Tax indirect transfers prospectively: Shome
BS REPORTER
New Delhi, 9 October
The Parthasarthi Shome panel today recommended that indirect transfer
of Indian assets be taxed prospectively and retrospective taxation
should happen only in the rarest of rare cases. That would provide
relief to Vodafone and other companies fearing demand notices from the
income tax department on their past deals involving transfer of Indian
assets.
The committee noted even if the government decided to opt for
retrospective taxation of indirect transfers, the tax should be paid
by the company that made capital gains and the penalty and the
interest should be waived. If this recommendation is accepted by the
government, Hutchison could become liable for paying tax in the
Vodafone case.
The panel observed that amendments to the Income Tax Act made through
the Finance Act of 2012 were not clarificatory and instead would tend
to widen the tax base. President Pranab Mukherjee, who had introduced
the provisions as the then finance minister, had maintained the
amendments were made to clarify that the intent of the government had
always been to tax the indirect transfer of Indian assets.
Industry and tax experts, who had strongly opposed the retrospective
amendment hurting "investor sentiment", welcomed the report. CII
Director General Chandrajit Banerjee said it would improve sentiment.
Ficci President R V Kanoria said it would bring about certainty in the
tax policy and lay down the ground rules for retrospective legislation
in tax matters.
The recommendations may be carried out through amendment of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 or the Income Tax Rules, 1962 or by way of an
explanatory circular. The panel asked the government to avoid
introducing fundamental changes in tax provisions without
consultations. THE PANEL'S TAKE
|Retrospective tax should apply only in exceptional or the rarest of
rare cases |Finance Act provisions on taxation of indirect transfers
not clarificatory |Levy tax only on taxpayer who earned capital gains
from indirect transfer |No interest, penalty should be levied on
account of retrospective changes |Capital asset deemed situated in
India if it derives over 50% of global assets of entity |Exempt
foreign company listed on a recognised bourse, intra-group rejig
|Exempt PE investors, non-resident investors of FIIs like P-note
holders | Dividend paid by a foreign company not to be deemed to
accrue or arise in India |Capital gains tax won't apply if there's
aDTAA with the country of the non-resident |Recommendations may be
implemented through changes to I-T Act, issuing circular
PARTHASARATHI SHOME
Chairman, GAAR and Retrospective Amendments Panel
'Outlined framework, interpretation required for individual cases'
ECONOMY, P6
Asks govt to avoid fundamental changes in tax provisions without consultations
Wipro, Tata Comm must sell shares to meet new norms
NSUNDARESHASUBRAMANIAN
Mumbai, 9 October
The promoters of large companies such as Wipro and Tata Communications
will have to shell out more stake to comply with the public
shareholding norms after the Sebi said capital issued outside India
would not be accounted for in the calculation of "public
shareholding".
According to the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (SCRR),
private sector firms are required to have at least 25 per cent of
their shares held by the public.
In its recent board meeting, the Sebi decided that "capital issued
outside India is neither included in the numerator nor in the
denominator" while calculating public shareholding. It said for the
purpose of compliance with rule 19A of SCRR, public shareholding would
be computed as "shares held by public" as a percentage of "total
number of shares held by promoters, promoter group and public" i.e.
B/A + B (where, A = promoter/promoter group shareholding, B = public
shareholding).
In the Sebi reporting format, 'A' refers to "total shareholding of
promoter and promoter group" whereas 'B' refers to public shareholding
by individuals, institutions, corporate bodies, etc.
'C', which refers to "shares held by custodians and against which
depository receipts have been issued" under the format, has been
excluded from the calculation. This means promoters will have to sell
more shares. And, it means capital issued outside India in the form of
American depository receipts (ADRs) and global depository receipts
(GDRs) will not be considered while calculating the public
shareholding in a company, though these receipts are held by the
public.
That will affect the promoters of large companies such as Wipro and
Tata Communications, whose promoter group shareholding exceeds 75 per
cent. These companies will have to sell more shares to comply with the
norms before June 2013.
In the case of Wipro, 42 million shares or 1.71 per cent are held by
custodians against the ADRs. Including these, the total outstanding
shares of the company work out to 2.46 billion. The promoter group,
comprising Azim Premji and 11 other entities, holds 1.92 billion
shares or 78.37 per cent. If ADRs are included, the promoters would
have to sell 3.37 per cent or 82.9 million shares.
Under the new Sebi calculation where in the ADRs are exempted from
both total shareholding and public shareholding, the promoter
shareholding of 1.92 billion shares amounts to 79.73 per cent of
reduced shareholding. Therefore, the promoters will have to sell 4.73
per cent or 149.34 million shares. At today's close, that would be
adivestment of around ~5,480 crore.
Thus, Azim Premji and the group entities would have to sell a little
over 66 million shares more, leading to additional divestment of
around ~2,400 crore. Wipro shares gained 0.46 per cent today to close
at ~367.35. In March, a trust controlled by Premji sold shares worth
~750 crore through the offer for sale mechanism.
Similarly, Tata Communications' public shareholding, including ADRs,
is 23.85 per cent. But under the new formula, the public holding comes
to 19.17 per cent. This means it has to sell 5.83 per cent or 15.64
million shares. At today's prices it has to sell around ~380 crore
worth of shares. Tata Communications fell 1.49 per cent to ~248.20
today. The Government of India, listed as part of the promoter group,
continues to hold 26.12 per cent in Tata Communications. Other
promoter group shareholders are Tata Sons (14.22 per cent), Panatone
FInvest (31.1 per cent) and Tata Power (4.71 per cent). A Wipro
spokesman said, "We are in the silent period ahead of the
July-September results." An email seeking comments sent to Tata
Communications did not elicit any response till the time of going to
press. GAME-CHANGER
Tata Wipro Comm
Promoter shares (mn) 1,927.88 217.03
%holding including ADRs 78.37 76.15
%holding excluding ADRs 79.73 80.83
Shares to be sold (in mn) 149.34 15.64
Price (~) 367.35 248.2
Value (~ crore) 5,486.00 388.18
Wipro shareholding as of June, Tata Comm as of Sept 12 Source: BSE
SELLLOCALLY, SAYS SEBI
>Promoters of Wipro and Tata Communications would have to sell more shares to meet June 2013 deadline
>Wipro would have to sell 4.73% stake, valued at ~5,480 cr at Tuesday's close
>Tata Communications would have to sell 5.83% stake, worth over ~380 cr
>Other companies that are to meet shareholding norms cannot look at ADR/GDR route
Irda raises agents' commission, cuts minimum guaranteed surrender
value for some products
MSARASWATHY& YOGINI JOGLEKAR
Mumbai, 9 October
Be prepared to shell out a little more on your insurance premiums and
receive less value if you decide to exit your policy before maturity.
In its draft norms for traditional products, the Insurance Regulatory
and Development Authority (Irda) has proposed an increase in agents'
commissions and a reduction in surrender value of policies.
The draft, however, brings good news for agents. The minimum
commission for agents has been raised from 14 per cent of the premium
for the first year to 15 per cent, for five-year premium-paying term
policies. Besides, the regulator has proposed a specific commission
for each year starting from a five-year premium paying term to 12
years plus premium paying term.
Earlier, five to nine years, 10 to 14 years and 15 years and above
were classified as one category with acommon commission. In the
present draft, Irda has specified commission for each year separately
and has increased the commission rates.
"Increasing and allocating separate commissions for each year is a
step in the right direction. This will curb mis-selling to a great
extend and motivate agents as well," said GN Agarwal, chief actuary at
Future Generali Life Insurance.
If the insurance regulator has its way, the surrender value of
policies will also come down. In the exposure draft, Irda has proposed
30 per cent for policies that are active for three years, down from 50
per cent.
According to Agarwal, maintaining surrender value for longterm
products is going to be more difficult. "This is because when the
premium paying term of a policy is longer, the premiums are
comparatively much lower, hence insurers may not be able to retain
much even in the first two to three years." PNandagopal, managing
director and CEO at IndiaFirst Life Insurance, said while putting a
cap was good, the reduced surrender value was not fully justified from
the customer's point of view. "It is too low a guarantee and the
customers should get value for their money spent. We also found that
the expenses in traditional products are more than that in Ulips but
the surrender value is lower than in traditional products," he said.
Irda had said all individual nonlinked life insurance and pension
products should acquire minimum guaranteed surrender value (GSV). The
GSV is a sum of guaranteed surrender value and the surrender value of
the any subsisting bonus already attached to the policy. Unitlinked
insurance plans already have such a minimum guaranteed surrender
value.
"The minimum guaranteed surrender value would be 30 per cent of the
total premiums paid less any survival benefits paid, if the policy is
surrendered in the second and third year. If surrendered in the fourth
year, it would be 70 per cent of the total premiums paid less any
survival benefits already paid. If surrendered during the fifth to the
seventh policy year, it would be 90 per cent of total premiums paid,
less any survival benefits already paid," the draft norms said.
The insurer need to file the surrender value beyond the seventh year
under the 'file and use' procedure for clearance.
Minimum commission for agents raised from 14% of the premium for the
first year to 15%, for 5-yr premium-paying term policies
Govtmay have to take ~40k-crhit
BS REPORTER
New Delhi, 9 October
The government may take a hit of about ~40,000 crore if it accepts the
recommendations of the Parthasarathi Shome panel to tax indirect
transfer of Indian assets prospectively, as against the provisions of
the Finance Act, 2012, to tax all such deals retrospectively.
The government has even put a validation clause in the law to demand
from companies where a court ruling had gone against the government.
The income tax department had estimated that the implication of the
changes in the Income Tax Act to levy capital gains tax on indirect
transfer of Indian assets could be ~35,000 crore to ~40,000 crore. For
a cash-strapped government looking at an ambitious tax collection
target, ~40,000 crore could have helped bring down the fiscal deficit
substantially.
The retrospective amendments have empowered the government to tax
Vodafone and similar cross-border transactions by Cairns UK Holding
Ltd, Unilever HPC Finance Services Inc USA, Accenture Services Pvt
Ltd, Euro Pacific Security Ltd, Tata Industries Ltd/AT&T, McLeod
Russel India Ltd, SAB Miller, Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA.
If no changes are made to the Finance Act, the tax department can
raise over ~20,000 crore from Vodafone, including interest and penalty
for its failure to withhold the tax while making the payment to
Hutchison at the time of concluding their deal.
If the recommendations are accepted by the government, in a scenario
where the law is applied prospectively, Vodafone would not be required
to pay anything on its $11.2-billion deal with Hong Kong-based
Hutchison in 2007, provided the finance ministry does not reach a
conclusion that the Vodafone case falls in the category of
"exceptional or rarest of rare cases", as described by the Shome
committee.
In the second scenario where the law is applied retrospectively,
Hutchison could be asked to pay ~7,900 crore to the Indian government.
NSHOME COMMITTEE ON RETROSPECTIVE TAXCHANGES N
Should banking M&As come underthe CCI?
One must compliment Palaniappan Chidambaram to be able to rise above
narrow considerations and support the jurisdiction of the Competition
Commission of India (CCI) as the sole body to review mergers in not
only banking, but all sectors. Thus, he has promoted the integrity of
the economic governance system, which is imperative for the success of
economic reforms.
All countries empower the competition regulator to oversee competition
issues in all regulated sectors, including banks, purely because of
their skills. The only exception vis-à-vis banking mergers is Turkey,
but there, too, the central bank has to use the competition law to
review mergers. A variation of this exists in the US, where the
Federal Reserve and a few big state banking regulators oversee banking
mergers, but the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice can
also intervene to check the competition angle.
In many countries wherever competition issues arise in regulated
sectors, including mergers, the competition agency has to mandatorily
consult the sector regulator. The proposed Competition Amendment Bill
cleared by the Union Cabinet on October 4, 2012, has provided for such
a coordinated approach. The process itself has achequered history,
which is relevant to the discourse. To begin with, the proposed
Banking Regulation Amendment Bill, which is pending before Parliament,
ousted the CCI's jurisdiction on mergers. When the proposal on the
Competition Amendment Bill came up before the Cabinet sometime in
July, then Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee sought blanket exemption
for banks. Mukherjee's position was echoed by Kapil Sibal – the
communications minister – who wanted an exemption for telecom mergers
because the Department of Telecom has its own merger guidelines.
Chidambaram, then home minister, opposed it, and the matter was
conveniently referred to a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by
Mukherjee. After Mukherjee became president, Chidambaram was appointed
the chairman of the GOM and also as the new finance minister. He
continued with his earlier stand in the GoM and the Cabinet,
fortuitously, did not change the tune.
In order to address the overlap and conflict issues among our
regulators and competition agency, the amendment Bill makes it
mandatory for mutual consultation on all such issues. This paradigm
has also been captured in the proposed National Competition Policy
(and the Planning Commission's National Manufacturing Plan), which
will now go before the Cabinet for adoption.
We have faced many such conflicting situations in which there are
ambiguities in our laws that create parallel jurisdictions for
different regulators. They end up creating unpredictable legal
environments, a lawyer's paradise but an investor's nightmare.
Clearly, the law ministry sleeps and promotes such incoherent
ambiguities, while the line ministries push their own versions, tinged
by coalition politics, ignorance and dichotomies. The latest row is on
the draft notification issued by the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (CERC) on competition issues in the electricity sector in
August, 2012. It is empowered to do so under the Electricity Act,
2003.
Mind you, all regulatory laws are required to promote competition, but
it is only the CCI that is empowered to check anticompetitive
practices in the whole economy. Even our courts have not been able to
appreciate this fine distinction. In the case of a complaint against
an aviation fuel cartel, the Delhi High Court erroneously stayed the
proceedings before the CCI on grounds that the Petroleum and Natural
Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) is the authorised body. Under its own
law, the PNGRB is required to promote competition and consumer
interest, but not check anticompetitive practices. But the PNGRB does
not have any competition regulations.
Why was the CERC sleeping when it could have and should have drafted
the competition regulations long ago? Since the recent debate on
banking mergers, CERC realised that it, too, should flex its muscles.
In any event, once Parliament clears the Competition Amendment Bill
and the Banking Regulations Amendment Bill, ambiguities in other laws
will also need sorting out.
It is the only body skilled enough to check anticompetitive practices
but it has no role in facilitating the banking consolidation process
In a free or competitive market economy, the prices of goods and
services should be determined by demand and supply. The Competition
Commission of India (CCI) was established to prevent practices having
adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in
markets, to protect consumers' interests and to ensure freedom of
trade carried on by other participants in markets. Any monopolistic or
restrictive trade practice aimed at controlling supply or prices would
be detrimental to the overall economy by reducing the economic
efficiency leading to externalities and costs. Given the current
regulatory framework and powers of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), is
there a role for CCI in the banking consolidation process? Our banking
system comprises 86 scheduled commercial banks, 82 regional rural
banks, 1,645 urban cooperative banks (53 scheduled cooperative banks)
and 95,765 rural cooperative banks. The business in terms of assets is
dominated by scheduled commercial banks. Unlike manufacturing or other
services, a critical aspect in the banking and financial industry is
risk management and financial stability of the entities. The stringent
regulatory and compliance requirements on capital adequacy and risk
management practices lend to the stability of the banking system.
For financial products and service providers, the size of their
balance sheets lends them financial stability and economies of scale.
At any given instance there may be a variety of risks that are carried
in the banks' balance sheets. Larger the size, the better able a bank
is to hedge and disperse the concentration as well as other risks
within the portfolio. Size also provides banks with the ability to
tide over unfavourable business cycles. The prolonged period of high
interest rates over the last couple of years has adversely affected
many sectors as well as economic growth. The banking sector, though
facing a deteriorating asset quality, has been able to absorb the
shock with steady return on assets and increase in operating income.
Size also allows banks to crosssubsidise products and pricing. Social
banking has been one of the thrust areas in recent years and given the
fact that financial inclusion in the country is around 50 per cent,
the size of banks will be the key in the expansion of banking
services. Banking regulations require banks to keep aside about 28 per
cent of funds in cash reserve ratio and statutory liquidity ratio. Any
bank without size and a business model focused on financial inclusion
will struggle to stay afloat. The costs of social banking have been
prohibitive for banks due to lack of branches and distribution
infrastructure. Even with effective leverage of technology, the small
size of financial inclusion portfolios makes it difficult to generate
profits.
The experience in other geographies shows that a pyramid structure has
evolved over time through consolidation and amalgamations. It is based
not just on size but also on the customer segments serviced. For
example, in China the four large banks have approximately 50 per cent
market share and in Australia the big four banks control 77 per cent
of the market. Experience in many other geographies shows a similar
trend. Meanwhile, the Indian banking industry is highly fragmented
with the largest bank along with its associates having a market share
of about 23 per cent, the second and the thirdlargest banks have 5.7
per cent and five per cent share respectively. Importantly, the size
of Indian banks is pale in comparison to global banks. Though on some
levels it might be felt that fragmentation would drive competition and
better pricing and service for customers, smaller sizes have excluded
banks from achieving economies of scale.
Another aspect to consider is whether consolidation would lead to
monopolistic and unfair trade practices. The industry follows a base
rate system for pricing that takes into account the cost of funds,
operational costs and margins to arrive at a price. The high level of
transparency and grievance redressal mechanism precludes unfair trade
practices.
The industry may, in effect, benefit from consolidation, given the
current fragmented state, helping improve economies of scale and
ability to cross-subsidise products and pricing. Additionally,
appropriate risk management practices and financial strength are more
crucial to the sustainability of the sector. Considering these
factors, the commission may perhaps rely on RBI's approval framework.
PRADEEP SMEHTA
Secretary General, CUTS International
"In orderto address the overlap and conflict issues among
ourregulators and competition agency, the amendment Bill makes it
mandatoryformutual consultation on all such issues"
ASHVIN PAREKH
Partner | National Leader - Global Financial Services, Ernst & Young
"Riskmanagement practices and financial strength are more crucial to
the sustainabilityof the sector. So, the commission should perhaps
relyon RBI's approval framework
<DEBATE
>SURYAKANT NIWATE
Of transparency and sloppy accounting
BS REPORTERS
New Delhi, 9 October
In their first report (for 200708) to shareholders, the directors of
Sky Light Hospitality disclosed what property was bought where, how
the company hoped to profit (from conversion of land to
non-agricultural use), etc. The accounts disclose that a bank
overdraft of ~7.94 crore financed purchase of land in Sohna tehsil.
However, the auditors state the company has not taken term loans, nor
"raised any funds on short-term basis and applied them for longterm
investments".
A year later, these statements are repeated. While the company has now
given out ~5.5 crore as 'advances' to Vadra's other companies, the
auditors state that no 'loans' have been given to companies under the
same management.
Till then, the sources of money obtained are disclosed — which bank
has given an overdraft, who has given 'advances' (DLF) and 'loans'
(Artex). However, this transparency disappears in stages as the years
pass. Thus, in 2009-10, the directors' report gives details of
business receipts, and of profits. The company's activities about the
hotel project and the booking of flats are spelt out.
Indeed, it is stated by the directors that money received as advance
against sale of land has been kept as fixed deposits, which earn
income for the company. However, the directors are silent on what the
balance sheet discloses, that some of the 'advances' have been lent to
other group companies.
The balance sheet records that ~50 crore has been received as advance
against sale of land, but is silent on the party involved (DLF),
although DLF is mentioned in connection with two other advances
totalling ~25 crore. Also, the related party transactions are now
declared, unlike earlier.
In 2010-11, there is even less transparency. The directors report says
nothing about the financial results, except that they are in the
accounts. Nothing is explained about the business activities of the
company, nor its prospects. Also, while advances are shown as ~58
crore, no source of the money is given (unlike the disclosures of past
years). Similarly, going by the regulatory filings, the long list of
people to whom money had been given in the past as loans and advances
has now disappeared and what you get is a consolidated figure, with no
parties named.
You also come across some slipshod accounting. In the balance sheet
for 200910, no loan funds were disclosed in the sources of funds. But
in the balance sheet for 2010-11, which also shows figures for the
previous year, loan funds of ~10.24 lakh are shown for 2009-10
(although these were not reported a year earlier). The money seems to
have been lent to the company by its directors. More sloppy work shows
up in the balance sheet of Sky Light Realty, which has some numbers
over-written by hand but the sums are small and seem to have no
significance.
Auditors saySky Light Hospitality hasn't taken term loans orraised
anyfund on short-term basis and applied those forlong-term investments
Redressal mechanism for salary non-paymentis slow
NEHAPANDEYDEORAS & YOGINI JOGLEKAR
Employees of the ailing Kingfisher Airlines had last received their
salaries six months earlier. Last week, the beleaguered airline got a
breather after one of its frozen bank accounts was reactivated. This
gave the airline a credit line of ~60 crore. The money was to be paid
as salary but the employees are yet to receive it.
Kingfishers is the latest example. Earlier, Air India had not paid
some allowance to its employees. Two years before, real estate major
Hiranandani Group was pulled up by the Central Bureau of Investigation
for not paying employee provident fund (EPF) dues to 30-odd employees
between 2003 and 04.
Given the present market conditions, it wont be surprising if more
companies come under financial stress. And, you could be at the
receiving end.
Salary not paid
While Kingfisher and Air India employees took to open dialogue with
the management and striking work, there are other ways to get your
dues.
Legal experts say employees can drag their employer to court the
minute their salary is delayed, even by a day. But advocate Mohit
Kapoor advises first writing to the company giving details of the
amount due and giving the employer time to respond before going to
court. If the company does not respond to your request or letter, you
can take the employer to court.
In India, any employee can file a case in a labour court under Section
33 (C2) of the Industrial Disputes Act if the matter deals with wage
and related problems. Here, if the management does not agree with your
case (under the Industrial Disputes Act), you can go to the Labour
Commissioner. The Commissioner cannot give a verdict he/she can only
help resolve your problem or re-conciliate matters. In case, no
solution is reached, the Commissioner will hand over the matter to the
government, which in turn, can escalate it to the court, says lawyer
Jane Cox.
However, Maharashtra has some more provisions for aggrieved employees.
Here, if you are a workman by definition (Class Iemployee), but not a
central government employee, you can file a case under the Maharashtra
Registration of Trade Union and Unfair Labour Practices Act or
Industrial Disputes Act, explains Cox.
Central government workmen or employees, says Cox, like airline
employees, can approach the high court or the Labour Commissioner.
Those who dont fall under the workmen category, that is, anyone above
the executive level or managers and above, can file a case against the
employers in the civil court.
There isnt any time line you can get for resolution of such cases.
Once the case goes to court, the law takes its own course and time.
Mostly, it ends up being a frustratingly long-drawn case and employees
get their dues three-four years later.
Provident fund not paid
In cases where youve not been paid dues like employers contribution
towards provident fund (PF), you can make a representation to the
Regional Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, with all the
documentary evidences (annual provident fund slip, salary slip). The
Commissioner will take up the matter with the Employee Provident Fund
inspector. "If the company is found guilty, the inspector can ask the
company to pay up to 100 per cent damages. So, if the company is
supposed to pay ~1,000, it would be asked to cough up double the
amount. Also, the employer is asked to pay the interest dues on the
amount that was not deposited," says Kapoor.
Deducted PF, but not deposited
Some companies, might make deductions for EPF from your salary but not
deposit this. Then also one can approach the Employee Provident Fund
Commissioner. The process could take four to five months depending on
the case. Further, you cannot withdraw the entire amount if you
continue to be the employee of the company. You can withdraw up to 50
per cent of the amount.
If you are aware of labour laws, that is, you know how to make a
plaint, know previous similar cases and their judgments, know how to
set precedence of those cases for your petition, you can fight your
own case in the labour court, says advocate Shelina Mobhani.
Approaching the court or department concerned can be a long-drawn process
PROTEST FOR LIVELIHOOD Kingfisher Airlines employees protestfor
non-paymentofsalaries
--
.
-
CS A RENGARAJAN,, B.Com ,FCS, LLB, PGDBM
Company Secretary, Chennai
email csarengarajan@gmail.com
http://www.csarengarajan.blogspot.com
http://companysecretarytalent.blogspot.com/
http://companysecretarybenevolentfund.blogspot.com/
http://csvacancies.blogspot.com/
mobile 093810 11200
CS Benevolent Fund is a collective effort towards extending the much
needed financial support to the community of Company Secretaries in
times of distress Let us lend support and join for noble cause.
SHARING KNOWLEDGE SKY IS THE LIMIT
This mail and its attachments (if any) are confidential information
intended for persons to whom the email is planned for delivery by the
sender. If you have received this mail in error please notify the
sender of the error by forwarding the email and its attachments (if
any) and then deleting the mail received in error and the relevant
email trail in this connection without making any copies or taking any
prints.
------------------------------------
receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.
To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aaykarbhavan/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aaykarbhavan/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
aaykarbhavan-digest@yahoogroups.com
aaykarbhavan-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
aaykarbhavan-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment