Newsletter for the Month of March 2012

1 March2012

Bangalore Branch of SIRCof the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

2March2012

3 March2012


CALENDAR OF EVENTS - March & April 2012Date/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 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. Nithin MahadevappaSub Editors : CA. Ravindranath. S.N

CA. Prasad. S.RCA. Shivakumar. H

07.03.12 CPE Teleconference on “Bank Branch Audit” Branch PremisesWednesday CA. C.V. Sajan 11.00am to 01.00pm07.03.12 Usage of MCA’s Statutory Report in XBRL ( Format) Branch PremisesWednesday using Tally ERP 9 06.00pm to 08.00pm

Mr. Vijaya Sarathy D.08th, 09th, Workshop on Communication Skills Branch Premises12th & 13th 05.00pm to 08.00pmMarch 2012 Delegate Fee: Rs.1,200/- Refer Page No:1814.03.12 Ethical Problems & Case Studies (Impact Seminar - No Fee) Branch PremisesWednesday CA. Ramachandran M. 05.30pm to 08.30pm17.03.12 Analysis of Union Budget-2012 (Open to General Public) Jnana Jyothi ConventionSaturday Moderators: CA. T. V. Mohandas Pai Centre, Central College

CA. H. Padamchand Khincha Campus, Bangalore -1Delegate Fee: Nil Refer Page No: 17 04.00pm to 08.00pm

18.03.12 Golden Jubilee Valedictory Kassia Bhavan, West of Chord Road,Sunday - Family Gettogether & Variety Entertainments Vijayanagar, Bangalore, 4:00pm to 8:00pm19.03.12 Workshop on Revised Schedule VI under Companies Act Branch PremisesMonday & including its XBRL integration 04.00pm to 08.15pm20.03.12 on both daysTuesday Delegate Fee: Rs. 500/- Refer Page No:1720.03.12 CPE Teleconference on Branch PremisesTuesday “A clause by clause Analysis on Finance Bill 2012” 02.30pm to 04.30pm

CA.Dr. Girish Ahuja21.03.12 Taxability on Import of services” Branch PremisesWednesday CA. G. Praveen Kumar 06.00pm to 08.00pm24.03.12 Clause by Clause Discussion on Finance Bill 2012 J N Tata Auditorium,Saturday Delegate Fee: Rs. 900/- Refer Page No: 16 Bangalore

09.30am to 05.00pm27.03.12 Seminar on “Bank Branch Audit” NIMHANS ConventionTuesday Delegate Fee: Rs. 1500/- Refer Page No: 16 Hall, Bangalore

(Venue is subject to change) 08.45am to 05.30pm28.03.12 XBRL - MCA Taxonomy Reporting- Branch PremisesWednesday Challenges Faced (Impact Seminar - No Fee) 05.30pm to 08.30pm

CA. S. Hariharan04.04.12 Service Tax - Recent Budget Amendments - Finance Act 2012 Branch PremisesWednesday CA. Sai Prasad 06.00pm to 08.00pm11.04.12 Budget changes in respect of International Taxation Branch PremisesWednesday (Impact Seminar - No Fee) 05.30pm to 08.30pm

CA. D. S. Vivek

2 hrs

3 hrs

8 hrs

2 hrs

6 hrs

2 hrs

2 hrs

12 hrs

4 hrs

2 hrs

6 hrs

3 hrs

3 hrs

4March2012

TAX UPDATES JANUARY 2012CA. Chythanya K.K., B.Com, FCA, LL.B., Advocate

VAT, CST, ENTRY TAX,PROFESSIONAL TAX

PARTS DIGESTED:a) 47 VST – Part 1 to 4b) 12 GSTR – Part 2 & 5c) 16 KCTJ – Part 10

Reference / Description

[2012] 47 VST 126 (All. – HC): IndiaExports v. State of U.P. and others -In the instant case the Allahabad HighCourt held that the fiction that theSEZ is deemed to be outside thecustoms territory of India is limited andcannot be invoked for the purpose ofdetermining import/export. Therefore,sales made from unit in SEZ to unit inDomestic Tariff Area cannot be treatedas import and hence liable to be taxedunder CST Act, 1956.

[2012] 47 VST 343 (Delhi – HC):Giesccke & Debrient I.P. Ltd. - In theinstant case the Canara Bank placedan order for import of bank noteprocessing machine to the dealer. Thedealer imported the same fromGermany under a bill of entry whichdescribed the dealer as the importerand Z as the cargo agent. The questionthat arose before the Delhi High Courtwas whether the above transactionwas sale in the course of import underSection 5(2) of the CST Act,1956.The Delhi High Court held thatalthough the dealer had entered intoan earlier contract with Canara Bank,for the purpose of the contract thedealer was not the agent of thesupplier in Germany. The obligationto comply with the purchase orderwas that of the dealer alone. Theywere two independent transactions.Back to back contract by themselves

do not prove that the first part ofSection 5(2) of the CST Act, 1956 isattracted and applicable.The Courtfurther held that the import may havebeen made with the intention tosupply the imported goods to theCanara Bank, but that by itself wasnot sufficient to satisfy therequirement of Section 5(2) of theCST Act, 1956 and there was no legalor contractual obligation to sell theequipment only to Canara Bank. Theimported goods could have beendiverted to another third person,without violation of the contractbetween the dealer and the CanaraBank. Therefore, the Court held thatthe above transaction was not a salein the course of import.

2011-12 (16) KCTJ 298 (Kar. – HC):Pfizer Ltd. v. State of Karnataka - Inthe instant case, the Petitioner hadmade an application during thependency of the matter before theauthority praying for return of defectiveForms – F for curing defects. However,the authority rejected the applicationand passed the orders. The KarnatakaHigh Court held that the petitioner wasright in making an application beforethe authority for return of defectiveforms for curing defects.

INCOME TAX

PARTS DIGESTED:a) 340 ITR – Part 1 to 3b) 204 Taxman – Part 1 to 4c) 13 ITR (Trib) – Part 1 to 5d) 134 ITD – Part 1 to 4e) 143 TTJ – Part 3 & 5f) 37 CAPJ – Part 1 to 3g) 43-B BCAJ – Part 4h) 6 International Taxation – Part 1

Reference / Description

[2012] 340 ITR 246 (AAR): FosterPty Ltd., In re - While dealing withan application is maintainable, theAuthority for Advance Rulingobserved that if the question before itwas directly and substantially in issuebefore the Assessing Officer and nowbefore the Appellate authority andwhat the payee was seeking from theAuthority was also a ruling on thequestion whether the amount receivedby it from the payer was taxable inIndia, the application is notmaintainable.In the instant case, thepayer had suffered addition undersection 40a(i) and thus had challengedthe same in appeal. Rejecting theapplication of the recipient, thehonourable authority held that theissue involved is the same and hencethe application is not maintainable.

[2012] 340 ITR 253 (Patna – HC):R.A. Himmatsingka and Co. v. CITand others - In the instant case thePatna High Court held that therevision order passed under Section263 of the IT Act by theCommissioner on the basis that theorder dropping penalty proceedingswas erroneous and prejudicial to therevenue, was valid.

[2012] 340 ITR 272 (AAR): ArdexInvestments Mauritius Ltd., In re -In the instant case the applicant, aCompany incorporated in Mauritius,which held equity shares constituting50 per cent of the equity share capitalof A, an Indian Company, proposedto sell its entire shareholding in A toanother non-resident A groupCompany and sought an advanceruling on the question whether thecapital gains on the proposed sale ofshares would be chargeable toincome-in India in the hands of theapplicant.The Authority observed thatthe first shares in the Indian Company

5 March2012


were purchased almost 10 yearsbefore the application and theshareholding was steadily increased.The formation of this subsidiary inMauritius may have been with a viewto take advantage of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA, but that by itselfcould not be viewed as objectionabletreaty-shopping.In view of the aboveobservation the Authority ruled thatthis was not a case of gift or transferwithout consideration of shares but asale at market rate, therefore, the capitalgains on the proposed sale of shares bythe applicant to the German Companywas not chargeable to tax on capital inIndia in view of Article 13(4) of Indo-Mauritius DTAA.The aforesaiddecision is in line with the decision ofthe honourable Supreme Court in thecase of Vodafone 341 ITR 1.

[2012] 204 Taxman 166 (AAR) - 16taxmann.com 207 (AAR): PerfettiVan Melle Holding B.V., In re - Inthe instant case the Applicant is aCompany based in Netherlands andis in business of manufacture and saleof sugar confectionary and gum. Ithad entered into a service agreementwith its group Company ‘PerfettiIndia’ to provide specified servicesrequiring use of proprietaryknowledge and processes belongingto Perfetti Group on continuous basis.All such services were required inconnection with trademarks,technology and know-how licenseagreement (TTLA) through whichconsideration in form of royalty wasflowing. Applicant sought advanceruling on taxability of payments madeby Perfetti India under agreement inits hands in India. The Authority forAdvance Ruling observed that theagreement clearly brought out theintention of parties to assist PerfettiIndia by applying experience of itssister concerns and group Companies

and since services were not beingcarried out independently byapplicant but were only to enablePerfetti India to be able to carry outits day-to-day tasks better, it can be saidthat Perfetti India will get equipped withknowledge or expertise and would beable to apply it in future independent ofapplicant. Further it also observed thatthe services under service agreement,when read with TTLA, fall withinpurview of Article 12(a) of the DTAAas such services were ancillary andsubsidiary to application or enjoymentof right, property or information forwhich a payment described inparagraph 4 of Article 12(a) of theDTAA was received. In view of theabove, the Authority ruled that for aservice to fall under ‘rendering of anytechnical or consultancy services’ meredevelopment and transfer of a technicalplan or technical design should besufficient compliance and therefore theservices giving knowledge andexperience of confectionary industry toPerfetti India were technical in natureand accordingly taxable in India.In theaforesaid decision, the honourableauthority refused to apply the principlesemerging from the Memorandum ofunderstanding annexed to Indo US DTAby bringing out the distinction betweenMOU and a protocol.

[2012] 204 Taxman 192 (Delhi –HC) - 16 taxmann.com 371 (Delhi -HC): DIT v. Ericsson A.B. - In theinstant case the Delhi High Court inthe context of Section 9 of the IT Actheld that Instruction No. 1829 dated21.09.1989 although stands withdrawnby virtue of Circular No. 7/2009 dated22.10.2009, such withdrawal can haveno retrospective effect and theprinciple laid down in Instruction No.1829 must continue to govern theassessment for the relevant assessmentyear i.e. 1997-1998.

[2012] 204 Taxman 192 (Delhi –HC) - 16 taxmann.com 371 (Delhi -HC): DIT v. Ericsson A.B. - In theinstant case the Delhi High Court heldthat when the Assessee supplies thesoftware which is incorporated on aCD, it has supplied tangible propertyand the payment made for acquiringsuch property cannot be regarded asa payment by way of royalty.Furtherit held that in order to qualify asroyalty payment, within the meaningof Section 9(1)(vi) and particularlyclause (v) of Explanation-II thereto,it is necessary to establish that thereis transfer of all or any rights(including the granting of any license)in respect of copyright of a literary,artistic or scientific work and Section2(o) of the Copyright Act makes itclear that a computer programme isto be regarded as a ‘literary work’.Thus, in order to treat theconsideration paid as royalty, it is tobe established that by making suchpayment, it obtains all or any of thecopyright rights of such literary work.The High Court also held that thedistinction has to be made betweenthe acquisition of a ‘copy right’ and a‘copyrighted article’The aforesaiddecision is in sharp contrast to thedecision of Karnataka High Court inthe case of Samsung Electronics andan unreported case of Synopsis.

[2012] 204 Taxman 227 (Del. – HC)- 17 taxmann.com 76 (Del. - HC):CIT v. C.R. Dass - In the instant casethe Assessee was director of aCompany and was holding less than10 per cent shares in that Companyat relevant time. In 16.03.1998, heleased out his premises to the saidCompany at certain monthly rent. Asper lease agreement, Company alsopaid security deposit of Rs. 75 lakhsto Assessee by way of allotment offurther shares of that value which

6March2012

increased shareholding of Assessee incompany to 44.57 per cent. AssessingOfficer treated aforesaid interest-freesecurity deposit as deemed dividendunder Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Actin the hands of the Assessee.The DelhiHigh Court held that when thetransaction of lease was entered intobetween the Assessee and theCompany, the shareholding of theAssessee in the Company was muchless than 10 percent and the amountof security deposit cannot be treatedas deemed income under Section2(22)(e) of the IT Act.

[2012] 204 Taxman 267 (Ker. – HC)- 16 taxmann.com 398 (Ker. - HC):CIT v. Abad Fisheries - In the instantcase the Kerala High Court held thatno reassessment is permissible underSection 147 of the IT Act when thetime provided for regular assessmentunder Section 143(3) after issuingnotice under Section 143(2) of the ITAct has not expired.

[2012] 204 Taxman 311 (Kar. – HC)- 17 taxmann.com 115 (Kar. – HC):CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. - Inthe instant case, the Karnataka HighCourt reversed the order of the Tribunaldated 11.11.2005 where the Tribunalrelying upon its earlier decision inWipro Ltd. v. ITO [2005] 95 ITD 9(Bang.) had concluded that the paymentmade (payments akin to payments madefor railway timetable which givesinformation about train schedules or toobtain a book) by the respondent-assessee to M/s. Gartner, a non-residentCompany would not amount to royaltyand held that the same amounts toroyalty. The aforesaid decision whichcalls payment for standardinformation as royalty requires reviewfor the reason that such payment doesnot fit into any of the clauses inExplanation 2 to section 9 (1) (vi) andthe relevant article of the DTAA.

[2012] 204 Taxman 321 (Kar. – HC)- 17 taxmann.com 100 (Kar. – HC):CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. - In the instantcase the Karnataka High Court inrespect of computing deduction underSection 10A of the IT Act held that ifexport turnover in numerator is to bearrived at after excluding certainexpenses, said expenses should alsobe excluded in computing exportturnover as a component of totalturnover in denominator.

[2012] 204 Taxman 340 (P&H – HC)- 17 taxmann.com 99 (P&H – HC):Sood Bhandari & Co. v. CBDT - Inthe instant case the Punjab andHaryana High Court dealing in respectof Section 40(b) of the IT Act held thatif there is no quantification of salary,remuneration or rate of interest oncapital contribution of partners in theagreement and is left to discretion ofpartners at the end of the financial year,the same cannot be allowed asdeduction in view of Circular No. 739dated 25.03.1996 issued by CBDT.The Court further held that theaforesaid Circular is clarificatory innature and cannot be said to be beyondpowers of CBDT conferred on it underSection 119 of the IT Act.

[2012] 204 Taxman 356 (Kar. – HC)- 16 taxmann.com 397 (Kar. – HC):CIT v. Smt. N. Sannamma - In theinstant case Assessee had not filedregular return and made a declarationunder VDIS and the same was rejected.Thereafter Assessing Officer issuednotice under Section 148. Pursuant tothe said notice, Assessee filed returnof income and assessment wascompleted. Assessing Officer leviedinterest under Section 234A from duedate of fling return under Section139(1). On appeal, Tribunal held thatinterest can be levied only from dateof filing return pursuant to noticeissued under Section 148 and not as

per Section 139. The Karnataka HighCourt held that a return of income filedin response to a notice issued underSection 148 is a return of income filedunder Section 139(1) under whichassessee ought to have filed return ofincome within time stipulated,therefore, Assessee would be deemedto have defaulted in filing of return ofincome within time prescribed and,consequently, interest under Section234A would be leviable from due dateof filing of return under Section 139(1)and not from date of filing of return inpursuance of notice under Section 148.

[2012] 204 Taxman 408 (SC) - 17taxmann.com 202 (SC): VodafoneInternational Holdings B.V. v. UOI- In the instant case the SupremeCourt held that transfer of a share ina foreign company which has anIndian Company as its subsidiarydoes not amount to transfer of anycapital asset situated in India withinthe meaning of 4th limb of Section9(1)(i) of the IT Act. The Court alsoheld as follows: a. Legal fiction inSection 9(1)(i) does not mean that ifa foreign company has a subsidiaryin India, shares of foreign companyare deemed to be situated in India.b. Section 9 covers only incomearising from a transfer of a capitalasset situated in India and it does notpurport to cover income arising fromindirect transfer of capital asset inIndia. c. Source in relation to anincome is construed to be wheretransaction of sale takes place and notwhere item of value, which wassubject of transaction, was acquiredor derived from. d. Transfer of foreignholding company’s share off-shore,cannot result in an extinguishment ofholding company’s right of control ofIndian company nor can it be statedthat same constitutes extinguishmentand transfer of an asset/management

7 March2012


and control of property situated inIndia. e. Section 9(1)(i) is not a ‘lookthrough’ provision merely becauseword ‘through’ is there in said Section.

[2012] 204 Taxman 109 (Kar. - HC)(Mag.) - 17 taxmann.com 143 (Kar.- HC): CIT v. Apcus Technology Ltd.- In the instant case the Karnataka HighCourt held that Assessee who hasavailed tax benefit of 5 years prior tocoming into force of amended provisionof Section 10B, with effect from01.04.1999, is entitled to benefit of taxexemption for 10 years if exemption issought for unexpired period of 10consecutive assessment years.

[2012] 204 Taxman 109 (All. - HC)(Mag.) - 17 taxmann.com 127 (All. -HC): Nirmal Kumar Seth v. CIT - Inthe instant case Assessee purchased aplot in financial year 1982-83 initiallyby making a payment of Rs. 3,000/-only and remaining payments weremade in instalments. During relevantassessment year, Assessee sold said plot.Though Assessee claimed capital losson sale of plot, Assessing Officer leviedshort-term capital gain. Tribunal findingthat period of holding plot was morethan 3 years, held that long term capitalgain would apply to Assessee’s case asper payment chart.The Allahabad HighCourt held that it was apparent fromrecord that actual amount was paid byAssessee form time to time after dateof issuance of allotment letter, whichhad to be considered for purpose ofindexation with reference to date ofpayments. Therefore, the Court heldthat the Tribunal rightly directed tocompute long term capital gains as perpayment schedule.

[2012] 13 ITR (Trib.) 340 (Delhi):DCIT v. Cosmo Films Ltd. - In theinstant case assessee made additionsto the assets during the second half ofthe financial year 2002-2003 relevantto the assessment year 2003-2004 and

since the additional depreciation wasclaimed only on 50 per cent on all theadditions made after September 30,2002 on account of the second provisoto Section 32(1)(ii), the Assesseeclaimed the balance 50 per cent in theassessment year 2004-2005 underSection 32(1)(iia), i.e., depreciationequal to 15 per cent. of the actual costof new plant and machinery.The DelhiTribunal held that Section 32(1)(iia) isa one-time benefit to encourage theindustrialisation and the provisionsrelated to it have to be constructedreasonably, liberally and purposive tomake the provision meaningful whilegranting the additional allowance. Thisrestriction is only on the basis of periodof use. There is no restriction that thebalance of the one-time incentive in theform of additional sum of depreciationshall not be available in the subsequentyear. In Section 32(1)(iia), theexpression used is ‘shall to beallowed’. Thus, the Assessee earns thebenefit as soon as he purchases the newplant and machinery in full but it isrestricted to 50 per cent. in thatparticular year on account of period ofusages. Such restrictions cannot divestthe statutory right. Law does notprohibit the balance 50 per cent. beingallowed in the succeeding year.

[2012] 13 ITR (Trib.) 422 (Mum.):Dresser-Rand India P. Ltd. v. Addl.CIT - In the instant case the MumbaiTribunal dealing in respectinternational transactions held thatwhen evaluating arm’s length price ofa service, whether the Assesseebenefited from the service or not; andwhether the associated enterprise gavethe same services to the Assessee inthe preceding years without anyconsideration or not was whollyirrelevant.

[2012] 134 ITD (BN-XIV) (Jaipur -Trib) - 17 taxmann.com 37 (Jaipur

– Trib.): Madan Singh Kangarot v.ITO - In the instant case the JaipurTribunal held that where AssessingOfficer has not issued notice underSection 143(2) within time available,he cannot issue notice under Section142(1)(ii) and (iii) after time limit ofissuance of notice under Section143(2) has expired.

[2012] 143 TTJ (Jd) 331: ACIT v.Minpro Industries - In the instantcase Assessee deducted tax at sourceonly from the agency charges paid toC&F agent and not from the otherpayments which were reimbursementof actual expenditure incurred by theC&F agent on its behalf.The JodhpurTribunal held that reimbursement ofpayment towards sea freight transport,CCI charges, steamer freight chargesand REPO container charges made bythe Assessee to the C&F agents whohave already made the payment onbehalf of the Assessee is covered bythe provisions of Section 172 and notby Section 194C or Section 195, andthe agent having already deductedTDS from the transportation chargesand shipping bill before making thesepayments to the principal which havebeen reimbursed by the Assessee,Assessee was not liable to deduct taxat source from such payments andconsequently, same could not bedisallowed by invoking the provisionsof Section 40(a)(ia).

[2012] 37 CAPJ 36 (Bom. – HC):CIT v. Manjula J. Shah - In theinstant case the Bombay High Courtheld that while computing the capitalgains arising on transfer of a capitalasset acquired by the Assessee undera gift the indexed cost of acquisitionhas to be computed with reference tothe year in which the previous ownerfirst held the asset and not the year inwhich the Assessee became the ownerof the asset.

8March2012

RECENT JUDICIALPRONOUNCEMENTS ININDIRECT TAXESCA. N.R. Badrinath, Grad C.W.A., F.C.A.CA. Madhur Harlalka, B. Com., F.C.A

KVAT:1. Sale of goods from duty free

shops located at Airports: Theissue before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt was whether VAT is leviableon sale of goods from duty freeshops located at airports. TheHon’ble Supreme Court held thatthe imported goods will be storedat bonded warehouses beforeselling the same from duty freeshops located at airports. Thegoods are sold from duty free shopsbefore crossing the customsfrontiers of India. Article 286 of theConstitution of India read withSection 5 of the Central Sales Act,1956 prohibits any state to imposetax on sale or purchase of goodswhich are said to have taken placein the course of the import orexport. Hence, the goods remainoutside India till they cross thecustoms frontiers of India. Thetransaction might take place withinIndia before crossing Customfrontier but technically looking atthe provisions of Section 2(11) ofthe Customs Act, 1962, the saidtransaction would be said to havetaken place outside India.

It is further held that sale nottaking effect by transfer ofdocuments of title to the goods isabsolutely irrelevant as it is oneof the methods whereby deliveryof the goods is effected. The saleswould not be taxable simply

because the sales had not beeneffected by transfer of documentsof title to the goods and the saleswere effected by giving physicalpossession of the goods to thecustomers. [M/s. Hotel Ashoka VsACCT, Bangalore, 2012-TIOL-08-SC-VAT]

Service Tax:

2. Taxation of Services (Providedfrom Outside India and Receivedin India) Rules, 2006 areConstitutionally valid: Hon’bleAllahabad High Court held theParliament is empowered to makelaws with respect to aspects orcause that occur, arise or exist ormay be expected to do so withinterritory of India, and also withrespect to extra-territorial aspector cause that have an impact on ornexus with India. Section 66A ofFinance Act, 1994 only createslegal fiction to deem import ofservices so that the provisions ofChapter-V thereof can be applied.Section 66A of the Finance Act,1994 is not a charging section itselffor import of services and chargingsection remains Section 66 of theFinance Act, 1994. The provisionof Taxation of Services (Providedfrom Outside India and Receivedin India) Rules, 2006 are notunconstitutional either on groundlack of legislative competence orextra territorial operations of laws.

[M/s. Glyph International LimitedVs. UOI, 2012(25)S.T.R. (All.)]

3. Creation of deeming fiction ofServices through explanationsto Commercial or IndustrialConstruction Service orConstruction of Complex orPreferential Location areconstitutionally valid: The issuebefore the Hon’ble High Court isconstitutional validity of theexplanations relating to deemingfictions of construction of a newbuilding or complex, which isintended for sale wholly or partlybefore, during or after constructionand whether it shall be deemed tobe service provided by the builderto the buyer under Commercial orIndustrial Construction Service orConstruction of Complex Service(clause zzg and zzzh of Sub-section(105) Section 65) except in casesfor which no sum is received fromor on behalf of the prospectivebuyer by the builder or the personauthorized by the builder beforegrant of completion certificate bythe authority competent to issuesuch certificate under any law forthe time being in force and alsowhether Preferential Locationmeans any location having extraadvantage which attracts extrapayment over and above the basicsale price. It was challenged thattaxability arising on deemingfiction is on the land or buildingswhich falls under legislativepower of States under Entry 49 ofList II to the seventh schedule ofthe Constitution of India.

In this regard, it is held that thecharge of service tax underSection 66 of the Finance Act ison rendering of a taxable service

9 March2012


as defined in clause (105) ofSection 65 of Finance Act, 1994and the service tax is levied onproviding of services described insub-clauses (zzq), (zzzh) and(zzzzu) of Sub-Section (105) ofSection 65 of the Finance Act,1994. The service tax is notdirectly imposed on land andbuildings but on services renderedin relation to activities, whichoccurs on land or buildings. Thefact that the service is rendered inthe context of construction ofbuilding or complex and servicetax is not on land which is withinthe meaning of Entry 49 of ListII. The legislature has expandedthe notion of taxable service byincorporating clause (zzq) andclause (zzzh) rendered by a builderto the buyer in the course of anintended sale whether before,during or after construction. Levyof service tax on preferentiallocation only intends to obviate aleakage of revenue and plugs aloophole which would haveotherwise resulted. The fact that theservice is rendered in the contextof a location, does not make itservice tax on land within themeaning of Entry 49 of List II.[Maharashtra Chamber OfHousing Industry Vs. UOI, 2012-TIOL-78-HC-Mum-ST]

4. Transfer of technical knowhowis not Consulting Engineerservices: The issue before theTribunal is whether the transfer oftechnical knowhow and royaltyfor a lump sum consideration ischargeable to service tax under thecategory “Consulting EngineersServices”. The Tribunal held thatconsideration received as lumpsum for technical knowhow and

royalty was not for any advice,consultancy and technicalassistance in any engineeringdiscipline but was for transfer oftechnical knowhow. [CST, DelhiVs. Suzuki Motor Corporation,2012 (25) S.T.R. 266 (Tri.–Del.)]

5. Appeal against CESTATdecision of service taxability lieswith the Supreme Court and notHigh Courts: The decision ofCESTAT on issues related totaxability of services in questionrelating to “rate of tax” fallssquarely within the exceptionscarved out in Section 35G of theCentral Excise Act, 1944 and readwith Section 83 of Finance Act,1994. Hence, appeal lies with theSupreme Court and not with HighCourts. The Hon’ble KarnatakaHigh Court has relied on its owndecision of Mangalore Refineriesand Petro Chemicals Limited(2011 (270) S.T.R. 49 (Kar)) inruling the same. [CST, BangaloreVs. M/s. Aquamall WaterSolutions Limited, 2012 (25)S.T.R. 233 (Kar)]

6. Ready mix concrete (RMC) issale of goods and doesn’t involveany service: The issue before theTribunal is whether the supply ofready mix concrete is a sale orproviding taxable services underthe category works contractservice. It is held that the supplyof RMC is a sales contract insteadof a service contract. The FinanceAct 1994 not being law relatingto commodity taxation butservices are declared to be taxableunder this law. [M/s GMKConcrete Mixing Private Ltd Vs.CST, Delhi 2012-TIOL-137-CESTAT-DEL]

7. Short term courses are nottaxable under the category“Management ConsultancyServices”: Organising shortterm courses on subject relatingto Forestry, Water ResourcesManagement and Environmentetc for the officers in IndiaForest Service and otherorganizations for improvingtheir skills and knowledge levelof the persons, who attendcourses does not involve anactivity of rendering advise,directly or indirectly, inconnection with management ofany organization. It is justimparting training on certainareas to the officers in certainorganizations and thereforedoes not amount to renderingManagement Consultancyservices either directly orindirectly to that organization.[Indian Institute of ForestManagement Vs. CST, Bhopal,2012 (25) S.T.R. (Tri.-Del.)]

Central Excise:

8. Short realization of money dueto subsequent price reduction:The issue before the Tribunal waswhether excess excise duty paiddue to reduction in pricesubsequent to clearance of goodsis liable for deduction underCentral Excise. It is held exciseduty is payable with reference totransaction value under Section 4of Central Excise Act, 1944. Theduty element is to be determinedon the basis of time of removal ofthe goods, which is issuance ofinvoices. There is no provisionunder the Act for reduction in theduty liability in case of reductionin price subsequent to clearance

10March2012

of goods. [M/s. Ece IndustriesLimited Vs CCE, Rohtak, 2012-TIOL-217-CESTAT-DEL]

9. Refund of duty paid on goodswhich were not dispatched:Appellants raised the invoices andpaid the duty for the goods whichwere intended to be cleared fortransfer to another unit.Subsequently such goods are nottransferred and therefore, theinvoices were cancelled and therefund was claimed. However, therefund claimed was disallowed forwant of original invoices andcertificate from the RangeSuperintendent that credit of dutypaid on such invoice is not claimedby other unit. It is held, denyingthe refund on the ground thatappellants failed to produce theoriginal invoice which is misplacedand which can be misused byunscrupulous person is not valid.Hence refund allowable. [Ms.Hindustan Coco Cola BeveragesPvt. Ltd. V CCE, Pune-III, 2012(25) S.T.R. 299 (Tri – Mumbai)]

CENVAT CREDIT:

10. CENVAT Credit on inputservices used for provision ofservice to SEZs: In the presentcase, the issue before the Tribunalis whether construction servicesprovided to SEZ developers andunits located in SEZ is ‘export ofservices’ or ‘exempted services’for claiming CENVAT credit oninput services under the CENVATCredit Rules, 2004. The Tribunalheld that services provided to SEZdevelopers / units in SEZ don’tmean that SEZ Act, 2005 wouldbe applicable and Finance Act,1994 & Central Excise Act, 1944would not be applicable. Rule 6

of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004and Export of Services Rules,2005 did not provide for anyexemption to services provided toSEZ developers / units located inSEZ’s and therefore a restrictionon availment of CENVAT credit.In the absence of such provisionsunder CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 which are nothing to do withand not in conflict with SEZ Act,2005 the Tribunal held that therestriction under Rule 6(1) of theCENVAT Credit Rules, 2004applies only in case of services,which are unconditionallyexempted from service tax. TheNotification No. 04/2004-ST readwith Section 25 of SEZ Act, 2005is a conditional exemption andtherefore, the restriction underRule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 would not apply to servicesprovided to SEZ developer andunits located therein. The Tribunalhas relied upon the decision ofSupreme Court in Bajaj TempoLtd Vs. CCE., Pune and SterliteIndustries (I) Limited for thesame. [Sobha Developer Ltd., Vs.CCE, LTU Bangalore, 2012 (25)S.T.R. 136 (Tri.–Bang)]

11. CENVAT Credit on outdoorcatering Services: Service taxpaid on outdoor catering servicesto the extent of the expensesrecovered from employees wouldnot be eligible to CENVAT credit.The tribunal has relied on thedecision of GTC industries Limited2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri-LB) forthe same. [CCE, Pune I v BoschChassis Systems India Ltd. 2012(25) S.T.R. 175 (Tri.–Mumbai)]

12. Input Services need not beprovided within the Factory: On

reading of the definition of inputservice as a whole, it is clear thatnot only the services which areused directly or indirectly in or inrelation to manufacture of finalproducts but it also includes otherservices which have direct nexusor which are integrally connectedwith the business of manufacturingthe final product. Therefore, inputservices need not be used withinthe same factory and thereforedenial of CENVAT credit on theground that services were notreceived in factory premises is notsustainable. The Tribunal reliedupon Ultratratech Cement Limitedfor the same. (2011 (21) S.T.R.297) [M/s. Maharashtra SeamlessLimited Vs. CCE, Raigad (2012(276) E.L.T 209 (Tri.-Mumbai)]

13. Goods used in testing are inputsunder the CENVAT CreditRules: Testing of machinery isinextricably connected with themanufacturing process and untilit was carried out manufacturingprocess was incomplete andmachines were not fit for sale andhence not marketable. In view ofthat, goods used for testingmachines were inputs used inrelation to manufacture of finalproducts under the CENVATCredit Rules, 2004. Physicalpresence in final products is not aprerequisite to claim credit andthey may very well be indirectlyrelated to manufacture and stillnecessary for completion ofmanufacture of final products,which is complete only whenproduct is rendered marketable.Therefore, excise duty paid on suchinputs used for testing is eligibleas CENVAT credit. [M/s. Felx

11 March2012


Engineering Limited Vs. CCE, U.P., 2012 (276) E.L.T153 (S.C)]

Customs:

14. Royalty and License fee which are not related toimported goods are not includable: In the presentcase issue before the Tribunal was whether royalty andlicense fee under License and Technical Assistanceagreement with the foreign collaborator is includablein the assessable value of imported goods for payment ofimport duty. Royalties and license fees related to theimported goods, which the buyer is required to paydirectly or indirectly as a condition of sale of suchimported goods is includable for valuation of importedgoods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation(Determination of Value of the Imported Goods) Rules,2007. However, in the present case, the payments ofroyalty or license fee, are neither related to the importedgoods nor a condition of sale of imported goods andtherefore the same are not required to be included inassessable value of imported goods for payment of importduty. [CC (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Bridgestone IndiaPrivate Limited, 2012-TIOL-166-CESTAT-Mum]

Adv

t.A

dvt.

12March2012

Adv

t.

Adv

t.

SITUATION REQUIRED

FCA having 30 years standing in

profession with exposure to audit of

PSU / Branches of Nationalised

Banks and private sector entities,

and also having varied exposure to

Direct and Indirect Taxes, is

interested in joining CA Firm at

Bangalore or manage branch at

Bangalore. Please respond to:

[email protected].

Adv

t.

Adv

t.

M K TYAGI & CO, Chartered AccountantsBangalore, a medium sized fast growing firm,needs: CA,experienced CA Inter / Finalists, 1-4 years B.Com staffexperienced in at least two-three areas:01. Outsourcing of -Company Accounts & MIS Taxation,

Payroll & related labour laws Compliances as domainexpertise.

02. Transfer Pricing, International Taxation, ExpatriateTaxation – domain expertise

03. Auditing- Internal ,Statutory, Income Tax, HR,Service Tax, VAT audit

04. Corporate secretarial /all statutory compliances05. SEZ /Service Tax/ STPI - domain expertiseCandidate must have long term commitment/ hardworking,disciplined and vision to add value in all services to clients.Visit website for details of current requirement with usand with clients.We need CA(Inter) / experienced articles urgently.E-Mail : [email protected] : M K TYAGI & CO, Chartered Accountants

50, Renaissance Landmark, (Near Bun world)10 main, 17th cross, MalleshwaramBangalore -560003, Phone:23310661/ 23344636

Web : www.mktyagi.com

13 March2012


IMPORTANT DATES TO REMEMBER DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH 2012

5th March 2012 Payment of Excise Duty for February 2012

Payment of Service Tax for February 2012 by Corporates

7th March 2012 e-Payment of Excise duty for February 2012

e-Payment of Service Tax for for February 2012

Deposit of TDS/TCS Collected During February 2012

10th March 2012 Monthly Returns for Production and Removal of Goods and CENVAT Credit for February 2012

Monthly Return of excisable Goods Manufactured & Receipt of Inputs & Capital Goods by Units inEOU,STP,HTP for February 2012

Monthly Returns of Information relating to Principal Inputs for February 2012 by Manufacturer ofSpecified Goods who Paid Duty of Rs.1 Crore or More During Financial Year 2010-11 By PLA/CENVAT/Both

15th March 2012 Due Date for Third Installment (In the Case of Non Corporate Assesses) or Fourth Installment(In the Case of Corporate Assessee) for Payment of Advance Income Tax for Financial year 2011-12

Payment of EPF Contribution for February 2012

Return of Employees Qualifying to EPF During February 2012

21st March 2012 Monthly Return and Payment of CST and VAT Collected During February 2012

Deposit of ESI Contributions and Collections for February 2012

25th March 2012 Consolidated Statements of Dues and Remittances Under EPF and EDLI for February 2012

Monthly Returns of employees Joined the Organisation during February 2012

Monthly Return Return of Employees left the Organisation During February 2012

31st March 2012 Payment/e-Payment of Excise Duty for Mar 2012

Payment/e-Payment of excise duty for Quarter ending 31st March 2012 by SSIs/Registered Dealers.

Payment/e-Payment of Service Tax for March 2012 by Corporates

Payment/e-Payment of Service Tax for the Quarter Ending 31st March 2012 by Non Corporates

Last Date for Revision of Income tax Return for the Financial year 2010-11

The Bangalore Branch is empanelling facilitators for the GMCS and IPCC courses at the Bangalore Branch.

Some of the topics are,

• Communication Skills & Process • Inter-personal Skills • Team working and Team-building • Business Presentation

Skills • Negotiation Skills • Goal Setting • Creativity & Neuro Linguistic Programming • Time Management

• Group Discussion Techniques • Meeting Skills • Preparation of CV • Office Etiquette • Stress Management

• Dressing & Grooming • Leadership • And other Soft Skills, People Skills & Management Skills

EMPANELMENT OF FACILITATORS FORThe Course on GMCS (General Management & Communication Skills) &

IPCC (Integrated Professional Competency Course) Orientation Programme

Honorarium as per rules will be paid. If you are interested in handling sessions, please email your details with yourchoice of topics to [email protected] or [email protected] under subject “GMCS & IPCC facilitators”.

14March2012

ADORA COATINGSONE STOP SHOP FOR ALL PAINTING NEEDS

Be it your home or work place, your taste is a reflection of your personality.

Every room is a living space that helps you express your personality.

At Adora, our goal is to simply share with you our gift for finding and presenting

the most admired colors and textures

Adora Coatings is a company having a group of professionals, providing solutions

to the construction industry. We market world-class high quality Designer paints,

Texture Coatings and plain finishes.

At Adora Coatings we provide turnkey solutions and consultancy for Residential

Apartment, Commercial Complex, Educational Institutions, Auditorium and

Industries. Our enthusiastic team for application makes your colorful dreams

come true.

Adv

t.

Ruchiashutosh Ashutosh Mehraa MBA

Mobile : 98800 33353 Mobile : 98800 44000

A4, GN Homes, 151/10, Rustomji Layout,

Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore - 560 066

Telefax : 080 - 4150 6295

E-mail : [email protected] | Website : www.adoracoatings.co.in

15 March2012


RANK HOLDERS FOR NOV 2011 EXAMPCC NOV 2011 EXAM

Sl.No Reg.No Roll.No Name Marks Obtained Rank

1 CRO0208404 402470 BHAGIRATH SINGH RATHORE 395 1

2 SRO0238400 402993 SRINIDHI.K.V 377 10

3 SRO0250200 402983 NAVEEN KUMAR.K 373 14

4 SRO0193347 402317 PUNEETH JAIN S.L 372 15

5 SRO0225749 402855 NIDHI.G 368 17

6 SRO0193614 402785 SOMESH.R 355 28

7 SRO0238512 402846 BASAVA KUMAR 350 33

8 SRO0247819 402402 VIKAS JAIN 344 39

9 SRO0232867 402367 MAMTA.K 339 44

10 SRO0240107 402892 VISHVINI KASHYAP.J 339 44

11 ERO0140656 402329 ANKUSH JAIN 338 45

12 SRO0249907 402335 SHRAVAN.M.S 338 45

13 ERO0138739 402852 AMARJEET JHUNJHUNWALA 338 45

14 SRO0246280 402343 VANKADARI CHATURVED 337 46

15 SRO0242964 402802 NANDEESH.B.MASHYAL 334 49

16 SRO0214074 402804 MURALI.N 334 49

17 SRO0210917 402411 SHRUTHI.V.RAMU 333 50

IPCC NOV 2011 EXAM1 SRO0339270 208825 ANURAG.S 542 18

2 SRO0315655 208862 DIPTI VIJAYKUMAR 521 38

SICASA PROGRAMMES – MARCH 2012 Date & Timing Topic Delegate Speakers

fee

24th March 2012 Bank Branch Rs.250/- CA.R.SathyanarayanaSaturday Audit Murthi09:30am to CA. S. Ananda Krishna05:30pm

25th March 2012 ‘How to overcome Nil CA.Madhukar N.Sunday the failures in Hiregange05:00pm to CA Examinations’ Vice Chairman,08:00pm Board of Studies

‘How to succeed in Rank Holders of theCA Examinations’ previous examinations

Venue:Branch Premises, ‘ICAI BHAWAN’,

#16/O, Millers Tank Bed Area,Vasanthnagar,Bangalore-560052

For registration please contact:Ms. Rajalakshmi, Tel:080-30563509, email:[email protected]

We deeply regret toinform the sad demise of

senior member ofour profession

CA. S. Amarlalon 10.01.2012.

May his soulrest in peace.

OBITUARY

16March2012

Timings Topic Speakers

08.45am to 09.15am Registration

09.15am to 10.00am Inauguration

10.00am to 10.15am Tea Break

10.15am to 11.45am Practical issues in audit of advances CA. P. R. Suresh, Bangalore

11.45am to 01.15pm Planning for Branch Audit and CA. M. N. Venkatesan, ChennaiAudit Documentation

01.15pm to 02.00pm Lunch Break

02.00pm to 04.00pm Bank Branch Audit – IT Perspective CA. R. Vittal Raj, Chennai

04.00pm to 04.15pm Tea Break

04.15pm to 05.00pm RBI- Recent circulars CA. P. Manohar Gupta, Bangalore

05.00pm to 05.30pm Panel Discussion - CA. P. R. Suresh, Bangalore, CA. R Vittal Raj, ChennaiCA. P. Manohar Gupta, Bangalore, CA. S. Ananda Krishna, Bangalore

Delegate Fees: Rs.1500/- for Members, Rs.2000/- for Non-members

Cheque / Cash in favour of “Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI”

For further details please contact:Ms.Geetanjali D., Tel: 080-30563500 / 3513, Email: [email protected]

Seminar on “Bank Branch Audit”On 27th March 2012 between 08.45am & 05.30pm

at NIMHANS Convention Centre, Hosur Road, Bangalore (Venue is subject to change)

Clause by Clause Discussion on Finance Bill 2012Saturday, 24th March 2012

at J N Tata Auditorium, National Science Symposium Complex, Bangalore

between 09.30am & 05.00pm

Time Subject Resource Persons

09.30am to 10.00am Registration

10.00am to 01.00pm Discussion on Indirect Taxes CA.K.S.RavishankarCA.V.RaghuramanCA. Badrinath

02.00pm to 05.00pm Discussion on Direct Taxes CA.S.RamasubramanianCA.H.Padamchand KhinchaCA.K.K.Chythanya

Delegate Fees: Rs.900/- for Members

Cheque / Cash in favour of “Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI”

For further details please contact:Ms.Geetanjali D., Tel: 080-30563500 / 3513, Email: [email protected]

6 hrsCPE

6 hrsCPE

17 March2012


Workshop on Revised Schedule VI underCompanies Act including its XBRL Integration

Speakers : CA. N. Nityananda – Co-ordinator of the Workshop

CA. P. Manohar Gupta

CA. K. Gururaj Acharya

CA. P. M. Rashmi

CA. B. N. Ganesh Kumar

Schedule VI containing the format & disclosure requirement for companies in India has undergone a sea change.Professionals both in practice and in industry will have to unlearn the old format & its contents and learn thenew avatar of Schedule VI in depth. XBRL filing posed several challenges last year and should be much morechallenging under the revised schedule VI. To evaluate these new waves in the corporate law practice, thisworkshop is designed.

Dates: 19th Monday & 20th Tuesday, March 2012

Timings: 04.00pm to 08.15pm on both days with 15 minutes tea break.

Delegate Fee: Rs.500/-

DD/Pay order/Cheque should be drawn in favour of “Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI” payable at Bangalore.(Please mention your name, membership number and contact details at the back of the cheque/demand draft).

For further details please contact:Ms. Geethanjali D,

Tel: 080-30563500 / 3513,Email: [email protected]

Analysis of Union Budget – 2012On Saturday, 17th March 2012

between 04.00pm & 08.00pmat Jnana Jyothi Convention Centre, Central College Campus, Bangalore

A special programme on Analysis of Union Budget – 2012 is being organized by Bangalore Branch of

Southern India Regional Council of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), on 17th March 2012

at Jnana Jyothi Convention Centre, Central College Campus, Bangalore between 04.00pm & 08.00pm, enabling

the delegates to acquire a comprehensive knowledge about the Union Budget.

The distinguished Moderators CA. T. V. Mohandas Pai, Chairman, Manipal Global Education Services and

renowned CA.H.Padamchand Khincha, an expert in Direct Taxes, along with the panelists will be focusing the

salient features of Union Budget - 2012. Eminent resource persons from various industries will be on the panel,

and will technically analyse & present their views on the Budget 2012.

Entry fee : Nil Fellowship & High Tea : 4.00 pm onwards

This programme is open for members & general public also.

You are invited to participate in the programme & make it a remarkable event.

4 hrsCPE

8 hrsCPE

18March2012

12 hrsCPE

Workshop on Communication SkillsGet Over Your FEAR of Public Speaking

This is a unique workshop on public speaking being organised by the Bangalore Brach. In this workshop the participants get tolearn the skills required to be an effective public speaker and overcome the fear of facing the 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 improvethe communication skills and help the speakers to prepareand deliver their speeches in an effective way.

Venue: Branch Premises

Fees: Rs. 1,200/- for members

Restricted to 30 participantson First Come First Serve basis.

Duration: 12 hours - 4 sessions of 3 hours each per daybetween 05.00pm & 08.00pm

Programme Structure:

Day & Date Topic

Thursday, Why effective communication?08.03.12 Organize your talk.

Overcome Nervousness andgetting ready for it.

Plan to prepare your talk.

Friday, How to make an impromptu09.03.12 speech.

Evaluation/Playback Round.

Monday, Use your body and12.03.12 voice effectively.

Tuesday, How to make an effective PPT.13.03.12

For further details please contact:Ms.Geethanjali, Tel: 080-30563500 / 3513, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Coaching Classes: IPCC / PCC & FINAL for November 2012 andCPT for December 2012 Examinations

Admissions open for Subjectwise CoachingIn pursuance of our objective to provide fruitful and quality teaching to our students, we are pleased to inform you that CPT/ IPCC/PCC and FINAL coaching classes will be commencing at the Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI from 01st June 2012 onwards. Theclasses will be concluded by 30th September 2012.Salient features: • Experienced, Expert and Dedicated faculty members • Methodology – Conceptual teaching • Affordable CoachingFee • The journey of CA with Bangalore Branch is that of progress with innumerable activities of knowledge supported and guided byour senior renowned faculty members – resource persons • During the course, amazing, inspiring and motivational sessions andOrientation classes will be conducted • Concessional fee for deserving students.Hence be proud to be part of the Branch by enrolling as a student to become a proud member of this glorious profession.

Fees TimingsCPT Rs.4500/- 05.30pm to 07.30pm (Monday to Friday)

03.00pm to 07.30pm (Saturday)07.30am to 12Noon (Sunday)

IPCC / PCC / FINAL Rs.10000/- for Both Groups 06.30am to 09.30am (Monday to Saturday)Rs.8000/- for Single Group 06.00pm to 09.00pm (Monday to Saturday)Rs.2000/- for Single Subject 07.30am to 05.30pm (Sunday)

Faculty Members: CA. Hariharan K, Chennai, Dr. V. Rajesh Kumar, Bangalore, CA. Sampath Kumar, Bangalore, CA. Shanthi Ganapathi,Chennai, CA.Vijay Raja, Bangalore, CA. Naveen Khariwal G, Bangalore, CA. Shivanand Nayak P, Bangalore,CA. Narendra Jain, Bangalore, CA. Vikas Oswal, Bangalore, CA. Jatin Christopher, Bangalore, CA. Malay Kumar Panda, Bangalore,Mr. J Sundaresan, Bangalore, Mrs. Malathy Sunderrajan, CA. Shruthi B N, CA. B N Ganesh Kumar, Prof. VenkateshwaraKiran I. Bangalore, CA. Lohit Jagdish, CA. Sudheendra H, CA. Jaikumar Nair, Bangalore, Mr. S Gopichandra, Bangalore, Mr. AjayKumar Menon, Bangalore, Mr. S V Madhavan, Bangalore, Mrs. Anita Mehtha, Bangalore and so many other renowned resource persons.

Registration Fees: DD should be drawn in favour of “Bangalore Branch of SIRC of ICAI” payable at Bangalore.For further details please contact: Tel: 080-30563500 / 511 / 512 / 513 Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Appeal to members: Members are requested to show their patronage by informing andencouraging their students to join the coaching classes of Bangalore Branch.

19 March2012


20March2012

Newsletter for the Month of March 2012

Documents

fee branch premiseswednesday

branch premisesmonday

branch premisestuesday

branch newslettercolour

bangalore branch of

daystuesday delegate

half page

quarter page