Friday, February 28, 2014

[aaykarbhavan] Law Dictionary Attached , Judgments , Business Standard [1 Attachment]











HC not happy with reopening of case of IRS officer to settle personal vendetta

The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including, inter alia, the position of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Director General of Vigilance, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Income Tax Ombudsman. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, he filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs.4,10,917/- consisting of salary income, property income and income from other sources. It was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 31.03.2011 a notice was received by him under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner appears to have filed a return of income in response thereto and sought the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment. The reasons were furnished on 27.06.2011 to which the petitioner filed objections questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 to issue the notice. It was contended that the reasons recorded were not sufficient in law to entertain the belief that there was escapement of income, that the allegations levelled in the tax evasion petition on the basis of which the assessment was reopened were factually incorrect and further that the re¬assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. The first respondent did not agree with the objections and dismissed them vide order dated 25.07.2011. Against the said order the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.6011/2011 on 17.08.2011, impugning both the notices issued under Section 148 and the order dismissing the objections of the petitioner. By order dated 23.08.2011 this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to pass a fresh order dealing with the petitioner‟s objections, particularly the objection that the tax evasion petition on the basis of which the assessment was reopened contained factually incorrect allegations.
The contentions of the petitioner deserve acceptance. Once the first respondent found, after due inquiries, that there was no basis to connect the petitioner with the May Fair Garden property, he ought to have dropped the reassessment proceedings. Nothing survived thereafter. He was, therefore, acting outside jurisdiction when he issued a letter on 02.11.2011 calling upon the petitioner to avail of the  opportunity, if so advised, given to him to cross-examine the complainant – i.e., the person who was the author of the tax evasion petition. The only order which could have been passed by the first respondent, after finding that there was no basis for the tax evasion petition connecting the petitioner with the May Fair Garden property, was to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 148. Surprisingly one month after the first respondent wrote to the petitioner conceding that there was no basis for the tax evasion petition, he invited the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, if so advised. Such a procedure is unknown to the Act. Instead of terminating the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act by dropping them the first respondent chose inexplicably to keep those proceedings alive. This is illegal and impermissible in law. This amounts to nothing but harassment of the petitioner. There appears to be some vested interest in keeping the proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2011 alive. The tax evasion petition and the present proceedings seem to be the result of a personal vendetta between two officers of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) (the complainant being one of them). This unfortunately has resulted in multiple proceedings before this Court.
The respondents have to act in accordance with law and not under any pressure. The AO, being a responsible officer should not be party or pressurised by someone to personal vendetta. Being statutory officers they have to act independently and in accordance with law.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th February, 2014
+ W.P. (C) 7977/2011
SHRI PRADYOT K. MISRA
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX  
ORDER
R.V. EASWAR, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. This petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ quashing the notice dated 31.03.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 40(1), New Delhi (first respondent) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) and the letter dated 02.11.2011 issued by him fixing the proceedings for further hearing on 16.11.2011.
2. The facts are not much involved. The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including, inter alia, the position of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Director General of Vigilance, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Income Tax Ombudsman. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, he filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs.4,10,917/- consisting of salary income, property income and income from other sources. It was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 31.03.2011 a notice was received by him under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner appears to have filed a return of income in response thereto and sought the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment. The reasons were furnished on 27.06.2011 to which the petitioner filed objections questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 to issue the notice. It was contended that the reasons recorded were not sufficient in law to entertain the belief that there was escapement of income, that the allegations levelled in the tax evasion petition on the basis of which the assessment was reopened were factually incorrect and further that the re¬assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. The first respondent did not agree with the objections and dismissed them vide order dated 25.07.2011. Against the said order the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.6011/2011 on 17.08.2011, impugning both the notices issued under Section 148 and the order dismissing the objections of the petitioner. By order dated 23.08.2011 this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to pass a fresh order dealing with the petitioner‟s objections, particularly the objection that the tax evasion petition on the basis of which the assessment was reopened contained factually incorrect allegations.
3. On 30.09.2011, the first respondent passed an order accepting the legal objections raised by the petitioner on the ground that there was no evidence to connect him with certain properties which were alleged in the tax evasion petition to have been acquired by him out of his undisclosed sources of income and further that the contents of the tax evasion petition were found to be factually incorrect. The first respondent wrote the following letter to the petitioner: -
"To,
Sh. P.K. Misra
C/o. Sh. Y. Das
B-367, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110025
Sir,
Sub.: Objections to the re-opening of assessment year 2004-2005 – directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court – regarding.
Hon'ble High Court, Delhi quashed the order of the undersigned dated 25.07.2011 and directed to pass fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard. It was further directed that you or your authorized representative shall appear before the Assessing Officer on 19.09.2011.
The present re-assessment proceedings were initiated vide notice U/s 148 dated 31.03.2011 after recording the reasons and after obtaining approval from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-40, New Delhi. Objections were filed by you for the re-opening of assessment on 18.07.2011. The objections filed were disposed off vide this office order dated 25.07.2011 which were challenged by you by way of writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi.
On 19.09.2011 your authorized representatives Sh. Rohit Garg, Chartered Accountant & Sh. Amit Sachdeva, Advocate appeared in this office and filed submissions dated 19.09.2011 and discussed the matter. It was pointed out by you A.R's that ini ation of re-assessment proceedings were bad in law and void ab initio on the following grounds: -
1) There was no reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped the assessment;
2) The reasons recorded were factually incorrect inasmuch as the assessee has no connection whatsoever with the property, being Plot B-8, Cosmopolitan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Hauz Khas, May Fair Garden; and
3) The present reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation prescribed in section 149 of the Act inasmuch as the reasons recorded have been supplied to the assessee after the expiry of period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
I have considered the objections raised by you. The objection mentioned at "1 & 3"above, the same were disposed off by me vide order dated 25.07.2011. It is only with respect to objection "2"above for which the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the order dated 25.07.2011.
There was Tax Evasion Petition in which it was alleged that you had acquired the property bearing no.B-8 ground floor flat with basement and back garden made on 600 sq. yds. Plot, Cosmopolitan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Hauz Khas, (Shahpur Jat known as May Fare Garden), New Delhi costing not less than 20 crores. Since there were allegations against your goodself w.r.t. purchase of the said property and the enquiries w.r.t. alleged purchase of the said property were not complete and the time limit for issuing notice U/s 148 was getting time barred on 31.03.2011 and to safeguard the interest of revenue there was no alternative but to issue notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In order to verify veracity/ genuineness of the contents of T.E.P. w.r.t. acquisition of aforesaid property, detailed investigations were carried out. Enquiries were made from the occupants of the aforesaid property w.r.t. ownership. Enquiries were also made from the sub-registrar's office.
The results of enquiries do not connect the assessee with the property in question. It has been established on the basis of enquiries and documents gathered that the contents of the tax evasion petition w. r. t. purchase of May Fare Garden property are not substantiated or corroborated. The contents of the tax evasion petition
w. r. t. alleged purchase of the property no.B-8, Cosmopolitan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Hauz Khas (Shahpur Jat known as May Fare Garden), New Delhi by you are factually incorrect.
In view of above, the objections filed by the assessee on 18.07.2011 and again filed during the course of hearing on 19.09.2011 are disposed of.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(A.K. Dang)
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 40(1), New Delhi"
4. One would have thought that the matter ended there but on 02.11.2011 the respondent No.1 issued a letter to the petitioner in the following terms: -
"To,
Sh. P.K. Misra
C/o. Sh. Y. Das
B-367, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110025
Sir,
Sub.: Tax Evasion Petition in your case – regarding.
Kindly refer to on going proceedings for A. Y. 2004- 2005 in your case.
Sh. S. K. Srivastava who is the complainant in this case is proposed to be examined as a witness in support of his allegations against you upon his written request in this regard. Sh. Srivastava has informed this office that he will
examine himself as his witness as well as other witness in support of his allegations against you and lead other evidences in the case. The case is fixed for hearing on 16.11.2011.
You are hereby informed that you may if you so desire, be present in this office on 16.11.2011 at 11:00 am sharp when the evidence of Sh. S.K. Srivastava is to be taken by this office and if you so want cross examine the witness as per law.
Considering the shortage of time available for conclusion of proceedings, it is informed that adjournment may kindly be not sought.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(A.K. Dang)
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 40(1), New Delhi"
5. It is necessary to mention here that on 16.11.2011 this Court had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2011 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
6. The contentions of the petitioner deserve acceptance. Once the first respondent found, after due inquiries, that there was no basis to connect the petitioner with the May Fair Garden property, he ought to have dropped the reassessment proceedings. Nothing survived thereafter. He was, therefore, acting outside jurisdiction when he issued a letter on 02.11.2011 calling upon the petitioner to avail of the  opportunity, if so advised, given to him to cross-examine the complainant – i.e., the person who was the author of the tax evasion petition. The only order which could have been passed by the first respondent, after finding that there was no basis for the tax evasion petition connecting the petitioner with the May Fair Garden property, was to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 148. Surprisingly one month after the first respondent wrote to the petitioner conceding that there was no basis for the tax evasion petition, he invited the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant, if so advised. Such a procedure is unknown to the Act. Instead of terminating the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act by dropping them the first respondent chose inexplicably to keep those proceedings alive. This is illegal and impermissible in law. This amounts to nothing but harassment of the petitioner. There appears to be some vested interest in keeping the proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2011 alive. The tax evasion petition and the present proceedings seem to be the result of a personal vendetta between two officers of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) (the complainant being one of them). This unfortunately has resulted in multiple proceedings before this Court.
7. The respondents have to act in accordance with law and not under any pressure. The AO, being a responsible officer should not be party or pressurised by someone to personal vendetta. Being statutory officers they have to act independently and in accordance with law.
8. The notice dated 31.03.2011 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the impugned letter dated 02.11.2011 are hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

POSCO Engineering & Construction Co Ltd vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi)

Entire law on taxability of "composite" contracts for supply of offshore & onshore supply & services under Act & DTAA explained
(i) The first question which requires to be decided is whether it is a case of composite contract? In our considered opinion, the AO was initially not correct in holding that the contract was a composite one devoid of any bifurcation towards onshore and offshore supplies and services, which stand was subsequently altered to the correct position. We, therefore, hold that it is wide off the mark to categorize the present contract agreement as a composite one since all its major four components are distinctly identifiable with separate consideration for each. There is a separate mention of consideration for supply of equipments and for rendition of services. Simply because the supply of equipment and the rendition of services is to one party and for a common purpose, we are unable to find any logic in treating the entire amount as one composite payment attributable commonly both to the supply of equipment and rendering of services, more so when there is a specific identifiable amount relatable to these segments
 

Kostub Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Expenditure on foreign education of employee (son of director) is deductible if there is business nexus
Whilst there may be some grain of truth that there might be a tendency in business concerns to claim deductions under Section 37, and foist personal expenditure, such a tendency itself cannot result in an unspoken bias against claims for funding higher education abroad of the employees of the concern. As to whether the assessee would have similarly assisted another employee unrelated to its management is not a question which this Court has to consider. But that it has chosen to fund the higher education of one of its Director's sons in a field intimately connected with its business is a crucial factor that the Court cannot ignore. It would be unwise for the Court to require all assessees and business concerns to frame a policy with respect to how educational funding of its employees generally and a class thereof, i.e. children of its management or Directors would be done. Nor would it be wise to universalize or rationalize that in the absence of such a policy, funding of employees of one class – unrelated to the management – would qualify for deduction under Section 37(1). We do not see any such intent in the statute which prescribes that only expenditure strictly for business can be considered for deduction. Necessarily, the decision to deduct is to be case-dependent
 

BBC World News Limited vs. ADIT (Delhi High Court)

High Court alarmed at shoddy record-keeping by dept and allegations of tampering. S. 147 reopening quashed
We have examined the original record but did not find the proceedings or order sheets relating to original proceedings on record. This is a serious lapse, and it is apparent that the proceeding sheets in the respondents‟ custody and charge, have been removed. The record belongs to the respondents and was in their custody and charge. It was/is their duty and obligation to maintain the records properly and as per law and to ensure their sanctity and accuracy. The records cannot and should not be interpolated or changed. This High Court has in some cases earlier adversely commented about record maintenance by the Revenue as it is unacceptable and faulters on the principle of good governance. Facts mentioned above do not disclose a commendable situation and in fact the situation appears to be alarming and perilous. This requires urgent effective remedial steps. Failure to maintain records has resulted in serious allegations being made that the papers/documents have been tempered or removed etc. The papers/documents on record are not serially numbered and indexed. We also note that it is not practice of the department to give acknowledgement of papers submitted during the course of assessment proceedings
 

Pradyot K. Misra vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

High Court irked at abuse of law to settle personal vendetta between top-level IRS officers
The respondents have to act in accordance with law and not under any pressure. The AO, being a responsible officer should not be party or pressurised by someone to personal vendetta. Being statutory officers they have to act independently and in accordance with law


__._,_.___
View attachments on the web

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





__,_._,___

[aaykarbhavan] Business line updates



 

Source  Business  line

Last chance to get I-T refunds for earlier years

Our Bureau

 

New Delhi, February 27:  

If you have filed your income tax return electronically for the assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and claimed refund, but are yet to send ITR-V forms to Bangalore, there is good news for you.

The authorities have decided to extend the last date for sending this form till March 31.

ITR-V is generated after one files the return electronically. If the person does not have digital signature, then he will have to get the printout of ITR-V, sign and send it to Central Processing Centre in Bangalore. Filing of return is completed only when tax authorities acknowledge the receipt of ITR-V form.

The Income Tax Department has also said that the taxpayer may ascertain whether his ITR-V has been received at the CPC, Bangalore, or not by logging on the website http:/incometaxefiling.gov.in/e-Filing/Services/ITR-V Receipt Status.html by entering PAN number and assessment year or e-filing acknowledgement number.

Alternatively, the status of ITR-V can be ascertained at the above website under ‘Click to view Returns/Forms’ after logging in with registered e-filing account. In case ITR-V has not been received within the prescribed time, status will not be displayed.

The tax authorities also clarified that this is the final opportunity being extended to taxpayers to regularise their returns where refunds continue to remain pending for 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 for want of valid ITR-V Form.

(This article was published on February 28, 2014)

 

‘Clear air on tax treatment of CSR spend’

K. R. Srivats

New Delhi, Feb 28:  

Corporate India wants the income tax law to be clarified upfront so that their CSR spend will be eligible for deduction for income tax purposes with effect from April 1 next year.

The new corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework comes into effect from April 1.

There is no explicit provision in the income tax law or specific guidance from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on tax treatment of CSR spends by corporates.

All eyes are now on the Finance Ministry—especially CBDT—to provide clarity on tax treatment of CSR contributions.

“The income tax law needs to be clarified to prevent the taxman from treating CSR spends as an appropriation”, Siddarth Birla, FICCI President, told BusinessLine here.

If treated as an appropriation of profits and not as a charge to profits, then the taxman could disallow the corporate claims of such spend as a deductible expenditure.

This would add to the tax bill of corporates making such CSR spends, it was pointed out. While the Corporate Affairs Ministry has come up with CSR framework, the tax treatment of CSR contribution is still not clear, say experts.

“The tax treatment of CSR contribution is not clear as nothing is specifically provided in this regard, so whether or not CSR contribution will be deductible as a business expenditure is still a debatable question”, Lalit Kumar, Partner, J Sagar Associates, a law firm, said.

Aseem Chawla, Partner, MPC Legal, a law firm, said the lack of clarity on tax treatment of CSR spend is another illustration where two statutes equally applicable to a company do not provide a complete guidance to Corporate India.

There have been so many previous instances where a company has been left in disarray with regard to treatment under two equally applicable statutes.

Dolphy D Souza, Senior Partner, S R Batliboi & Co said that CSR rules do not provide any clarity on tax deduction for CSR expenditure, which essentially has to come from the CBDT.

As per the CSR rules, the qualifying expenditure do not include any spend incurred in the normal course of business.

Under section 37(1) of the Income-tax law, expenditure is deductible only if incurred for the purposes of business.

Therefore there is an inherent conflict in what the rules require the company to spend, and the deduction allowed under the Income-tax law, according to D Souza.

srivats.kr@thehindu.co.in

(This article was published on February 28, 2014)

 



--
 
CS A Rengarajan
9381011200

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.com





__,_._,___

Investor's Eye: Pulse - Weak early monsoon predictions; negative implications but still early to take a call; Update - HCL Technologies; Maruti Suzuki India

"To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add (newsletter@mailer.sharekhan.com) to your address book."
Investor's Eye
[February 28, 2014] 
Summary of Contents

 

PULSE TRACK

Weak early monsoon predictions; negative implications but still early to take a call

  • Early predictions by some reputed private agencies (Indian and foreign) suggest a good probability (about 75% chances) of a weak monsoon in 2014 driven by the El-Nino effect. These agencies had rightly warned against a similar trend in 2002, 2004 and 2009 (in 2009 the rainfall reading at 27% below average had been one of the weakest ones in three decades).

  • The sub-par gross domestic product (GDP) growth in FY2013-14 is expected to be aided by a 4.6% growth in the agriculture sector (as per CSO estimates). In the consensus view for FY2014-15, the pick-up in the GDP growth to 5.5% factors in a growth of about 3% in the agriculture segment which could get downgraded if the monsoon turns out to be weak. What's more, it would put pressure on inflation and consequently on interest rates and bond yields as well.

  • In addition to banks (and some NBFCs), the rural demand driven sectors like FMCG, consumer durables and two-wheelers face the potential risk of an earnings downgrade. The hydro-power stocks will be adversely affected by weak rains which, in turn, could affect the power trading volumes of PTC India. However, it is still too early in the day to take a final call and the weather situation is susceptible to changes (besides, the extent of the potential weakness in the rainfall is also not certain at this point of time).


STOCK UPDATE

HCL Technologies
Recommendation: Buy
Price target: Rs1,810
Current market price: Rs1,576

Quality and consistency worth further re-rating, upgrades price target to Rs1,810

Key points

  • In a recent interaction, HCL Technologies' management sounded confident about delivering revenue growth at the top end of the Nasscom guidance (13-15%) in FY2015. The company is experiencing a lot of traction in the deal pipeline/conversions led by the rebid market (potential deals estimated at $50 billion in CY2014). 

  • Though the infrastructure management services vertical (accounting for 34% of the total revenues) continues to be a growth driver, but the software services vertical (accounting for 62% of the revenues) is picking up on the back of its niche offerings (13 deal wins through ALT ASM offering). This would lead to a more broad-based growth in FY2015 and also allay the Street's concerns over a lopsided growth. The margins are expected to remain broadly stable with an upward bias in the range of 20-21%. 

  • HCL Technologies remains the best performing tier-1 IT stock with a return of around 117% given in the last one year. We have consistently had a positive call on the company in the last two years and we maintain our positive stance. With an earnings growth of 26% (CAGR) over FY2013-16, the highest among the top 4 IT companies, with a more broad-based revenue profile and a potential improvement in the dividend pay-out, the stock could see further re-rating in the next 6-12 months. We have increased our target multiple from 14.5x to 16x (similar to Wipro). Consequently, we have increased our price target to Rs1,810. We have maintained our Buy rating on the stock. 

 

Maruti Suzuki India
Recommendation: Hold
Price target: Rs1,706
Current market price: Rs1,586

Fails to address investor concerns; further de-rating of multiples

Key points

  • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL) has issued a clarification that has not only failed to ease investor concerns but also reaffirmed some of the fears related to the company's plan to source cars from the plant its parent's 100% subsidiary, Suzuki India, is setting up in Gujarat. 

  • Contrary to MSIL's claim that the plant is being set up in Gujarat under Suzuki India because the cost of capital for the parent is close to zero (given the low interest rate in Japan), the recent disclosure of the transfer pricing and depreciation rate for the plant essentially means a higher than expected effective return on investment for Suzuki India. 

  • After today's correction in the stock market, MSIL is trading at close to 13.5x FY2015E and 11x FY2016E earnings (the FY2015 and FY2016 estimates will not be affected by the proposed plant, which would get operational after three years). However, the controversy is not expected to end soon and would remain an overhang on the stock. Consequently, we are reducing our target multiple estimate further to 12x FY2016E, leading to a revised price target of Rs1,706. Given the limited upside in the near term, we revise our rating on MSIL to Hold.


Click here to read report: Investor's Eye

 

Sharekhan Limited, its analyst or dependant(s) of the analyst might be holding or having a position in the companies mentioned in the article.

Regards,
The Sharekhan Research Team
 
This e-mail message may contain information, which is confidential, proprietary, legally privileged or subject to copyright. It is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without proper authority, you are not authorized to access, read, disclose, copy, use or otherwise deal with it and any such actions are prohibited and may be unlawful. The recipient acknowledges that Sharekhan Limited or its subsidiaries, (collectively "Sharekhan "), are unable to exercise control or ensure or guarantee the integrity of/over the contents of the information contained in e-mail transmissions and further acknowledges that any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Sharekhan . Sharekhan does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, viruses or computer problems experienced as a result of this email. Before opening any attachments please check them for viruses and defects. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at mail to: mailadmin@sharekhan.com and delete this mail from your records.
This e-mail message may contain information, which is confidential,  proprietary, legally privileged or subject to copyright. It is intended  for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you  are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been  forwarded to you without proper authority, you are not authorized to  access, read, disclose, copy, use or otherwise deal with it and any such  actions are prohibited and may be unlawful. The recipient acknowledges  that Sharekhan Limited  or its subsidiaries, (collectively "Sharekhan "),  are unable to exercise control or ensure or guarantee the integrity  of/over the contents of the information contained in e-mail transmissions  and further acknowledges that any views expressed in this message are  those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall  be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due  authority of Sharekhan . Sharekhan does not accept liability for any  errors, omissions, viruses or computer problems experienced as a result  of this email. Before opening any attachments please check them for  viruses and defects. If you have received this e-mail in error, please  notify us immediately at mail to: mailadmin@sharekhan.com and delete this  mail from your records.