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