No.402/92/2006-MC (14 of 2009) Government of India / Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes *** New Delhi dated 30 th June 2009 PRESS RELEASE The Central Board of Direct Taxes have further decided that the Notification No. 31 of 2009 dated 25.3.2009 amending or substituting Rules 30, 31, 31A and 31AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. Taxpayers filing their income tax returns for assessment year (AY) 2009-10, or any other earlier AY, may continue to file their returns without mentioning the Unique Transaction Number (UTN) as required under the said Notification. The filing of such returns shall be treated as valid and in compliance to the requirements under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the date from which the Notification No. 31 / 2009 shall become applicable on tax deducted at source (TDS) or tax collected at source (TCS) and deposited during the current financial year shall be notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes subsequently. All deductors / collectors of TDS / TCS may continue to deposit their TDS / TCS and file their quarterly TDS / TCS returns as per procedure existing prior to issuance of Notification No.31 / 2009 dated 25.3.2009. XXX Source : CBDT,

Tax audit report may be made mandatory for e-filing of returns

The government is considering a proposal to make tax audit reports mandatory for e-filing of income tax returns.This follows a recommendation by the Income Tax (I-T) department after the Satyam accounting fraud issue broke in January following founder Ramalinga Raju`s confession. I-T officials said since the returns were e-filed, there was no provision to check whether or not the tax audit reports were certified by the chartered accountant.Current norms require all companies to conduct audits under section 44 AB, which is otherwise known as “tax audit”.

Source : http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/tax-audit-report-may-be-made-mandatory-for-e-filingreturns/360848/

NEW TDS AND TCS PAYMENT AND INFORMATION REPORTING SYSTEM- NOTIFICATION NO. 858(E), DATED 25th MARCH, 2009 PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE CIRCULAR NO. 02 / 2009, DATED 21-5-2009 The Finance Act, 2008 inserted a new sub-section (1A) in section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowering the Board to make a scheme for centralised processing of returns with a view to expeditiously determining the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the assessee. For the purposes of enabling centralised processing of returns, it is necessary to ensure the integrity of the database, in particular, the information relating to tax deduction at source, advance tax and self assessment tax. 2. One of the fundamental principles of financial accounting is that if a person claims credit for payment of money to a third person, the credit should be allowed only if the payment and the information relating to the transaction have been received from the third person. The advance tax and self assessment tax is paid directly by the assessee by filling a challan which bears a unique Challan Identification Number (CIN) and the PAN of the assessee. These two number systems are used to cross verify the claim of tax payment made by the assessee and allow appropriate credit. 3. In the context of TDS, the first best principle is that no claim for TDS / TCS should be admissible unless the deductor / payer has paid the amount so deducted / collected to the credit of the Central Government and the information relating to the transaction is received. Since the business process of the Income Tax Department was manually organised and the volume of TDS related information was large, it was not feasible to undertake 100 per cent matching of TDS claims with information furnished by the deductor. Consequently, the Income Tax Department adopted a risk management strategy for allowing claim for TDS as a second best option. With the advances in information technology, it is technically feasible to design a business process which would enable 100 per cent matching in real time, thereby, eliminating the risk. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Task Force on Direct Taxes (chaired by Dr. Kelkar), as a first step in this direction, the deductors were required to electronically furnish the TDS related information (through the NSDL). This system was introduced in early 2004 as one of the modules of the Taxpayer Information Network (TIN). 4. The quantity and quality of data flowing through this module is far from satisfactory. The data is largely unverifiable. The matching of the deduction reported by the deductor and claimed by the deductee assessee continuous to be poor for the following reasons:- (i) Non-compliance, especially by Government deductors, with TDS return filing requirement. (ii) Low quoting of PAN number in TDS returns that are filed on account of non-furnishing of PAN by deductees to their deductors and negligence by deductors. 5. Unlike in the case of advance tax and self assessment tax, the TDS information does not bear a unique transaction identification number. As a result, the PAN forms the only basis for matching. To the extent PAN quoting is inadequate or deficient, it is not feasible to match the claim made by the deductee assessee with the TDS information reported by the deductor. Hence, it becomes necessary to make ad-hoc rules for allowing credit for TDS or in the alternative, interface with the assessee for physical verification of the TDS certificate. Both these approaches are flawed since there is no reconciliation of deductees claim with the information provided by the deductor and the integrity of the system is questionable. The efforts of the Income Tax Department over the last four years for improving the TDS and TCS database have not yielded desired result. 6. Further, Government (both Central and State together) is the largest deductor of tax being the largest employer and the largest spender on works contract. Under the extant procedure, tax deducted by the Central Government departments is paid to the account of the Central Government through book transfer. Unlike other deductors, these departments do not make any direct payment of the TDS amount in the banks. Similarly, the Central Government Ministries, departments and their sub-ordinate and attached offices are large scale defaulters in complying with the TDS information reporting requirements. Even the certificates issued by these organisations are often illegible and of poor quality. Hence, these are unreliable. This has been a constant source of public grievance. It also creates an opportunity for interface with the taxpayer. This process also does not assure the department of the legitimate revenues and enforce compliance. Hence, the mechanism of payment of tax so deducted and compliance with the reporting requirements is not satisfactory. 7. Unlike the Central Government, the State Government is required to make a consolidated payment of the TDS amount in respect of all its deductors and deductions directly into the Reserve Bank of India. This is done by the Accountant General of the State. As a result, there is no correlation between the deduction, payment and reporting. Further, compliance by State Governments with the TDS information reporting requirement is no better than in the case of the Central Government. 8. In the light of the above, the Department adopted the second best option of a risk management strategy for allowing TDS claims. Under this strategy, the Department has been allowing credit for TDS claims even though the transactions do not fully match/reconcile with the information provided by the deductor. Further, the Department have also been unable to undertake follow up verification of such claims at the deductors end on account of inadequate resources. As a result the system is vulnerable and exposes public revenues to extreme risk of fraud and leakage. 9. With a view to resolving the problems in granting credit for pre-paid taxes, the Central Board of Direct Taxes constituted a sub-group to analyse the various problems in granting credit for prepaid taxes and make appropriate recommendations. According to the Sub-group, the problem of matching and reconciliation of prepaid taxes is rooted in the three sets of data pertaining to TDS entering the system separately at different times from different sources, thus causing mismatch. Therefore, the Sub-group recommended that the problem can be solved if the agency receiving the TDS amount and the TDS returns (and the documents by which this is done) is the same. In such a situation the TDS payments can be immediately credited to the accounts of the deductees by the agency handling both the operations. For example, if the detailed list giving break-up and identity particulars of deductees are given to the bank along with the TDS challans for the consolidated amount of TDS at the time of payment, the accounts of deductees can be simultaneously credited, thus eliminating the reconciliation issues between challan data in OLTAS and in TDS returns. Owing to the advances in technology, it is now feasible to implement this recommendation. 10. The Sub-group also examined the issue of granting credit for TDS deducted by government deductors and recommended that Central Government deductors should also be brought into the discipline of deposit of TDS in bank accounts like other deductors. 11. As stated above, the Government has introduced the centralised processing of returns which envisages no interface with the taxpayer. Further, the processing is also required to be done in an automated jurisdiction-less manner. Therefore, it is necessary to have in place a perfect TDS payment and information reporting system so as to optimise the efficiency of the centralised return processing system. It is imperative to move to the first best solution to also minimize the risk of financial fraud. This is in the interest of all stakeholders Government, Income-tax Department and taxpayers. Therefore, the Board have decided that, henceforth, claim for TDS and TCS shall be allowed only if the (i) amount has been deposited by the deductor / collector; (ii) information relating to the deductee has been furnished by the deductor / collector; and (iii) claim matches the information furnished by the deductor / collector. 12. With a view to enabling the implementation of the aforesaid decision, the TDS and TCS payment and information reporting system has been redesigned vide notification No. 858(E) dated 25th March, 2009 published in Official Gazette. The salient features of the new TDS and TCS payment and information reporting system are the following: - (i) The new system has been harmonized for all deductors (including Central and State Governments). Therefore, like non-governmental tax deductors, every deductor in the Central and State Government have also been made responsible for making direct payment of TDS in the bank. They are no longer allowed to make payments of the TDS and TCS by making book adjustments or consolidated payments. As a result, the TDS payment and information reporting system will be uniform across deductors. (ii) Rule 30 and Rule 37 CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 have been substituted to provide, inter alia, for the following: - (a) All sums of tax deducted at source under Chapter XVII-B and of tax collected at source under Chapter XVII-BB shall, in general, be paid to the credit of the Central Government within one week from the end of the month in which the deduction, or collection, is made. Similarly, the same time limit for payment will also apply for income-tax due under sub-section (1A) of section 192. (b) It is mandatory for all deductors (including Central Government and State Governments) to pay the amount by electronically remitting it into the RBI, SBI or any authorized bank. (c) It is mandatory for all deductors (including Central Government and State Governments) to make the payment by electronically furnishing an income-tax challan in Form No. 17. (iii) In the process of electronically furnishing the income-tax challan in Form No. 17, the deductor will be simultaneously required to furnish to the Taxpayer Information Network (TIN) system maintained by National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL) either through screen based upload or file upload, three basic information relating to the deduction i.e., PAN, name of the deductee and amount of TDS/TCS. (iv) Upon successful remittance of the TDS/TCS to Central Government account and the uploading of the basic information as mentioned above to the TIN system, every deduction record will be assigned a unique transaction number (UTN). (v) NSDL will create a facility to e-mail the UTN file to the deductor if the e-mail address of the deductor is available with them. In addition, they will also create a facility for the deductor to download the UTN file. (vi) The UTN will be required to be quoted by the deductor on the TDS/TCS certificate issued by him to the deductee. (vii) NSDL will also create a facility to allow independent viewing of the UTNs by the deductee. (viii) With a view to enabling the Income Tax Department to monitor compliance by the deductor with the TDS provisions, every person (including Central Government and State Government) who has obtained a Tax Deduction or Collection Account Number (TAN) shall electronically furnish a quarterly statement of compliance with TDS provisions in Form No. 24C. It is mandatory for all TAN holders to furnish this form irrespective of whether any payment liable to TDS has been made or not. This form shall be furnished on or before the 15th July, the 15th October, the 15th January in respect of the first three quarters of the financial year, respectively, and on or before the 15th June following the last quarter of the financial year. This e-form No. 24C has to be furnished at http://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in. The first quarter in respect of which Form 24C is required to be furnished is the quarter ending on 30th June, 2009. (ix) In order to enable the deductor to furnish the UTN to the deductee, the existing Form 16 and Form 16A have been appropriately modified. (x) The quarterly returns of TDS and TCS hitherto required to be filed in Form No. 24Q, Form No. 26Q, Form No. 27Q and Form No. 27EQ shall now be required to be filed for all quarters on or before the 15th June following the Financial Year. Effectively, the quarterly returns have now been replaced by an annual return. 13. The above new system will be effective for all tax deducted at source or tax collected at source on or after the 1st April, 2009. However, any TDS or TCS effected on or after the 1st April, 2009 but not later than 31st May, 2009 shall continue to be paid to the credit of the Central Government by using the old challan form. The TDS or TCS effected on or after the 1st June, 2009 shall be required to be paid electronically by electronically furnishing income tax challan in Form No. 17. 14. Where the payment of TDS or TCS effected on or after the 1st April, 2009 but not later than 31st May, 2009 is paid to the credit of the Central Government by using the old challan form, the deductor / collector shall, nevertheless, be required to fill up Form No.17 in respect of such payments any time between 1st July, 2009 to 15th July, 2009. Therefore, the deductors/collectors are advised to prepare the schedule relating to details of TDS / TCS from deductees in Form No.17 in advance (in an excel sheet) and be in a state of preparedness to file the same by 15th July, 2009 so that the UTNs relating to TDS / TCS transactions carried out in the month of April and May can be generated / obtained for onward transmission to the deductees. 15. Further, a deductor can split the total amount of TDS and TCS which he is required to deposit to the credit of the Central Government so that every deposit to the account of the Central Government is made through a separate challan in Form 17. For example, if a deductor is liable to deposit Rs. 1 lakh, he can split the amounts into four payments of Rs 25000/- each and deposit each of the amounts through a separate challan in Form 17 at four different times. 16. The return of income in Form No. ITR-1 to Form No.ITR-8 for Assessment Year 2009-10 have been notified which requires, amongst other, the quoting of the relevant UTN for every TDS or TCS claim made by the assessee. Therefore, the credit for any TDS or TCS claim will be allowed, amongst others, if the assessee quotes the relevant UTN for every TDS and TCS claim and the said UTN matches with the UTN in the database of the Income Tax Department. With a view to enabling the processing of returns relating to Financial Year 2007-08 (Assessment Year 2008-09) and enabling the assessee to receive the UTN for TDS and TCS transactions in the Financial Year 2008-09 (relevant for Assessment Year 2009-10), the following procedure shall be followed: - (a) National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL) shall assign an UTN for every TDS and TCS transaction records in Financial Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, reported in the quarterly returns received by it. (b) NSDL will create a facility to e-mail the UTN file to the deductor if the e-mail address of the deductor is available with them. In addition, they will also create a facility for the deductor to download the UTN file. (c) Upon receipt of the UTN, the deductor will inform the UTN to the deductee. In cases where the UTNs are available to the deductor before the issue of the TDS/TCS certificate to the deductee, the deductor will indicate the UTNs on the certificate. However, if the UTNs are not available to the deductor before the issue of TDS/TCS certificate, the deductor shall, subsequently, send a consolidated statement of all TDS/TCS transactions indicating the UTNs. (d) NSDL will also create a facility to allow independent viewing of the UTNs by the deductee. As a result, even if the UTNs are not received by the deductee from the deductor, they can be directly obtained from the NSDL database and quoted while making claims of TDS and TCS in the return of income. 17. TDS certificates were hitherto required to be issued in Form 16 or Form 16A as the case may be. Similarly, TCS certificates were issued in Form 27D. These forms have been substituted by the new Form 16, Form 16A and Form 27D with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009. In the new Forms, it is mandatory for the deductor/collector to quote, inter-alia, the UTN. Therefore, where the certificate is required to be issued in respect of deduction or collection made before the 1st April, 2009, the deductor/collector may adopt any of the following course of action:- (a) The deductor/collector may issue certificate of deduction or collection in the Form 16, Form 16A or Form 27D, as the case may be, as it existed prior to 1st April, 2009 and send a consolidated statement of UTNs to the deductee/buyer/lessee etc., as soon as the same is received by him; or (b) The deductor/collector may issue certificate of deduction or collection in the new Form 16, Form 16A or Form 27D, as the case may be. 18. Rule 31 of the Income Tax Rules, as it existed prior to its substitution, provides that, in general, the TDS certificates in Form 16 and Form 16A should be issued within one month from the end of the month in which the deduction is made. Similarly, Rule 37D, as it existed prior to its substitution, provides that, in general, the TCS certificates in Form 27D should be issued within one month from the end of the month in which the collection is made. Therefore, if the deductor/collector chooses to adopt the course specified in item (b) of para 13 above, the TDS/TCS certificate may be issued beyond the stipulated period of one month but not later than 30th June, 2009. 19. As regards, TDS/TCS certificates in respect of deduction or collection effected on or after the 1st April, 2009, it is mandatory to issue the certificates in the new Forms and quote the UTN relating to the TDS/TCS transactions. 20. As stated above, a new Form 24C has been notified to monitor compliance with the provisions of TDS/TCS. The first part of the Form relates to personal information and filing status. The Schedule COM-I relates to details of TDS/TCS compliance in the first month of the relevant quarter. Likewise details of TDS/TCS compliance for the second and third month of the relevant quarter would have to be reported in Schedule COM-2 and Schedule COM-3 respectively. In this Schedule in column (3), for example, against section 194A in column (1), the TAN holder is required to furnish the total amount of interest paid during the month. Let us assume that this total amount is Rs. 1 crore. In column (4) of the corresponding entry, the deductor is required to furnish the total amount on which TDS was liable or eligible to be deducted out of Rs. 1 crore. As is well known, no TDS is required to be deducted if the interest payment is less than Rs. 10,000. If the total of the amounts of interest payment/credit less than Rs. 10,000 is Rs. 30 lakhs, then the deductor must report in column (4) an amount of Rs. 70 lakhs (Rs. 1 crore Rs. 30 lakhs). In column (5), the deductor has to report that the total amount on which tax was deducted at prescribed rate out of the amount reported in column (4). In the instant case the rate of tax to be deducted at source is 11.33 percent (including surcharge and education cess). However, in many instances the recipients of interest exceeding the threshold limit of Rs. 10,000/- would either furnish certificate for non deduction of tax or deduction at a lower rate than the prescribed rate. Let us assume that the amount of interest paid to such recipients is Rs. 15 lakhs. Therefore, the amount of interest payment liable to TDS at the prescribed rate would be Rs. 55 lakhs (Rs. 70 lakhs Rs. 15 lakhs), which is required to be reported in column (5). Since the prescribed rate is 11.33%, and the amount of interest liable to TDS at the prescribed rate is Rs. 55 lakhs, the amount of TDS on such payment is Rs. 6,23,150/-. This amount is required to be reported in column (6). In column (7), the deductor is required to report the amount of Rs. 15 lakh i.e., the amount of interest payment liable to TDS at less than the prescribed rate. Let us assume that the TDS at nil or lower rate on the amount of Rs. 15 lakh is Rs. 50,000/-. This amount would be required to be reported in column (8). The total amount of TDS of Rs. 6,73,150/- (Rs. 6,23,150 + Rs. 50,000) is required to be reported in column (9). The above example is reproduced below in the tabular form as would appear in Form 24C:- Section Nature of payment Total Expense or Capital outgo under the section Total Amount on which TDS / TCS was liable or eligible to be deducted or collected out of (3) Total Amount on which tax was deducted or collected at prescribed rate out of (4) Amount of tax deducted or collected on (5) Total Amount on which tax was deducted or collected at less than prescribed rate out of (6) Amount of tax deducted or collected on (7) Total Amount =(6) + (8) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 194A Interest other than interest on securities 1,00,00,000 70,00,000 55,00,000 6,23,150 15,00,000 50,000 6,73,150 21. Form 24C is required to be furnished by all TAN holders irrespective of whether a TDS/TCS transaction has been effected during the quarter or not. In the event of the column (3) of the Schedules in From 24C is zero for all nature of payments, the deductor/collector should specify in the section on filing status in Form 24C that it is a case of Nil Return and it would not be necessary to fill in the Schedules. 22. In Schedule PAY of Form 24C, the deductor/collector is required to indicate the details of the payment of the TDS/TCS to the credit of the Central Government. 23. The new TDS and TCS payment and reporting system will enable faster payment, accurate accounting and uniformity across deductors. It will facilitate accurate, quicker and full credit for taxes paid enabling faster refunds to taxpayers. It will also minimize interface of tax administration with taxpayers and intermediaries, thereby eliminating any opportunity for rent seeking behaviour.

Get 15 Hrs CPE Hours Credit. Fees Rs. 100/-. Date : 6th May- 7 th May Time : From 11:00 pm on 6th May to 4: 00 am 7th May Venue : Shyam Path, Kadma All the members are requested to come in time to take full benefit of the programme. Regd, FCCA Committee

Interpol has issued a red corner notice for one of the most wanted terrorist and the news from confidential sources say that the " most wanted terrorist" is going to get maried this month. Description of the most wanted terrorist as specified by the interpol is as follows: Two Eyes, wearing spectacles to deceive the common man, a nose with fishy smell, one mouth ready to eat everything, two ears with antenna fitted in it. And one most imp thing about him is that he is generally seen riding a bunker with helmet.

No.402/92/2006-MC (10 of 2009) Government of India / Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes *** New Delhi dated the 24th April 2009 PRESS RELEASE The benefit of enhanced depreciation on commercial vehicles has been extended up to 30th September 2009. Now, commercial vehicles acquired on or after 1st January 2009 and put to use before the 1st October 2009 will be eligible for depreciation at the rate of 50 percent. The Central Board of Direct Taxes have issued a notification vide S.O. 989(E) dated 21st April 2009 (Notification No.37/2009/F.No.142/01/2009-TPL) to this effect, substituting the words 1st day of April 2009 with the words 1st day of October 2009. Earlier, the benefit was made available for commercial vehicles acquired on or after 1st January 2009 and put to use before the 1st April 2009 vide a notification dated 19th January 2009.

Income-tax (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2009 - Insertion of rule 37BA and 37-I April, 02nd 2009 NOTIFICATION NO. 28/2009, DATED 16-3-2009 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 read with sub-section (3) of section 199 and sub-section (4) of section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely :- 1 (1) These rules may be called the Income-tax (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2009. (2)They shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009. 2. In the Income-tax Rules, 1962,- (A)after rule 37B, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:- Credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section 199. 37BA. (1) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII, shall be given to the person to whom payment has been made or credit has been given (hereinafter referred to as deductee) on the basis of information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the income-tax authority or the person authorised by such authority. (2)(i) If the income on which tax has been deducted at source is assessable in the hands of a person other than the deductee, credit for tax deducted at source shall be given to the other person in cases where- (a)the income of the deductee is included in the total income of another person under the provisions of section 60, section 61, section 64, section 93 or section 94; (b)the income of a deductee being an association of persons or a trust is assessable in the hands of members of the association of persons, or in the hands of trustees, as the case may be; (c)the income from an asset held in the name of a deductee, being a partner of a firm or a karta of a Hindu undivided family, is assessable as the income of the firm, or Hindu undivided family, as the case may be; (d)the income from a property, deposit, security, unit or share held in the name of a deductee is owned jointly by the deductee and other persons and the income is assessable in their hands in the same proportion as their ownership of the asset: Provided that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports the tax deduction in the name of the other person in the information relating to deduction of tax referred to in sub-rule (1). (ii) The declaration filed by the deductee under clause (i) shall contain the name, address, permanent account number of the person to whom credit is to be given, payment or credit in relation to which credit is to be given and reasons for giving credit to such person. (iii) The deductor shall issue the certificate for decuction of tax at source in the name of the person in whose name credit is shown in the information relating to deduction of tax referred to in sub-rule (1) and shall keep the declaration in his safe custody. (3) (i) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. (ii) Where tax has been deducted at source and paid to the Central Government and the income is assessable over a number of years, credit for tax deducted at source shall be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is assessable to tax. (4) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the account of the Central Government shall be granted on the basis of (i)the information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the income-tax authority or the person authorized by such authority: and (ii)the information in the return of income in respect of the claim for the credit, subject to verification in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time. (B) after rule 37H, the following rule shall be inserted, namely: Credit for tax collected a source for the purposes of sub-section (4) of section 206C. 37I. (1) Credit for tax collect at source and paid to the Central Government in accordance with provisions of section 260C of the Act, shall be given to the person form whom the tax has been collected, on the basis of the information relating to collection of tax at source (hereinafter referred to as the collector) to the income-tax authority or the person authorized by such authority. (2) (i) Where tax has been collected at source and paid to the Central Government, credit for such tax shall be given for the assessment year for which the income is assessable to tax. (iii)Where tax has been collected at source and paid to the Central Government and the lease or license is relatable to more than one year, credit for tax collected at source shall be allowed across those years to which the lease or license relates in the same proportion. (3)Credit for tax collected at source and paid to the account of the Central Government shall be granted on the basis of (i)the information relating to collection of tax furnished by the collector to the income-tax authority or the person authorized by such authority; and (ii)the information in the return of income in respect of the claim for the credit, subject to verification in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time.

WISH ALL OF YOU BEST OF LUCK FOR YOUR BANK AUDIT. AA KAR PARTY JAROOR DENA

Major changes in TDS Compliance CBDT has issued Notification No 31 dated March 25, 2009 bringing out several changes in TDS compliance. The notification amends various rules w.e.f 01-04-2009. TDS Payment TDS payment is now to be made electronically by all deductors. Earlier only corporate and persons covered under mandatory tax audit were required to make payment electronically. Electronic payment is now to be made in Form No 17 Form No 17 Form No 17 requires deductor to provide deductee wise PAN, Name and TDS amount There are two columns Unique Transaction Number and PAN Valid Y/N . To comprehend these columns more information is needed. New TDS Compliance Statement New Form 24C in introduced This form is to be submitted every quarter electronically For each TDS section , monthly figures are to be given in respect of Total expense or capital outgo under the section Total amount on which TDS was to be deducted Total amount on which TDS deducted at normal rate / TDS amount Total amount on which TDS deducted at lower rate / TDS Amount Total TDS = TDS at normal rate + TDS at lower rate eTDS Statements Form 24Q/ 27Q formats have been modified In deductee wise details , Unique Transaction No is to be given eTDS Statements in Form 24Q, 26Q,27Q are to be submitted only once a year on or before 15th June Form 16 / 16A Formats of 16/16A have been amended Gross amount and TDS amount is to be given unique Transaction Number Wise Whether PAN uploaded was validated by income tax department is to be shown separately Several details not be given like : Date of payment, Chq No, BSR Code, CIN etc Unique Transction Number ( UTN ) It seems the whole system is now going to be based in UTN From the following chart it is clear that UTN is a common link between Challan, TDS certificate and eTDS Statement. UTN will be provided by the income tax department.

Notification on TDS and TCS The Board has amended the rules relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS) vide Notification No. S.O.858 (E) dated 25th March 2009. In this context, taxpayers are informed that the new Form 17 (the challan for payment of TDS and TCS) is applicable only for payment of tax deducted or collected at source on or after 1st April 2009. Therefore, in respect of any TDS or TCS made before the 1st April, 2009, the payment will continue to be made to the credit of the Central Government by using the challan in Form No. 281 (i.e. the old challan form) even after 31st March 2009. The Central Board of Direct Taxes will shortly issue a detailed circular on the amended rules relating to TDS and TCS.

Service Tax Return Preparer Scheme, 2009 [TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (ii) ]MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)(Central Board of Excise and Customs)New Delhi, the 3rd February,2009Notification No. 7/2009-ST G.S.R. …. (E). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 71 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby frames the following scheme, namely : -

1. Short title, commencement and application.-

(1) This scheme may be called the Service Tax Return Preparer Scheme, 2009.

(2) It shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in the Scheme, it shall be applicable to all assessees.

2. Definitions.- In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “Act" means the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994);(b) "Board" means the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963);(c) "Partner Organisation" means an organisation or agency selected by the Board and with whom an agreement has been entered into by the Board or the Resource Centre authorising it to act as Partner Organisation under this Scheme;(d) "Resource Centre" means the Directorate General of Service Tax or any other Directorate, as the case may be, designated by the Board to act as the Resource Centre under this Scheme;(e) “return” means the return required to be furnished by any person under section 70 of the Act;(f) “rules” means the Service Tax Rules, 1994;(g) "Service Tax Return Preparer" means any individual who has been issued a Service Tax Return Preparer Certificate and a unique identification number under clause (9) of paragraph 4 of this Scheme by the Partner Organisation to carry on the profession of preparing the returns of income in accordance with the provisions of said Scheme(h) Words and expressions used herein but not defined and defined in the Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act.

3. Educational qualification for ServiceTax Return Preparers.-Any individual who has successfully completed education upto senior secondary level, under 10+2 education system, shall be eligible to become a Service Tax Return Preparer.

4. Enrollment, training and certification to persons to act as Service Tax Return Preparers.- (1) For the purpose of enrolment, training and certification to a person to act as Service Tax Return Preparer the Partner Organization shall invite applications from-(a) any person who has been issued Tax Return Preparer Certificate under the Tax Return Preparer Scheme, 2006, framed under sub-section (1) of section 139B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961);or (b) any other Indian citizen having educational qualification referred to in paragraph 3 and desires to act as Service Tax Return Preparer:

Provided that a person who is aged more than thirty-five years on the first day of October immediately preceding the day on which applications are invited shall not be eligible to apply;

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph, the age restriction shall not apply to any person who has superannuated/retired from the Department of Customs and Central Excise;

(3)The person applying to act as Service Tax Return Preparer shall indicate in the application form the preferences for centres where at training may be imparted to him;

(4)The Partner Organisation shall, in accordance with the criteria and conditions laid down by the Resource Centre with the prior approval of the Board, carry out the screening of the applications so received and select the persons to appear in a test for their enrollment;

(5)The Partner Organisation shall carry out a test, if required, for enrollment of persons who have been selected on screening;

(6)The Partner Organisation shall enroll the persons who qualify for enrollment separately for each centre ;

(7)The Partner Organisation shall train the persons so enrolled in accordance with the curriculum provided by the Resource Centre;

(8)The Partner Organisation shall, after completion of training, conduct an examination of the enrolled persons in accordance with the procedure as laid down by the Resource Centre;

(9)The Partner Organisation shall issue a Service Tax Return Preparer Certificate and a unique identification number to the persons who are declared as successful in the examination so conducted;

5. Preparation of and furnishing the service tax return by the Service Tax Return Preparer.-

(1) Any assessee, may at his option furnish his return after getting it prepared through a Service Tax Return Preparer: Provided that an assessee shall not furnish a revised service tax return under rule 7B of the rules through a Service Tax Return Preparer unless he has furnished the original return through such or any other Service Tax Return Preparer:

(2) The Service Tax Return Preparer shall prepare and furnish the return to the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the assessee, or to such other person as may be directed by the Resource Centre with the approval of the Board and hand over the acknowledgement of having furnished the return to the concerned eligible person. 6. Duties and obligations of assessee.-An assesee opting to furnish his return under this Scheme shall- (a) give his consent to any Service Tax Return Preparer to prepare and furnish his return;

(b) before verifying and signing the return, ensure that the facts mentioned in the return are true and correct; 7. Duties and obligations of the Service Tax Return Preparer.- The Service Tax Return Preparer shall-(a) prepare the return with due diligence;(b) affix his signature on the return prepared by him;(c) furnish the return as specified in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5;(d) hand over a copy of the return to the person whose return is prepared and furnished by him;(e) retain a copy of the acknowledgment of having furnished the return;(f) in respect of returns prepared and furnished by him maintain record of the following, namely:- (i) the name of assessees whose returns have been prepared and furnished by him during that month;

(ii) the Service Tax Code(STC) number and premises code of such assessees; (iii) period for which return is filed;

(iv) date of furnishing the return;

(v) authority with whom return is filed;

(vi) amount of tax payable;

(vii) amount of tax paid;

(viii) the fee charged and received by him

(g) furnish a statement of particulars mentioned in item (vi) for every month on or before the seventh day of the immediately following month to the Resource Centre.

8. Selection and responsibilities of the Partner Organisation.-

(1) The Board shall select a Partner Organisation to partner with the Resource Centre for implementation of the Scheme

(2)The Partner Organisation shall function under the overall guidance and control of the Resource Centre and follow the instructions issued to it by the Resource Centre from time to time about implementation of the scheme.

(3)The Partner Organisation shall be responsible to carry out the activities which it is required to carry out under paragraph 4 of this Scheme.

(4)The Partner Organisation shall maintain the profile of the Service Tax Return Preparers during their training and monitor their performance as Service Tax Return Preparers.

(5)The Partner Organisation shall perform its functions to the satisfaction of the Resource Centre.

(6)The Board may, on the recommendation of the Resource Centre, terminate the agreement with the Partner Organisation and may - (a) enter into an agreement with any other Partner Organisation; or(b) assign its functions to the Resource Centre, if in its opinion, the Partner Organisation has failed to perform its functions properly.

9. Incentive to Service Tax Return Preparers.- An assessee shall pay a fee as may be mutually agreed upon between an assessee and the Service Tax Return Preparer. The Board recommends , as a yardstick, a fee of rupees one thousand rupees per return prepared by the Service Tax Return Preparer.

10. Maintenance of particulars relating to Service Tax Return Preparers.-

(1) The Resource Centre shall, in relation to each Service Tax Return Preparer, shall itself maintain the particulars, or direct the Partner Organisation to maintain such particulars, which may be necessary to assess his performance. (2) The Resource Centre may issue instructions to the Service Tax Return Preparers from time to time.

11. Withdrawal of certificate given to the Service Tax Return Preparer.- (1) The Resource Centre may warn a Service Tax Return Preparer for the deficiencies in his work and his misconduct, and may proceed for cancellation of his certificate in any one or more of the following circumstances, namely,- (i) if he fails to give a copy of the return to the assessee;(ii) if he prepares a return but fails to affix his signature thereon;(iii) if he fails to furnish his name and unique identification number in the return prepared by him; (iv) if he fails to enter any information made available to him by the assessee, correctly in the return prepared by him;(v) if he makes repeated mistakes relating to computation of income in the returns prepared by him; (vi) if he is engaged in any financial irregularity, forgery or fraud;(vii) if he willfully attempts to furnish incorrect information in return(viii) if he is involved in any other irregularity which, in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner of Central Excise, is grave in nature; (ix) if he fails to comply with the directions issued by the Resource Centre from time to time; (x) if he fails to upgrade his skills as required by the Resource Centre from time to time. (2) A Service Tax Return Preparer may continue to act as such, unless- (i) the Certificate issued to him under this Scheme is suspended or withdrawn by the Resource Centre; or(ii) this Scheme is withdrawn by the Board. 12. Responsibilities and functions of the Resource Centre.- (1) The Resource Centre shall be responsible for day to day administration of the Scheme. (2) The functions of the Resource Centre shall include-(i) to specify, with prior approval of the Board, (a) the number of persons to be enrolled during a financial year for training to act as Service Tax Return Preparers; (b) the number of centres for training and their location where at training to be imparted during a financial year; (c) the number of persons to be trained at each centre for training during a financial year; (ii) to specify the curriculum and all other matters relating to the training of Service Tax Return Preparers; (iii) maintain the particulars relating to the Service Tax Return Preparers as required in paragraph 10 of this Scheme; (iv) any other function which is assigned to it by the Board for the purposes of implementation of the Scheme.

[ F.No. 137/318/2007-CX.4 ]

(Gautam Bhattacharya) Joint Secretary to Government of India

Price Waterhouse may be barred if partners found guilty Price Waterhouse may not be able to practice in India, if either or both of its partners — S. Gopalakrishnan and Talluri Srinivas — are found guilty in the Satyam Computer Services fraud case. If the regulators concerned agree to the suggestion made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), this kind of penal action is imminent.Amendment to ICAI Act Ved Jain, Chairman of the ICAI, told this correspondent that the Satyam case would come under a new Amendment to the ICAI Act which would facilitate its quick disposal. He said the institute had requested all regulatory bodies, lately the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), to ensure that no company/firm of auditors should be engaged by anybody in case any of its partners was found guilty of professional misconduct. However, the individuals, whose licences would be revoked on being found guilty, would not be able to practice at all. In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India and the Reserve Bank of India also would not approve of the appointment of auditing firms whose any or many of the partners were found guilty. Asked about the action initiated against Price Waterhouse and Mr. Gopalakrishnan in respect of the charges against them in the four-year-old Global Trust Bank case, Mr. Jain said the case was going on and hoped that it would “conclude very soon.” Incidentally, Mr. Gopalakrishnan is a member of the ICAI national council.

Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2009 - Amendment in rule 37A - TDS/Time limit under rule 37A revised NOTIFICATION NO. 11/2009 [F. NO. 142/01/2008-TPL], DATED 21-1-2009 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 read with sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely:— 1. (1) These rules may be called the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2009 (2) They shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009. 2. In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in rule 37A, — (a) for the words “shall send within fourteen days from the end of the quarter”, the words “shall send on or before the 15th July, the 15th October, the 15th January in respect of the first three quarters of the financial year and on or before the 15th June following the last quarter of the financial year” shall be substituted. (b) the proviso shall omitted. Source : www.caclubindia.com

Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2009 - Amendment in New Appendix 1 NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2009, DATED 19-1-2009 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely:— 1. (1) These rules may be called the Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2009 (2) They shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 2009. 2. In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in the Table to New Appendix 1, in Part-A relating to TANGIBLE ASSETS, under the heading III. MACHINERY AND PLANT, in item (3), after sub-item (vi) and entries relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:— “(via) New commercial vehicle which is acquired on or after the 1st day of January, 2009 but before the 1st day of April, 2009 and is put to use before the 1st day of April, 2009 for the purposes of business or profession [See paragraph 6 of the Notes below this Table] 50”. [F. No. 142/01/09-TPL]

BIG 4 AUDIT FIRMS

Big Four auditors From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Big Four are the four largest international accountancy and professional services firms, which handle the vast majority of audits for publicly traded companies as well as many private companies. The Big Four firms are shown below, with their latest publicly available data: Firm Revenues Employees Fiscal Year PricewaterhouseCoopers [1] $28.2bn 146,700 2008 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2] $27.4bn 165,000 2008 Ernst & Young [3] $24.5bn 135,000 2008 KPMG [4] $22.7bn 137,000 2008 This group was once known as the "Big Eight", and was reduced to the "Big Five" by a series of mergers. The Big Five became the Big Four after the near-demise of Arthur Andersen in 2002, following its involvement in the Enron Scandal. Contents[hide] 1 Legal structure 2 2007 Performance Analysis 3 Mergers and the Big Auditors 3.1 Big 8 (until 1989) 3.2 Big 6 (1989-1998) 3.3 Big 5 (1998-2002) 3.4 Big 4 (2002-) 3.5 Mergers and developments 4 Policy issues concerning industry concentration 5 Other countries 5.1 Egypt 5.2 India 5.3 Republic of Korea 5.4 Turkey 5.5 Israel 5.6 Indonesia 5.7 Japan 5.8 The Philippines 5.9 Pakistan 5.10 Sri Lanka 5.11 Sweden 6 References 7 External links // [edit] Legal structure None of the Big Four accounting firms is a single firm. Each is a network of firms, owned and managed independently, which have entered into agreements with other member firms in the network to share a common name, brand and quality standards. Each network has established an entity to co-ordinate the activities of the network. In two cases (KPMG and Deloitte Touche Tomatsu), the co-ordinating entity is Swiss, and in two cases (PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young) the co-ordinating entity is a UK limited company. Those entities do not themselves practise accountancy, and do not own or control the member firms. In most cases each member firm practises in a single country, and is structured to comply with the regulatory environment in that country. However, in 2007 KPMG announced a merger of four member firms (in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) to form a single firm. The figures in this article refer to the combined revenues of each network of firms. [edit] 2007 Performance Analysis The Big Four accounting firms had a banner year in 2007 with double-digit revenue growth following strong performance in 2006 and 2005. KPMG had the highest annual growth rate among the firms with 17.4%, followed by Deloitte at 15.5%, Ernst and Young at 15% and PricewaterhouseCoopers at 14.4%. Despite relatively slow growth, PwC remains the world's largest accounting firm with 2007 revenues of $25.2 billion, ahead of Deloitte at $23.1 billion, E&Y at $21.1 billion and KPMG at $19.8 billion. Combined, the Big Four firms had a total revenue of $89.2 billion. If the firms were to continue this level of performance, the combined total would exceed a hundred billion dollars in 2008. The depreciating US dollar in 2007 was also a key contributor to this performance, as all the Big Four firms report in US$ but earn much of their revenues in Europe and Asia, where local currencies appreciated strongly against the dollar. In terms of local currencies, growth was a little subdued. Combined Big Four revenues grew 11.7% from $77.1 billion in 2006 to $86.1 billion in 2007. Thus foreign exchange effects contributed a full 4% points or $3 billion to the combined firms revenue. These spectacular growth patterns are seen usually in much smaller companies, and that huge $20 billion professional service companies are able to achieve double-digit back-to-back growth rates is testimony to their global reach and ability to capitalize on the need for financial services by all of the world’s economies. Big Four firms leveraged well global mega trends of stringent financial reporting (Sarbanes Oxley, internal audit), strong IPO listings (and subsequent audit work), complex M&A deals (due diligence, assurance), growing tax complexity, emerging economies, globalization, private equity buyouts, and risk management. Service Line Performance In terms of service lines, Advisory and Consulting services for all four firms combined grew the fastest at 21.7% from $18.0 billion to $21.9 billion. Ernst and Young reported a terrific 29% growth in this service line. All other firms grew close to 20% in 2007. The Tax service line services for all four firms combined grew at 18.4% from $17.6 billion to $20.8 billion. KPMG’s Tax service line grew the fastest at 20%, and Deloitte grew the slowest at 16.5%. Audit or Assurance service line grew at the slowest relative pace. For all four firms combined, revenues grew 12.9% from $42.1 billion to $47.5 billion. This service line is the largest contributor to revenue and was likely held back by the sheer size of the practice. Ernst and Young again was the winner in this category with a revenue growth of 16%. PwC’s Assurance service line grew only 10.2%, the slowest in this category, and the lowest growth rate among all service lines and across all firms. Owing to its high growth the Advisory service line became a larger contributor of total revenues to the Big Four firms. For all Big Four firms combined, the share of the Advisory service line of the total revenue grew from 23.1% in 2006 to 24.3% in 2007. This share gain of 1.2% came at the expense of Tax and Audit. Advisory services now contribute almost one-quarter of Big Four firm revenues, though there is disparity among the firms. In Deloitte and Touche, Advisory and Deloitte Consulting were 31% of total revenues in 2007, and in KPMG Advisory Services were 32% of total revenues. For E&Y, Advisory services were only 12% of total revenues in 2007. Tax service line also marginally improved its contribution share. For all Big Four firms combined, the share of the Tax service line of the total revenue grew from 22.6% in 2006 to 22.9% in 2007. Audit, owing to its slower growth, lost a lot of its contribution to the total. For all Big Four firms combined, the share of the Audit service line of the total revenue actually dropped from 54.3% to 52.8%, a share decrease of 1.5%. If such growth patterns were to continue in the service lines, Audit could well drop to less than 50% of total revenues in just a couple of years. Already in KPMG and Deloitte, Audit is less than 50% of total revenues. Geographical Performance As in previous years, the Big Four firms reported the strongest growth in Asia, helped by underlying strength in China, India and Southeast Asia. Europe turned in surprisingly good numbers while the mature market of the Americas had the slowest growth rate. While Asia remains the smallest geographical segment, it grew by 22.2% from 2006 to 2007. Ernst and Young’s Asia segment grew by a spectacular 27%. Even Deloitte, with the slowest growth among the firms reported a 17.2% growth rate. Owing to its high growth rate, Asia’s share of total revenues for all the firms improved by 1% from 12% in 2006 to 13% in 2007, at the expense of the Americas. Many firms reported more than 30% annual growth in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) economies, reflecting the strong economic momentum in these countries. Europe is the largest region by far for all the firms. On a combined basis, Europe had strong growth of 19.2% from $34.7 billion in 2006 to $41.4 billion in 2007. KPMG grew by 20.9% in Europe, while the slowest grower Deloitte reported a 12.6% growth rate. The combined Big Four European revenues in 2007 was $41.4 billion, a full 46% of the total combined revenue and increasing from 45% in 2006. For KPMG, Europe is already 54% of total revenues, contributing to more than half its total revenues. Surprisingly, the European region in 2007 raced ahead of Americas on a combined basis, widening its lead to almost $5 billion. By contrast, in 2006, combined European revenues was only $1.4 billion more than the Americas. For all the Big Four firms the Americas grew the slowest and also lost its leading share in terms of revenues. On a combined basis, Americas had only moderate growth of 10.3% from $33.3 billion in 2006 to $36.7 billion in 2007. Deloitte grew by 11.9% in Americas, while the slowest grower PwC did not even make the 10% mark, reporting only a 9.1% growth rate. The combined Big Four American revenues fell a full 2% points from 43% of the total combined revenue in 2006 to 41%. KPMG, which is heavily Europe-based, only produced 33% of its total revenues from the Americas. Even the PwC behemoth had only 38% of total revenues from Americas. On a combined basis, the Americas are nearly $5 billion in revenue behind the biggest region, Europe, and this gap appears to be widening rather quickly. This geographic size and growth disparity, especially in the Americas, is sure to pose some interesting questions to the currently-US-centric Big Four firms about their future center-point and constitution of their top leadership. [edit] Mergers and the Big Auditors Since 1989, mergers and one major scandal involving Arthur Andersen have reduced the number of major accountancy firms from eight to four. [edit] Big 8 (until 1989) The firms were called the Big 8 for most of the 20th century, reflecting the international dominance of the eight largest accountancy firms: Arthur Andersen Arthur Young & Company Coopers & Lybrand Ernst & Whinney (until 1979 Ernst & Ernst in the US and Whinney Murray in the UK) Deloitte Haskins & Sells (until 1978 Haskins & Sells in the US and Deloitte Plender Griffiths in the UK) Peat Marwick Mitchell, later Peat Marwick Price Waterhouse Touche Ross Most of the Big 8 originated in alliances formed between British and US accountancy firms in the 19th or early 20th centuries. Price Waterhouse was a UK firm which opened a US office in 1890 and subsequently established a separate US partnership. The UK and US Peat Marwick Mitchell firms adopted a common name in 1925. Other firms used separate names for domestic business, and did not adopt common names until much later: Touche Ross in 1960, Arthur Young (at first Arthur Young, McLelland Moores) in 1968, Coopers & Lybrand in 1973, Deloitte Haskins & Sells in 1978 and Ernst & Whinney in 1979.[1] The firms' initial international expansion was driven by the needs of British and US based multinationals for worldwide service. They expanded by forming local partnerships or by forming alliances with local firms. Arthur Andersen had a different history. The firm originated in the United States, and expanded internationally by establishing its own offices in other markets, including the United Kingdom. In the 1980s the Big 8, each now with global branding, adopted modern marketing and grew rapidly. They merged with many smaller firms. One of the largest of these mergers was in 1987, when Peat Marwick merged with the KMG Group to become KPMG Peat Marwick, later known simply as KPMG. [edit] Big 6 (1989-1998) Competition among these public accountancy firms intensified and the Big 8 became the Big 6 in 1989 when Ernst & Whinney merged with Arthur Young to form Ernst & Young in June, and Deloitte, Haskins & Sells merged with Touche Ross to form Deloitte & Touche in August. Confusingly, in the United Kingdom the local firm of Deloitte, Haskins & Sells merged instead with Coopers & Lybrand. For some years after the merger, the merged firm was called Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte and the local firm of Touche Ross kept its original name. In the mid 1990s however, both UK firms changed their names to match those of their respective international organizations. On the other hand, in Australia the local firm of Touche Ross merged instead with KPMG[5][6]. It is for these reasons that the Deloitte & Touche international organization was known as DRT International (later DTT International), to avoid use of names which would have been ambiguous (as well as contested) in certain markets. [edit] Big 5 (1998-2002) The Big 6 became the Big 5 in July 1998 when Price Waterhouse merged with Coopers & Lybrand to form PricewaterhouseCoopers. [edit] Big 4 (2002-) The Enron collapse and ensuing investigation prompted scrutiny of their financial reporting, which was audited by Arthur Andersen, which eventually was indicted for obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to the audit in the 2001 Enron scandal. The resulting conviction, since overturned, still effectively meant the end for Arthur Andersen. Most of its country practices around the world have sold to members of what is now the Big Four, notably Ernst & Young globally and Deloitte & Touche in the UK. Big 4 are sometimes referred as "Final Four" [7] due to widely held perception that authority is unlikely to allow further concentration of accounting industry and that the fifth biggest accounting firm, BDO International, is too small compared to the Big Four. Another widely held belief is that, if something similar to Enron/Arthur-Andersen occurs, the authority is unlikely to punish the remaining Big 4 in a manner which destroy the firm itself like U.S. authority did with Arthur Andersen.[who?] 2002 also saw the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law, providing strict compliance rules to both businesses and the auditors. [edit] Mergers and developments Arthur Andersen Developed from Andersen, Delany Ernst & Young Arthur Young Ernst & Whinney Ernst & Ernst (US) Whinney Murray (UK) Whinney, Smith & Whinney PricewaterhouseCoopers Coopers & Lybrand Cooper Brothers (UK) Lybrand, Ross Bros, Montgomery (US) Price Waterhouse Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Deloitte & Touche Deloitte Haskins & Sells Deloitte Plender Griffiths (UK) Haskins & Sells (US) Touche Ross Touche, Ross, Bailey & Smart Ross, Touche (Canada) George A. Touche (UK) Touche, Niven, Bailey & Smart (US) Touche Niven Bailey A. R. Smart Tohmatsu & Co. (Japan) KPMG Peat Marwick Mitchell William Barclay Peat (UK) Marwick Mitchell (US) KMG Klynveld Main Goerdeler Klynveld Kraayenhof (Netherlands) Thomson McLintock (UK) Main Lafrentz (US) Deutsche Treuhand Gesellschaft (Germany) [edit] Policy issues concerning industry concentration In the wake of industry concentration and individual firm failure, the issue of a credible alternative industry structure has been raised.[2] The limiting factor on the growth of additional firms is that although some of the firms in the next tier have become quite substantial, and have formed international networks, effectively all very large public companies insist on having a "Big Four" audit, so the smaller firms have no way to grow into the top end of the market. [edit] Other countries [edit] Egypt In Egypt, the "Big Four auditors" are local affiliates of the Big Four international firms: Hazem Hassan KPMG Mansour & Co. - member of PricewaterhouseCoopers Mostafa Shawki - member of MAZARS Hafez Ragheb - member of Ernst & Young [edit] India In India, the affiliate firms of the Big Four are:Co,C. C. Chokshi & Co., A. F. Ferguson & Co, Fraser & Ross, MCA & Co P. C. Hansotia and Deloitte Haskins & Sells - affiliates of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu BSR & Co, BSR & Associates, BSR & Company - affiliates of KPMG Price Waterhouse, Price Waterhouse & Co, Lovelock & Lewes & RSM & Co.,Dalal & Shah - affiliates of PricewaterhouseCoopers S.R. Batliboi & Co, S.R. Batliboi & Associates - affiliate of Ernst & Young Walker Chandiok & Co - affiliate and member firm of Grant Thornton LLP In India, foreign accountancy firms are prohibited from entering the audit and assurance sectors. The Big Four therefore service clients through affiliate firms. [edit] Republic of Korea The following domestic accountancy firms have joined the membership of international Big Four firms. Hanyoung LLC - member of Ernst & Young Samjong LLC - member of KPMG Samil LLC - member of PricewaterhouseCoopers Ahnjin LLC - member of Deloitte & Touche KTDS - member of KPMG [edit] Turkey In Turkey, the "Big Four auditors" are local affiliates of the Big Four international firms; Güney Bagimsiz Denetim ve S.M.M. A.S. - member of Ernst & Young, Akis Bagimsiz Denetim ve S.M.M. A.S. - affiliate of KPMG, Basaran Nas Bagimsiz Denetim ve S.M.M. A.S. - affiliate of PwC DRT Bagimsiz Denetim ve S.M.M. A.S. - affiliate of Deloitte In addition to the big four, there are other affiliate companies which have weaker affiliate relations compared to affiliates of big four. [edit] Israel In Israel, there are five large auditors, four of whom are affiliates of the Big Four: Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer (Ernst & Young Israel) KPMG Somekh Chaikin Deloitte Brightman Almagor Zohar Kesselman & Kesselman, PwC Israel BDO Ziv Haft (affiliate of BDO International) [edit] Indonesia In Indonesia, there are four large auditors, all are affiliates of the Big Four: KAP Purwantono, Sarwoko, Sandjaja - affiliate of Ernst & Young KAP Osman Bing Satrio - affiliate of Deloitte KAP Sidharta, Sidharta, Widjaja - affiliate of KPMG KAP Haryanto Sahari - affiliate of PwC [edit] Japan In Japan, the “Big Four auditors” are local affiliates of the Big Four international firms: Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC - affiliate of Ernst & Young KPMG AZSA & Co. - affiliate of KPMG PricewaterhouseCoopers Aarata - affiliate of PricewaterhouseCoopers Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu - affiliate of Deloitte Touche English names of each firm are different from Japanese ones. Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC is 'ShinNihon Yugen-sekinin Kansa Houjin新日本有限責任監査法人,' KPMG AZSA & Co. is 'Azsa Kansa Houjinあずさ監査法人,' PricewaterhouseCoopers Aarata is 'Aarata Kansa Houjinあらた監査法人,' and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is 'Kansa Houjin Tohmatsu監査法人トーマツ.' Following the discovery of the accounting fraud at Kanebo, the Financial Services Agency in Japan suspended ChuoAoyama from conducting audit work for inadequate internal controls, for two months from July 1, 2006 onwards. On July 1, 2006, PwC started a new accountancy firm in Japan, called PricewaterhouseCoopers Aarata. Unlike ChuoAoyama, which is a network firm of PwC, PricewaterhouseCoopers Aarata is a member firm of the PwC global network and will adopt its internal controls and methodologies.[8] Misuzu dissolved in 2007. [edit] The Philippines In the Philippines, the affiliate firms of the Big Four are: Isla Lipana & Co. (formerly Joaquin Cunanan & Co.) - affiliate of PwC Manabat Delgado Amper & Co. (formerly C.L. Manabat & Co.) - affiliate of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Sycip Gorres Velayo & Co. (SGV & Co.) - affiliate of Ernst & Young Manabat Sanagustin & Co. (formerly Laya Mananghaya & Co.) - affiliate of KPMG [edit] Pakistan In Pakistan, the Big Four are affiliates of the following local audit firms, which are the prominent firms of Pakistan: A. F. Ferguson & Co. - Member of PricewaterhouseCoopers[3] Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder & Co. - member of Ernst and Young[4] Taseer Hadi & Co. - member of KPMG International[5] M. Yousuf Adil Salim & Co - member of Deloitte & Touche[6] Anjum Asim Shahid Rahman - Member of Grant Thornton International[7] [edit] Sri Lanka In Sri Lanka the afiliated firms of the big four are: Ernst & Young Sri Lanka - Ernst & Young Ford Rhodes & Thornton - KPMG Price Waterhouse Coopers Sri Lanka - Price Waterhouse Coopers Someswaran & Jayawickrama, Manoharan & Sangakkara (SJMS) Associates - Deloitte Touche Tomatsu [edit] Sweden KPMG Bohlins Öhrlings PricewaterhouseCoopers Deloitte (formerly TRG Revision) Ernst & Young (formerly Hagström & Olsson)

COMPANIES (APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS OF SECRETARY) AMENDMENT RULES, 2009 - AMENDMENT IN RULE 3 NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 11 (E), DATED 5-1-2009 In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 642 read with clause (45) of section 2 and section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Secretary) Rules, 1988, namely :— 1. (1) These rules may be called the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Secretary) Amendment Rules, 2009. (2) They shall come into force from the 15th day of March, 2009. 2. In the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications)of Secretary) Rules, 1988, in rule 2, (i) in sub-rule (1) and in the proviso to sub-rule (4), for the words "rupees two crores" the following words shall be substituted, namely:— "five crore rupees"; (ii) in sub-rule (3), the second and third proviso shall be omitted; (iii) after sub-rule (3), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:— "(3A) A company having a paid up share capital of two crore rupees or more but less than five crore rupees may appoint any individual who possesses the qualification of membership of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India constituted under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (56 of 1980), as a whole-time secretary to perform the duties of a secretary under the Companies Act, 1956: Provided that where a company has appointed under sub-rule (3) or this sub-rule, a whole-time company secretary, possessing the qualification of membership of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, such a company is not required to obtain a certificate from a secretary in whole-time practice under rule 3 of the Companies (Compliance Certificate) Rules, 2001." Source : - www.caclubindia.com

HALF DAY SEMINAR ON 12TH JAN, MONDAY AT MICHAL JOHN AUDITORIUM , BISTUPUR TIME - 4:30 PM TO 8:30 PM DINER - 8:30 PM ONWARDS CPE HOURS - 4 (FOUR) FEES - FCA 300 ACA 250 NON MEMBERS 500

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, IN PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 5th January, 2009 Notification No.1/2009 – Service Tax G.S.R. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), and in supercession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.29/2008- Service Tax, dated the 29thJune, 2008, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, vide G.S.R.482 (E), dated the 29th June, 2008, except as things done or omitted to be done before such supercession, the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable services specified in sub-clauses (j), (k), (zr), (zza), (zzb), (zzzf), (zzzq) and (zzzzj) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, provided by any person to a goods transport agency for use by the said goods transport agency to provide any service, referred to in sub-clause (zzp) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, to a customer in relation to transport of goods by road, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act subject to the condition that the invoice issued by such service provider, providing services should mention the name and address of the goods transport agency and also the name and date of the consignment note, by whatever name called, issued in his behalf. (Unmesh Sharad Wagh ) Under Secretary to the Government of India [F. No. 137/175/2008-CX-4]

http://www.caclubindia.com/news/2008/12/new_defiinition_of_charitable_purpose.asp

http://www.caclubindia.com/news/2008/12/compliance_of_cpe_credit_for_2008_extended.asp

F. No. 225/226/2008-ITA-II Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2008 Order under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 On consideration of the reports of delay in uploading of e-returns due to technical problems as a result of which acknowledgement receipts generated after midnight of the due date bear the date of nextworking day, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby directs that any e-filed return for Assessment Year 2008-09 with date-stamp of 01.10.2008 be treated as having been filed on 30.09.2008. Sd/ (Renu Jauhri) Director (ITA-II) Telfax : 23092837 Copy to :- 1. PS to F.M./ OSD to FM / PS to MOS (R)/ OSD to MOS (R). 2. PS to Secretary (Revenue) 3. Chairman (DT), All Members, Central Board of Direct Taxes 4. All DGsIT/CCsIT [CCIT, Bhubaneswar may give wide publicity to the order]. 5. All Joint Secretaries / Directors / Deputy Secretaries / Under Secretaries of Central Board of Direct Taxes. 6. DIT(RSP & PR) / Systems, New Delhi for appropriate publicity by putting it on departmental website. 7. The C & AG of India (30 copies) 8. The JS & Legal Advisor, Min. of Law & Justice, New Delhi. 9. The DG, NADT, Nagpur. 10. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, IP Estate, New Delhi- 110 003. 11. All Chambers of Commerce. 12. All Cs. IT, CBDT. 13. CIT (OSD), Official Spokesperson of CBDT. Sd/ (Renu Jauhri) Director (ITA-II)

CAs to be restricted from taking non-audit work

The government will be preventing Chartered Accountants from offering consultancy and advisory services to the companies which hire them for auditing their accounts. This is being done to lend greater credibility to company accounts. The statutory auditors, who vet the financial accounts of a company, will be restricted from providing their corporate clients services such as investment management, actuarial services and investment banking. The proposal forms part of the Companies Bill 2008, currently pending before the Lok Sabha. The move is expected to usher in greater independence in the audit function and infuse greater confidence in the minds of investors on the credibility of financial statements. At present, the statutory auditors are barred from providing accounting and internal audit services for their clients, but are allowed to deliver consultancy and advisory services. Under the guidelines proposed in the new legislation, statutory auditors will also be prohibited from providing services like design and implementation of financial information system, investment advisory, rendering of outsourced financial work and management services. The initiative assumes significance in the wake of a slowdown in the economy where companies may hire consultancy services from their statutory auditors who may turn a blind eye to discrepancies in financial statements. “The proposal seeks to place specific restrictions on the services which a chartered accountant, acting as a statutory auditor, can provide for his client,” says Institute of Chartered Accountants of India president Ved Jain, adding the proposal will help avoid conflict of interests. The move may come as a major damper for many practising CAs who have been providing audit as well as consultancy services for their clients. Source : - www.caclubindia.com