 

Updates of the Day !!!!!

1.  CBDT released notification No. 2/2015 Dated 13-July-2015 on Electronic verification Code (EVC) for verification of ITR's. On the basis of – a) internet banking , b) AADHAR authentication , c) Bank ATM card and d) email and mobile number (where income is below Rs 5 lakhs). 2.  File TDS return for the quarter ended on 30th June, 2015 by 15th July, 2015 and Avoid inconvenience and fine. 3.  Input Credit is admissible even if Inputs are discarded during manufacturing process. [Union of India v/s. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd [(2015) 58  taxmann.com  237 (Supreme Court)]. 4.  SSI exemption available to job worker on goods manufactured under brand name of principal manufacturer [Vir Rubber Products P. Ltd. v/s. CCE (Supreme Court)]. 5.  RBI introduces 2 new annual return forms NBS8 and NBS9 for NBFC- ND with assets size of Rs100-500 Crore and with assets size below Rs 100 Crore Respectively Notification of 09.07.2015. 6.  NIRC of ICAI is organising Seminar on Ban

Today's Updates...

Income Tax Update : Electronic verification code notification is available at it website now no need to send ITR-V at bangalore use said system refer it website. Notification No. 2/2015 regarding Electronic Verification Code (EVC) for electronically filed Income Tax Return as an alternative mode of verification released. [Refer Notification No. 2/2015 dated 13/07/2015.  To read Complete Text , Link of Notification - https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/eFiling/Portal/StaticPDF/EVC_notification.pdf ] Regards, Webecreator!

Arbitrator must follow terms of contract

An arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract so far as award of interest from the date of cause of action to date of the award is concerned. Therefore, where the parties agree that no interest shall be payable, the arbitral tribunal cannot award interest. Supreme Court stated so case, Union of India vs Bright Power Projects. In this case, the government and the firm entered into a contract to erect certain structures. Disputes arose between them and they were referred to arbitration. The award was granted in favour of the firm, and it even included interest on the amount awarded. The government moved the high court arguing that interest was excluded in the contract. However, the high court dismissed the contention invoking Section 37 ( 7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act dealing with payment of interest. Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the government accepting its contention that the contract had specifically excluded interest. According to Section 37, if the terms