Tuesday, February 12, 2013

[aaykarbhavan] Re: [CAForumHyd] Re: {jalgaoncas} Fw: {Amresh's CA's} Fwd: [CSMysore] My Article-Investor Protection:Present Scenario




Some addition by Capiatl Letters in below mail.


 
Dear All,

But who cheats to all , no body protects!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who protects who know your self...  Investors Protection is not protecting. I have one case where Rs 480 crores of NCD Issue with detachable warrants were used for the finance and investment companies , share investment,  never came back to parent company!! C A gave clear certificate of end use of the funds for project ( Cold rolling mills) . SEBI is silent for almost 18 years!!! I C I C I Limited ) Now I C I C I Bank Limited ) silently moved out as trustee and financed  the project again !!!!!!!!!!!
Company shaffeled to company structure by d emerging the company. 100 % Subsidiary Company demerged silently to personal group having investment of 2000 crores values at base price !!!!      DE-MERGED COMPANY NAMES JSW HOLDING LIMITED ,  JSW STEEL LIMITED SUN INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED. NOT ONLY THIS BUT THE COMPANY DID NOT ISSUE , ANY BODY OPTED FOR CONVERSION OF WARRANTS @RS490 PREMIUM OR SO , EVEN SO CALLED PROMOTERS . ON THE CONTRARY COMPANY FORFEITED DEBENTURE APPLICATION MONEY OF THOSE DEFAULTED IN MAKING CALLS OF NCD. THIS AMOUNT IS RS 1,00,00, 000 ONE CRORE RUPEES OR MORE !!!!! VALUE IN 1995 .... STATUTORY AUDITORS ARE SILENT OBSERVER!! THEY NEVER REPORTED TO ANY BODY!!!!! ESCAPED IN REPORTING. BUT DEFENDED BY GIVING CLEAN CERTIFICATE OF END USE OF NCD ISSUE FUNDS. HOW BEST KNOWN TO COMPANY, I C I C I LIMITED, ( NOW I C IC I BANK LIMITED ) AND AUDITORS.
I HAVE AS MANY AS 25 OR MORE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF COMPLAINT TO SEBI SINCE 1995 !!! WHO PROTECTS WHO !!! THIS IS VOUCHING OF AUDIT OF SEBI!!!!
The , then name , is Jindal Iron and Steel Company Limited now JSW Steel Co Limited. De merged Company is Sun Investment Private Limited. If any body knows structure of Sun Investment Private Limited let me know.
Regards.
C A Shah D J
USA

2013-TIOL-04-HC-MUM-IT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Income Tax Appeal No. 5604 of 2010
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I
Vs
M/s NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT LTD
J P Devadhar And M S Sanklecha, JJ
Dated : December 17, 2012
Appellant Rep. by : Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Padma Diwakar
Respondent Rep. by : Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Adv with Aasifa Khan
Income Tax - Section 260A - Whether disallowance regarding purchases made, can be made merely on the basis that the suppliers and other relating evidences are not produced before the assessing authority or before the first appellate authority.
Assessee company had filed its ROI for the AY 2001-02 declaring a total income of Rs.42.08 lacs. During assessment, the AO disallowed an expenditure on account of non-genuine purchases alongwith other disallowances. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. On further appeal, Tribunal observed that the respondent-assessee had filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through Account Payee cheques to the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases and stock statement. This reconciliation statement gave complete details with regard to opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock and no fault with regard to it was found. Besides, substantial amount of sales made by the assessee was to Government Department and such sales could not be bogus. Also the books of account of the assessee had not been rejected. Thus, Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.1.33 crores by holding that the purchases were not bogus.
Held that:
++ from the order of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement i.e. reconciliation statement, but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that the Books of Accounts of the assessee have not been rejected. Similarly, the sales have not been doubted and it is an admitted position that substantial amount of sales have been made to the Government Department. Further, there were confirmation letters filed by the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were infact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. The AO as well as CIT(A) have disallowed the deduction on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchase was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal. In view of the above, we find that question as formulated is not a substantial question of law.
Revenue's appeal dismissed
JUDGEMENT
1 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 30.04.2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 2001-02.
2. The following question of law has been formulated for consideration of this court.
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,33,41,917/- towards bogus purchases even though the suppliers were nonexistent and one of the parties had categorically denied having any business dealings with the Assessee Company?"
3. The respondent-assessee had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 200102 declaring a total income of Rs.42.08 lacs. The Assessing Officer interalia disallowed an expenditure of Rs.1.33 crores on account of nongenuine purchases from 7 parties alongwith other disallowances. The Assessing Officer by order dated 25.03.2004 assessed the respondentassessee to an income of Rs.1.87 crores.
4. Being aggrieved an appeal was filed by the respondent-assessee with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)'). By an order dated 19.08.2004, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer interalia to the extent Rs.1.33 crores disallowed as bogus purchases.
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2004 of the CIT(A), the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 while allowing the appeal records that the respondent-assessee had filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through Account Payee cheques to the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases and stock statement i.e. stock reconciliation statement. This reconciliation statement gave complete details with regard to opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock and no fault with regard to it was found. Besides, substantial amount of sales made by the respondentassessee was to Government Department i.e. Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad and such sales could not be bogus. Besides the Books of Account of the respondent-assessee have not been rejected. In view of the above, by order dated 30.04.2010 the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.1.33 crores by holding that the purchases were not bogus.
6. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that the Tribunal could not have relied only upon the stock statement i.e. the reconciliation statement to conclude that the purchases were genuine. Therefore, he submits that the question formulated is a substantial question of law and needs to be decided by this court.
7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated 30.04.2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement i.e. reconciliation statement, but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that the Books of Accounts of the respondent-assessee have not been rejected. Similarly, the sales have not been doubted and it is an admitted position that substantial amount of sales have been made to the Government Department i.e. Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad. Further, there were confirmation letters filed by the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were infact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have disallowed the deduction of Rs.1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs.1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated 30.04.2010 of the Tribunal.
8. In view of the above, we find that question as formulated is not a substantial question of law. Therefore,the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

2013-TIOL-108-HC-DEL-IT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA No.26/2013
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-VIII
Vs
ASHOK MITTAL
Badar Durrez Ahmed And R V Easwar, JJ
Dated: February 7, 2013
Appellant Rep by: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel
Respondents Rep by: Mr Mohit Chaudhary and Mr R K Srivastava, Advs.
Income Tax - Sections 71, 73, 143(3), 154, 260A - Whether the circulars beneficial to the assessee, issued by the CBDT, are binding on the income tax authorities - Whether a circular issued under the purview of the previous Act is still in effect, even if the new statute has been enacted.
Assessee is an individual. In the return filed, assessee had set off the brought forward losses from speculation business for the AYs 1999-2000 and 1998-1999 respectively against the current year's speculation profit. During assessment, the AO disallowed the set off claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessment orders for the AYs 1999-2000 and 1998-1999 were silent on the issue of carry forward of the speculation losses. The second ground was that the assessee had not furnished the particulars of share trading so as to arrive at the true profits from the speculation business in the current or earlier years. On appeal, the CIT(A) had directed the AO to allow the set off of the speculation losses of the AYs 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 against the speculation profits for the AYs 2000-2001 as claimed by the assessee. Thus, the AO gave effect to the order of the CIT(A) and first adjusted the current year's loss from all the businesses of the assessee against the current year's speculation profits and a balance of speculation profits was remaining. It was against this balance that the brought forward speculation losses were adjusted. After this adjustment, the aggregate of the brought forward speculation losses were allowed to be carry forward to the subsequent years. This method of adjustment of the brought forward speculation losses was disadvantageous to the assessee in the sense that under sub-section (2) of section 73, the carried forward losses can be set off only against the speculation profits and not against other profits. Moreover the speculation loss could not at that time be carried forward for more than eight AYs immediately succeeding the AY for which the loss was first computed. Thus the method of adjustment adopted by the AO was disadvantageous to the assessee in whose computation in the ROI, the entire brought forward losses stood adjusted against the speculation profit for the current year.
Thus, the assessee had filed an application u/s 154 seeking rectification of the order passed by the AO, reiterating his claim in the ROI. The AO had rejected the application stating that the method adopted by the assessee with regard to the adjustment of the brought forward speculation losses was in accordance with the provisions of section 71. On appeal, CIT(A) noted that the assessee's method of adjustment of the brought forward speculation losses had the approval of the judgments of the Calcutta HC in CIT vs. New India Investment Corporation Ltd. and CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Todi and a judgment of the Bombay HC in the case of Navnitlal Ambalal vs. CIT. The CIT(A) thus allowed the appeal. Against the order of the CIT(A), revenue had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, where it was held that the CIT(A) had adopted the correct approach. As per the CBDT Circular and decision of Calcutta HC, it was evident that carried forward speculation losses had to be adjusted against the speculation profit before allowing any other loss to be adjusted against those profits and other incomes. The Board Circular though issued in the context of Section 24 of the 1922 Act, had been held by the Courts hold the field. Thus, Tribunal had upheld the order of the CIT(A).
Held that:
++ we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arises. The Tribunal has applied the well-settled position that circulars issued by the CBDT relaxing the rigour of the provisions of the Act are binding on the AO and others who are executing the Income Tax Act (see: The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Zaveri vs. K.K.Sen. There is no dispute that the circular has not been withdrawn and therefore would still govern the treatment to be given to the brought forward speculation losses though it was issued under the 1922 Act. It is not the case of the revenue that the provisions of section 24 of the old Act and section 73 of the new Act are materially different and therefore the circular can have no application under the new Act. The order of the Tribunal is in conformity with the legal position that beneficial circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the income tax authorities. It is not also the case of the revenue that the working adopted by the AO was in fact more beneficial to the assessee. In the above circumstances the appeal is without merit. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revenue's appeal dismissed
Case referred:
Navnit Lal Zaveri vs. K.K.Sen (2002-TIOL-153-SC-IT)
JUDGEMENT
Per: R V Easwar:
The revenue has proposed the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law, in this appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:-
"A. Whether the ITAT was correct in the eyes of law in affirming the order of the CIT (A) directing the AO to re-compute the income of the assessee in order to give the appeal effect by first setting-off the carry forward speculative losses against the speculative profit and then set-off the business losses to the extent of the balance speculation profit and other income?
B. Whether the impugned order passed by the ITAT is perverse both in facts and law?"
2. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 11.5.2012 in ITA No.4196/Del/2011 relating to the assessment year 2000-01. In the return filed on 31.10.2000, the assessee set off the brought forward loss from speculation business quantified at Rs.14,43,625/- and Rs.75,39,186/- for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 1998-1999 respectively against the current year's speculation profit of Rs.1,46,56,512/-. In the assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 31.3.2003, the AO disallowed the set off claimed by the assessee on two grounds. The first ground was that the assessment orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 1998-1999 were silent on the issue of carry forward of the speculation losses. The second ground was that the assessee did not furnish the particulars of share trading so as to arrive at the true profits from the speculation business in the current or earlier years.
3. On appeal the CIT(Appeals) by order dated 14.8.2007 directed the AO to allow the set off of the speculation losses of the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 against the speculation profits for the assessment years 2000-2001 as claimed by the assessee.
4. The AO gave effect to the order of the CIT(Appeals) and in doing so first adjusted the current year's loss from all the businesses of the assessee against the current year's profits. The assessee had suffered loss in the business carried on in the name and style of M/s Ashok Mittal & Co.; M/s Carrara Marbles & Granite Ind. and M/s Light and Lighting. The AO adjusted these losses against the speculation profits of Rs.1,46,56,512/-. This left a balance speculation profit of Rs.19,42,970/-. It was against this balance that the brought forward speculation losses were adjusted. After this adjustment, the aggregate of the brought forward speculation losses came to Rs.1,01,39,841/- which were allowed to be carry forward to the subsequent years. This method of adjustment of the brought forward speculation losses was disadvantageous to the assessee in the sense that under sub-section (2) of section 73 of the Act, the carried forward losses can be set off only against the speculation profits and not against other profits. Moreover the speculation loss could not at that time be carried forward for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed. Thus the method of adjustment adopted by the AO was disadvantageous to the assessee in whose computation in the return of income, the entire brought forward losses stood adjusted against the speculation profit for the current year.
5. The assessee therefore filed an application under section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the order passed by the AO on 14.12.2007, reiterating his claim in the return of income and asking for the rectification of the order. The AO, by order dated 20.6.2008 rejected the application stating that the method adopted by him with regard to the adjustment of the brought forward speculation losses was in accordance with the provisions of section 71 of the Act.
6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). He noted that the assessee's method of adjustment of the brought forward speculation losses had the approval of the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. New India Investment Corporation Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 618 and CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Todi (2010) 325 ITR 96 and a judgment of the Bombay High court in the case of Navnitlal Ambalal vs. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 735. He noted that in these judgments the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts have applied the circular No.23D of 1960 dated 12.9.1960 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes which conceded that speculation losses carried forward from previous years may be first set off against the speculation profits before being set off against any other current profits, if that procedure is more beneficial to the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) also noted that the courts have also recognized that though the circular was issued in the context of section 24 of the 1922 Act, it has not been withdrawn and therefore held the field even under section 73 of the 1961 Act. In this view of the matter, he upheld the assessee's method of adjusting the brought forward speculation losses against such speculation profits. This method was found by the CIT(Appeals) to be more advantageous to the assessee. He thus allowed the appeal.
7. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after noticing the view taken by the income tax authorities dismissed the appeal by observing as under:-
"14. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has adopted the correct approach. As per the Boart Circular and decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court referred by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it is evident that carried forward speculation losses have to be adjusted against the speculation profit before allowing any other loss to be adjusted against those profits and other incomes. The Board Circular though issued in the context of Section 24 of the 1922 Act, has been held by the Courts hold the field. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same."
8. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arises. The Tribunal has applied the well-settled position that circulars issued by the CBDT relaxing the rigour of the provisions of the Act are binding on the AO and others who are executing the Income Tax Act (see: The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Zaveri vs. K.K.Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198) = (2002-TIOL-153-SC-IT). There is no dispute that the circular (supra) has not been withdrawn and therefore would still govern the treatment to be given to the brought forward speculation losses though it was issued under the 1922 Act. It is not the case of the revenue that the provisions of section 24 of the old Act and section 73 of the new Act are materially different and therefore the circular can have no application under the new Act. The order of the Tribunal is in conformity with the legal position that beneficial circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the income tax authorities. It is not also the case of the revenue that the working adopted by the AO was in fact more beneficial to the assessee.
9. In the above circumstances the appeal is without merit. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

--

From: deepak gude <drgude60@yahoo.com>
To: "jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com" <jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: {jalgaoncas} Fw: {Amresh's CA's} Fwd: [CSMysore] My Article-Investor Protection:Present Scenario [1 Attachment]

good, but its greed which drives and when one gets cheated he wants protectioncag
 
 

From: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>
To: AAYKARBHAVANGOOGLE <aaykarbhavan@googlegroups.com>; C A Dipak Jain <djain128@gmail.com>; C A Krishanlal Bansal <klbansal@gmail.com>; C A Madhusoodan Kakkad. <camnkakkad@gmail.com>; C A of Thane <ThaneCAs@yahoogroups.com>; C A Pune Groupd <casofpune-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>; cacscw india group <cacscwaindia@yahoogroups.com>; """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""cacscwaindia@yahoogroups.co.in""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <cacscwaindia@yahoogroups.co.in>; """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""CAForumHyd@yahoogroups.com""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <CAForumHyd@yahoogroups.com>; CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@gmail.com>; IT Case Law Library <it_law_reported@yahoogroups.com>; Jalgaon C A <jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com>; lucknow C A Group <lucknow-ca@yahoogroups.com>; """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""pdrungta@gmail.com""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <pdrungta@gmail.com>; """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in>; taxfin <taxfinsoft@yahoogroups.com>; """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""charteredaccountant@yahoogroups.com""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <charteredaccountant@yahoogroups.com>; bhilai-ca <bhilai-ca@yahoogroups.com>; ghaziabadca <ghaziabad_ca@yahoogroups.com>; aurangabadcas <aurangabad_ca@yahoogroups.com>; aurangabad_ca Moderator <aurangabad_ca-owner@yahoogroups.com>; """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""ca expert team@yahoogroups.com""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <ca_expert_team@yahoogroups.com>; C A Tony M P <trc_mptony@yahoo.com>; aaykarbhavan <aaykarbhavan@yahoogroups.com>; """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""panipat_ca@yahoogroups.com"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <panipat_ca@yahoogroups.com>; C A K L Bansal <klbansal2007@gmail.com>; """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""allcsclub@googlegroups.com""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" <allcsclub@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 7:53 PM
Subject: {jalgaoncas} Fw: {Amresh's CA's} Fwd: [CSMysore] My Article-Investor Protection:Present Scenario [1 Attachment]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@gmail.com>
To: cschennai <cschennai@googlegroups.com>; charteredsecretaries <CharteredSecretaries@yahoogroups.co.in>; csfratenity@yahoogroups.co.in; lawprofessional <lawprofessional@yahoogroups.com>; Company_Secretary <company_secretary@yahoogroups.com>; 7thmsopparticipants <7thmsopparticipants@googlegroups.com>; company-secretary-vacancies <company-secretary-vacancies@googlegroups.com>; company-secretary-expertise@googlegroups.com; corporate-legal-updates <corporate-legal-updates@googlegroups.com>; CS STUDENTS ONLINE CLUB <csstudentsclub@gmail.com>; cs-hyderabad@googlegroups.com; cssouth <cssouth@googlegroups.com>; 120thSMTP <120thSMTP@yahoogroups.co.in>; css <cslegalforum@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:58 AM
Subject: {Amresh's CA's} Fwd: [CSMysore] My Article-Investor Protection:Present Scenario [1 Attachment]
 
Thanks kiran 
 
Best wishes for you
 
Best regards
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: kiran mukadam <kiranmukadam@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:12 PM Subject: [CSMysore] My Article-Investor Protection:Present Scenario To: 6th-r-msop-ccgrt <6th-r-msop-ccgrt@googlegroups.com> Dear All,

I am enclosing herewith my article" Investor Protection:Present Scenario" which is published in "SEBI and Corporate Law" journal of taxmann.

Welcome your valuable opinion 

--

Regards

CS Kiran Mukadam

Mob:-9420153962

:) We were born to succeed, not to fail.  :)
--
--
************************************************
Mail your comments, feedback and suggestions on CSMysore to Moderator: dattatrics@gmail.com and Manager: vivekhegde1984@gmail.com
 
Find eNewsletters of ICSI Mysore at: www.icsi.edu/NewsEvents/enewsletters/tabid/1757/Default.aspx
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CSMysore" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:csmysore%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
--
 
CS A  RENGARAJAN,, B.Com ,FCS, LLB, PGDBM
Company Secretary, Chennai
CONVENOR, CHENNAI WEST STUDY CIRCLE ICSI-SIRC email csarengarajan@gmail.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.
-- -- DISCLAIMER jalgaoncas is a Google Group for the benefit of CA and other professional. It is especially meant for written discussion & circulate information within group members.The mail may contain such research/advice/opinion/information/fact provided by any member and every contain of the mail or information is always subject to the accuracy and of the description of facts. The jalgaoncas,its owner do not claim that contains in mail/information obtained after reading as a complete and accurate disclosure of relevant facts.The transaction based on above mail may not complete without confirming proper statue/authority/person.Any action/transaction taken on basis of this mail do not imply the accuracy or value.Further this Group's Owner/Moderator/Member are not liable for any damages or costs suffered due to action/transaction based on information on this Group. To join send email jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com or visit http://groups.google.co.in/group/jalgaoncas   --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jalgaoncas" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jalgaoncas+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.    
--
--
DISCLAIMER
jalgaoncas is a Google Group for the benefit of CA and other professional. It is especially meant for written discussion & circulate information within group members.The mail may contain such research/advice/opinion/information/fact provided by any member and every contain of the mail or information is always subject to the accuracy and of the description of facts.
The jalgaoncas,its owner do not claim that contains in mail/information obtained after reading as a complete and accurate disclosure of relevant facts.The transaction based on above mail may not complete without confirming proper statue/authority/person.Any action/transaction taken on basis of this mail do not imply the accuracy or value.Further this Group's Owner/Moderator/Member are not liable for any damages or costs suffered due to action/transaction based on information on this Group.
To join send email jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.co.in/group/jalgaoncas
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jalgaoncas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jalgaoncas+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 






__._,_.___


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.com



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)