Assessee was a lessee in the property which was sold by the KSCT; there is no dispute on this aspect of the matter. Yet, the Assessing Officer has treated the assessee a seller of property apparently because the assessee was a party to the sale deed, and because, according to the Assessing Officer, “consideration is paid on sale of the property for giving up right of the owner of the property” and that “in the case of leasehold property, the right of owner is divided between lessor and lessee”. We are unable to share this line of reasoning. It is not necessary that consideration paid by the buyer of a property, at the time of buying the property, must only relate to ownership rights. In the case of tenanted property, as is the case before us, while the buyer of property pays the owner of property for ownership rights, he may also have to pay, when he wants to have possession of the property and to remove the fetters of tenancy rights on the property so purchased, the tenants towards their surrendering the tenancy rights. Merely because he pays the tenants, for their surrendering the tenancy rights, at the time of purchase of property, will not alter the character of receipt in the hands of the tenant receiving such payment. What is paid for the tenancy rights cannot, merely because of the timing of the payment, cannot be treated as receipt for ownership rights in the hands of the assessee. This distinction between the receipt for ownership rights in respect of a property and receipt for tenancy rights in respect of a property, even though both these receipts are capital receipts leading to taxable capital gains, is very important for two reasons – first, that the cost of acquisition for tenancy rights, under section 55(2)(a), is, unless purchased from a previous owner – which is admittedly not the case here, treated as‘nil’; and, – second, since, the provisions of Section 50 C can only be applied in respect of “transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both”, the provisions of Section 50 C will apply on receipt of consideration on transfer of a property, being land or building or both, these provisions will not come into play in a case where only tenancy rights are transferred or surrendered. It is, therefore, important to examine as to in what capacity the assessee received the payment. No doubt the assessee was a party to the registered tripartite deed dated 20th July 2007 whereby the property was sold by the KS CT, but, as a perusal of the sale deed unambiguously shows, the assessee has given up all the rights and interests in the said property, which he had acquired by the virtue of lease agreements with owner and which were, therefore, in the nature of lessee’s rights; these rights could not have been, by any stretch of logic, could be treated as ownership rights. It has been specifically stated in the sale deed that the lessee, which included this assessee before us, had proceeded to, inter alia, “grant, convey, transfer and assign their leasehold rights, title and interest in the said premises”. There is nothing on the record to even remotely suggest that the assessee was owner of the property in question. The monies received by the assessee, under the said agreement, were thus clearly in the nature of receipts for transfer of tenancy rights, and, accordingly, as the learned CIT(A) rightly holds, Section 50 C could not have been invoked on the facts of this case.

Revenue’s contention that the provisions of Section 50 C also apply to the transfer of leasehold rights is devoid of legally sustainable merits and is not supported by the plain words of the statute. Section 50 C can come into play only in a situation “where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset being land or building or both. (emphasis supplied by us by underlining) is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government ……for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer”. Clearly, therefore, it is sine qua non for application of Section 50 C that the transfer must be of a “capital asset, being land or building or both”, but then a leasehold right in such a capital asset cannot be equated with the capital asset per se. We are, therefore, unable to see any merits in revenue’s contention that even when a leasehold right in “land or building or both” is transferred, the provisions of Section 50C can be invoked.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA

I.T.A. No.: 1459/ Kol./2011

C.O. No. 62/Kol/ 2011

Assessment year: 2008-09

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Vs.

Tejinder Singh

Date of pronouncing the order : February 29,20 12

ORDER

Per Pramod Kumar:

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s order dated 9th August 2011, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), on the following ground:

1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs 14,64,692 on account of long term capital gain.

2. That, in doing so, learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Section 50C has no application on transfer of leasehold right in building.

2. In the related cross objection filed by the assessee, following grievance has been raised:

For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in not considering the alternative ground that Section 50 C is not applicable when full value of the consideration is invested under section 54F as far as meaning of full value of consideration under section 54F is concerned.

3. The grievances, which have been raised in the appeal and the cross objections, are interconnected and centre around treatment of capital gains on sale of a property in which the assessee had tenancy rights. We will, therefore, take up all the grievances together.

4. The material facts are not in dispute. The assessee, alongwith one Amardeep Singh, had acquired, vide registered lease deeds dated 19th November 1992 with Shree Khubchand Sethia Charitable Trust (KSCT, in short) , lease hold rights for 99 years in a house property situated at 5/1, Ripon Street, Kolkata. This property was collectively purchased by three entities, namely Sugam Builders Pvt Ltd, Neelanchal Sales and Suppliers Pvt Ltd and Pleasant Niryat Pvt Ltd (collectively referred to as ‘purchasers’, in short), from the owner, i.e. Khubchand Sethia Charitable Trust, vide registered deed dated 20th day of July 2007. This registered sales deed was a tripartite agreement between the owner, i.e. KSTC, the lessees, i.e. the assessee and Amardeep Singh, and the purchasers. Under the said agreement, while owner transferred inter alia “all its rights, title and interest, ownership and reversionary rights in the said property” etc for a consideration of Rs 1,00,00,000, the lessees gave up all its rights and interests in the said property and proceeded to, inter alia, “grant, convey, transfer and assign their leasehold rights, title and interest in the said premises”, for a consideration of Rs 3,19,00,000. The total consideration of Rs 3,19,00,000 paid by the purchasers for the said premises was thus divided as follows:- (i) Rs 1,00,00,000 for the owner of the premises i.e. KSCT; (ii) Rs 1,59,50,000 for Tejinder Singh, i.e. the assessee before us in this appeal; and (iii) Rs 1,59,50,000 for Amardeep Singh, i.e. co lessee.

5. In the course of assessment proceedings, however, the Assessing Officer noted that the stamp duty valuation of the property, which was sold by KSCT, was Rs 5,59,57,375, whereas the stated sales consideration of the property was only Rs 4,19,00,000. He was of the view that, in terms of the provisions of Section 50 C, the sales consideration, for the purpose of computing the capital gains, is to be taken at the stamp duty valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority. He thus adopted the amount of Rs 5,59,57,375 as sales consideration, and proceeded to notionally divide the said amount amongst the owner and the lessees in the same ratio in which the actual consideration was divided. Accordingly, as against the amount of Rs 1,59,50,000 actually received by the assessee, he included the amount of Rs 2,12,47,375 in computation of capital gains in the hands of the assessee. He then proceeded to compute cost of acquisition as the lease rentals paid by the assessee over the years, and after indexing the same, computed the cost of acquisition at Rs 28,79,698. On this basis, long term capital gain was computed at Rs 1,84,17,692. The Assessing Officer then noted that since while the gross sales consideration under section 50 C in the hands of the assessee is Rs 2,12,97,390, the assessee had made an investment of Rs 1,96,03,685 in qualifying investments under section 54 F, and, accordingly, assessee is entitled to 54F deduction only to the proportionate extent. The deduction under section 54 F was thus computed at Rs 1,69,53,000, and the balance capital gain of Rs 14,64,692 was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. While doing so, and almost as a postscript to the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also noted as follows:

The authorised representative of the assessee argued that no capital gain is chargeable on account of sale of leasehold property at 5/1 Ripon Street Kolkata because the assessee had no absolute right to the sell the property. The assessee is simply a lessee of the said property and he has only the right to transfer the said lease right of the property. The contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Consideration is paid on sale of the property for giving up right of the owner of the property. In the case of leasehold property, the right of owner is divided between lessor and lessee. That does not give either to the lessee or the lesser immunity for not being charged under section 45 of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer and by an amount of Rs 14,64,692 being brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as capital gain, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) held that the assessee was a tenant in the property sold by the owner and, therefore, so far as the assessee is concerned, the receipt is in the nature of receipt on surrendering tenancy rights. He was further of the view that the provisions of Section 50 C apply only in respect of ‘land’, ‘building’ or ‘land and building’. Relying upon various decisions of this Tribunal, he was his view that the provisions of Section 50 C cannot be pressed into service in a case in which the assessee has received the amount on surrender of tenancy rights. He, therefore, held that “Section 50 C has no application to the facts of the case under consideration and the capital gains will have to be recomputed on the basis of actual consideration and not the stamp duty value”. As regards the alternate plea that full consideration on sale of capital asset has been invested in qualifying investments under section 54F, learned CIT(A) declined to deal with the same and observed that “Since the ground no. 1 has been allowed and it has been held that the AO was not correct in applying the deeming provisions of Section 50 C, the alternative additional ground taken by the appellant that the deeming fiction under section 50 C will not be applicable to Section 54 F as far as the meaning of full value of consideration is concerned, becomes academic and, is, therefore, not considered”. None of the parties is satisfied by the stand so taken by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer is aggrieved that the CIT(A) ought to have upheld applicability of Section 50 C in this fact situation as well, the assessee is aggrieved that the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated on the alternative ground of appeal as well. That’s how the Assessing Officer is in appeal before us, and the assessee has also filed a cross objection before us.

7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered applicable legal position in the light of the facts of the case.

8. A plain look at the undisputed facts of this case clearly shows that the assessee was a lessee in the property which was sold by the KSCT; there is no dispute on this aspect of the matter. Yet, the Assessing Officer has treated the assessee a seller of property apparently because the assessee was a party to the sale deed, and because, according to the Assessing Officer, “consideration is paid on sale of the property for giving up right of the owner of the property” and that “in the case of leasehold property, the right of owner is divided between lessor and lessee”. We are unable to share this line of reasoning. It is not necessary that consideration paid by the buyer of a property, at the time of buying the property, must only relate to ownership rights. In the case of tenanted property, as is the case before us, while the buyer of property pays the owner of property for ownership rights, he may also have to pay, when he wants to have possession of the property and to remove the fetters of tenancy rights on the property so purchased, the tenants towards their surrendering the tenancy rights. Merely because he pays the tenants, for their surrendering the tenancy rights, at the time of purchase of property, will not alter the character of receipt in the hands of the tenant receiving such payment. What is paid for the tenancy rights cannot, merely because of the timing of the payment, cannot be treated as receipt for ownership rights in the hands of the assessee. This distinction between the receipt for ownership rights in respect of a property and receipt for tenancy rights in respect of a property, even though both these receipts are capital receipts leading to taxable capital gains, is very important for two reasons – first, that the cost of acquisition for tenancy rights, under section 55(2)(a), is, unless purchased from a previous owner – which is admittedly not the case here, treated as ‘nil’; and, – second, since, the provisions of Section 50 C can only be applied in respect of “transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both”, the provisions of Section 50 C will apply on receipt of consideration on transfer of a property, being land or building or both, these provisions will not come into play in a case where only tenancy rights are transferred or surrendered. It is, therefore, important to examine as to in what capacity the assessee received the payment. No doubt the assessee was a party to the registered tripartite deed dated 20th July 2007 whereby the property was sold by the KS CT, but, as a perusal of the sale deed unambiguously shows, the assessee has given up all the rights and interests in the said property, which he had acquired by the virtue of lease agreements with owner and which were, therefore, in the nature of lessee’s rights; these rights could not have been, by any stretch of logic, could be treated as ownership rights. It has been specifically stated in the sale deed that the lessee, which included this assessee before us, had proceeded to, inter alia, “grant, convey, transfer and assign their leasehold rights, title and interest in the said premises”. There is nothing on the record to even remotely suggest that the assessee was owner of the property in question. The monies received by the assessee, under the said agreement, were thus clearly in the nature of receipts for transfer of tenancy rights, and, accordingly, as the learned CIT(A) rightly holds, Section 50 C could not have been invoked on the facts of this case. Revenue’s contention that the provisions of Section 50 C also apply to the transfer of leasehold rights is devoid of legally sustainable merits and is not supported by the plain words of the statute. Section 50 C can come into play only in a situation “where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset being land or building or both. (emphasis supplied by us by underlining) is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government ……for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer”. Clearly, therefore, it is sine qua non for application of Section 50 C that the transfer must be of a “capital asset, being land or building or both”, but then a leasehold right in such a capital asset cannot be equated with the capital asset per se. We are, therefore, unable to see any merits in revenue’s contention that even when a leasehold right in “land or building or both” is transferred, the provisions of Section 50C can be invoked. We, therefore, approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) on this aspect of the matter.

9. Having held so, we may also point out that the Assessing Officer has adopted cost of acquisition of the asset as lease rent paid for the same and even granted indexation benefits thereon. In the impugned order, CIT(A) has directed that consideration for computation of capital gains on surrendering the tenancy rights is to be taken at actuals, and not as recomputed by the Assessing Officer by taking stamp valuation as the sale consideration for the property, but then what the CIT(A) has apparently missed out is the fact that in the case of surrender of tenancy rights, the cost of acquisition of the tenancy rights, in view of the specific provisions of Section 55(2)(a), should have been taken as ‘nil’. This aspect of the matter is somewhat academic and tax neutral because admittedly qualifying investment under section 54F is more than the consideration for surrender of these tenancy rights. The Assessing Officer has given a categorical finding about the quantum of qualifying investment of Rs 1,96,03,685. In view of these discussions, we are of the considered view that the assessee did not have any taxable capital gain in respect of receipt of Rs 1,59,50,000 on account of surrender of tenancy rights. The relief granted by the CIT(A), therefore, deserves to be upheld.

10. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the event of our upholding the relief granted by the CIT(A), the grievance raised in the assessee’s cross objection will be wholly academic and would not need any adjudication on merits. He submits that in such a situation, he would not press the cross objection. We have upheld the order of the CIT(A), and, therefore, we dismiss the cross objection as not pressed.

11. In the result, the appeal as also the cross objection are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court today on 29th day of February, 2012

Explanation 1(b) defines “urban land” to mean the land situated in any area, which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation or committee, any area of committee within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres from the local limits of a municipality or cantonment board etc. but does not include the land occupied by any building, which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that the assessee is constructing the building after obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Incomplete building of the assessee neither falls within the definition of a building, as contemplated under section 2(ea) of the Act, nor within the purview of “urban land” as excluded by Explanation 1(b) of the Wealth Tax Act..

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA

W.T.A. No. 09/Kol/2009 – Assessment Year: 2001-2002

Shri Sanjay Krishna Hegde, Kolkata

Vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2012

ORDER

Per Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member,

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CWT(A)-XXXVII, Kolkata in Appeal No.143/CIT(A)-XXXVII/WT Cir-54/07-08 dated 20.03.2009. Assessment was framed by ACWT, Circle-54, Kolkata u/s.17/16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2001-02 vide his order dated 29.12.2006.

2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CWT(A) in treating the incomplete flat as an asset within the meaning of section 2(ea) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised following ground:

(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has legally erred in holding incomplete and not habitable flat at Mumbai as an asset liable to wealth tax.

(2) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and in the alternative and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CWT(A) has legally erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under section. 5(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, though includible as an asset under section 2(ea) on an erroneous premise that the flat was habitable on the valuation date.

(3) Without prejudice to Grounds No. 1 & 2 above and only in the alternative and on the facts and the circumstances of the case the CWT(A) has legally erred in denying the amount of Rs.40 lacs being loan taken specifically for financing the alleged taxable asset.

2. Brief facts are that during the relevant financial year 2000-01, assessee purchased incomplete flat in a multi-storied building situated at Juhu Sai Darshan, 5th N.S. Ext. Road, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai-400 049 for a total consideration of Rs.64.65 lakhs from Jay Builders, Mumbai. The assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before CIT(Appeals) claimed that the said flat was not in a habitable condition and during the year under consideration, it has spent a sum of Rs.43.65 lakhs and Rs.6.85 lakhs for assessment year 2001-02 and 2003-04 respectively. According to ld. counsel these facts have been noted by Assessing Officer in his assessment order that assessee has invested a sum of Rs.43.65 lakhs in financial year 2001-02 and Rs.6.85 lakhs in financial year 2002- 03. But Assessing Officer treated this investment of Rs.64.65 lakhs in urban land and in view of definition of section 2(ea)(v) of the Act including in net wealth the amount invested during the year at Rs.64.65 lakhs and charged to wealth-tax.

3. Before us also, the assessee’s main contention is that the abovementioned property is an incomplete flat in a multi-storied building and it does not fall within the purview of definition of asset under section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. We find that the flat acquired by the assessee at Juhu Sai Darshan, Mumbai was not fit for habitation as on 31.03.2001 and the fact that the house did not even have basic facilities like plumbing, civil work, electrical work etc. as on 31.03.2001. In view of work undertaken during financial year 2002-03 and bills raised by Ark Designs Private Limited as enclosed in assessee’s paper book at pages 2 & 3 it is an admitted fact that the building is not complete.

4. Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Central), Ludhiana –vs.- Smt. Neena Jain reported in [2010] 230 CTR 554 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under :-

“The contention of the learned counsel for the revenue that any building would fall within the definition of assets, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well, because the word “any building” cannot possibly be read in isolation and it has harmoniously to be construed with the remaining portion of section 2(ea) of the Act, i.e. whether the building used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining a guest house, because incomplete building, as in the present case of the assessee, cannot possibly either be used for residential or commercial purposes or for purposes of maintaining a guest house. Therefore, the word “building” has to be interpreted to mean a completely built structure having a roof, dwelling place, walls, doors, windows, electric and sanitary fittings etc. If one or more such components are lacking, then it cannot possibly be said that the building is a complete structure for the purpose of section 2(ea) of the Act. A residential house is an unit, which is complete for habitation having the minimum bare required facilities. The Legislative intent underlying the amended provisions of section 2(ea) is clear and implicit that the legislature sought to bring within the ambit of this section all those buildings, which are completed and ready for use of residential, commercial or guest house, as the case may be, as incomplete structure cannot be put to any such use. It is not a matter of dispute that the assessee started the construction in the month of February 2002, which was still incomplete at the period of relevant assessment year.

The next argument of learned counsel for the revenue that if the incomplete building does not fall within the ambit of assets under section 2(ea) of the Act, then the incomplete building of the assessee is liable to wealth tax under the definition of “urban land”, again has no force, because

Explanation 1(b) defines “urban land” to mean the land situated in any area, which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation or committee, any area of committee within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres from the local limits of a municipality or cantonment board etc. but does not include the land occupied by any building, which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that the assessee is constructing the building after obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the incomplete building of the assessee neither falls within the definition of a building, as contemplated under section 2(ea) of the Act, nor within the purview of “urban land” as excluded by Explanation 1(b) of the Act”.

We find from the above facts and circumstances and case law of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Smt. Neena Jain (supra), we allow the claim of assessee and this issue is decided against the revenue. Appeal of assessee is allowed.

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 /02 2012

g. The … facts demonstrate that the orders of most of the trades entered by the notices were punched in with preconceived motive and prior arrangement that the orders would be picked up by a particular client of the group on the opposite side. I note that there is startling proximity in the time of entering of orders at the identical price and quantity resulting into the matching of the trades. This clearly indicates synchronization while entering the orders, even as these were executed on the screen of the exchange. A large number of trades got matched regularly. It is a known fact that persons who are unknown to each other cannot trade continuously by entering orders in such a pattern. It is difficult to accept that several different orders placed on various days always matched with the same entity and were also reversed with them, by mere co-incidence. The execution of synchronized/ reverse trades repeatedly for several days by the notices reveals a definite nexus amongst them. I note that the orders placed by the notices had split into multiple trades; however, the volumes generated by such trades have created substantial number of artificial trades in the market. I observe that the notices had indulged in the trading pattern as discussed above with regularity, which also projected volumes in the scrip in a way that was not market determined, rather with a hidden motive to induce innocent investors to enter the market. Such transactions are clearly not genuine and seen to have been entered by the notices for creating misleading appearance of trading in the scrip.

h. … In the present case, the reversal of trades on several days clearly reveals manipulative intent. Additionally, these transactions, apart from creating artificial volume of trading, also influenced the prices, by giving an impression to others that the scrip is being actively traded at prevailing prices.

This is consistent with SEBI’s previous approach on synchronised trades. While synchronised trades per se do not appear to be objectionable, they could trigger the SEBI Regulations against fraudulent and unfair trade practices when they are coupled with manipulative intent and are entered into only with a view to artificially moving the price of the stock.

Recently, upon coming across one complaint, it was observed by SEBI that one entity, viz. KE Consulting Group was offering unauthorized portfolio management services through its website. To protect the interest of investors and to prevent such unauthorized services from being offered to investors, SEBI has passed an order against the entity and its proprietor Mr. Manish Thakkar. The entities have been directed to cease and desist from undertaking the portfolio management activities, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever. Further, they have been restrained from accessing the securities market in any manner. They have also been directed to resolve all pending complaints against them. Details of the order are available on SEBI website http://www.sebi.gov.in

Investors are advised to take the following precautions while availing portfolio management services:

• Check whether the entity is registered with SEBI as a portfolio manager. Names of registered portfolio managers and their details are available on SEBI website http://www.sebi.gov.in

• A Portfolio Management Service is an agreement based service between the portfolio manager and the client. Before taking up an assignment of portfolio management, the portfolio manager must enter into an agreement in writing with the client clearly defining inter se relationship and setting out mutual rights, liabilities and obligations.

• Ensure that the Portfolio Manager provides a Disclosure Document to the client giving details about the services offered at least two days prior to entering into the agreement.

• The Portfolio Manager may offer either discretionary or non- discretionary services or both. He may even offer only advisory services. Under discretionary services, the Portfolio Manager has full discretion to manage client funds/securities as per the agreement. Client may offer any suggestions to Portfolio Manager; however the final decision with respect to the investment would lie with the Portfolio Manager. Under non-discretionary services, client shall have the full discretion in respect of investment/disinvestment of his money or securities. The Portfolio Manager may provide his advice or suggestions and may offer execution in respect of investment; however the final decision with respect to investment shall lie with the client.

• Once client decides to opt for a Portfolio Management Service, client shall have to bring the minimum investment amount of ` 25 Lakhs. The client may also provide securities as investment, provided that the total value of investment including securities is at least ` 25 lakhs. No SEBI registered portfolio manager can accept any initial investment from client of less than ` 25 lakhs.

• The Portfolio Manager cannot guarantee or assure the returns on client investment.

Dated the 1st March, 2012

Subject: Registration of Companies or LLPs which have one of their objects is to carry on the profession of Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant, Architect, Company Secretary etc.

I am directed to say that at the time of incorporation of companies where one of the objects is to carry on the business of Banking, Insurance or to practice the profession of Chartered Accountancy, Cost Accountancy & Company Secretaries, then the concerned Registrar of Companies shall incorporate the same only on production of in-principle approval / NOC from the concerned regulator/professional Institutes.

2. Further, in this connection, it is also stated that where one of the objects is to carry on the business/profession of Architecture, then the concerned Registrar of Companies /Registrar of LLP shall incorporate the same only on production of in-principle approval / NOC from the concerned regulator.

3. This issues with the approval of CAM.

Yours faithfully,

(Monika Gupta)

Assistant Directors

Send a SMS to 092123 57123 typing vahan <space> <regn number without space>

You would get the following information instantly

The Number of Ownership sequence, Owner name, Type of the vehicle, Make of the Vehicle, Registration fitness validity, the road tax validity

The Service is Available for selected regions only.

Other SMS bases services from transport Department

A) Service to be provided to the customer

(1) FOR TAX RELATED INFORMATION TYPE MESSAGE AS

transtrp <space> tax <space> vehicle no & send it to 9212357123

Eg- (transtrp tax tr01r 5678)

(2) For Fitness related information TYPE MESSAGE AS

transtrp <space> fit <space> vehicle no & send it to 9212357123

Eg- (transtrp fit tr01r 5678)

(3) For National Permit related information TYPE MESSAGE AS

vahan <space> np <space> vehicle no & send it to 9212357123

Eg-(vahan np TR01R 1515).

B) Service from Transport Department

There are two types of services from the Transport Department.

i) Daily Services—Intimation SMS shall be sent to the customer on completion of a process on a daily basis.

• Ownership Change
• New Registration
• Tax Intimation
• Hypothecation Cancellations Intimation

ii) Monthly Service—SMS will be sent to the customer on monthly basis.

• Tax Defaulter (Monthly Service)

1. This has reference to SEBI circular No. MRD/DP/05/2012, dated February 1, 2012 and MRD/DP/07/2012, dated February 23, 2012, on the subject.

2. It is clarified that the contents of the advertisement, if any, to be issued in terms of Para 4(a) of the aforementioned circular dated February 1, 2012, shall be restricted to the contents of the notice as given to the stock exchange under Para 5(b) of the said circular.

3. All other provisions of the aforesaid circulars remain unchanged.

4. Stock Exchanges are advised to:

a. take necessary steps and put in place necessary systems for implementation of the above.

b. make necessary amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations for the implementation of the above decision.

c. bring the provisions of this circular to the notice of the member brokers of the stock exchange and also to disseminate the same on the website.

d. communicate to SEBI, the status of implementation of the provisions of this circular in the Monthly Development Report.

5. This circular is being issued in exercise of powers conferred under section 11(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market.

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated IS th February 2012

NOTIFICATION

MAHARASHTRA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2002-

No. VAT 1512/C.R-12/Taxation-1.—Whereas the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that ircumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action further to amend the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and to dispense with the condition of previous publication thereof under the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 83 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (Mah. IX of 2005).

Now, therefore, in exorcise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) read with the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 83 of the said Act, and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra hereby, makes the following rules further to amend the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, namely :—

1. These rules may be called the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2012.

2. In rule 52 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the principal Rules), in sub-rule (1), for the words “the Commissioner shall” the words and figures “the Commissioner shall subject to the provisions of roles 53, 54 and 55″ shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 1st April 2005.

3. In rule 53 of the principal Rules, in sub-rule (3),—

(1) the existing sub-rule (3) shall be re-numbered as clause (a) thereof; and after clause (a) as so re-numbered, after the proviso, the foil owing proviso shall be added, namely:

“Provided further that, the provisions of this clause shall not be applicable in respect of the contingencies specified in clause (b);”

(2) after the clause (a) so re-numbered the following clause shall be added, namely:—

“(b) If the claimant dealer manufacturers the goods covered under entries 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule “D” appended to the Act and dispatches the said goods not by reason of sale, outside the State to any place within India to his own place of business, or the place of business of his agent or where the claimant dealer is a commission agent, to the place of business of his principal, then an amount equal to two per cent, of the value of the goods so dispatched shall be reduced from the amount of the set-off otherwise available in respect of the aforesaid manufactured goods.

4. In rule 54 of the principal Rules, in clause (ft), for the words, brackets and figures “purchases of motor spirits as notified under sub-section (4) of section 41 unless such motor spirits” the words and brackets “purchases of tile High Speed Diesel Oil, Aviation Turbine Fuel (Duty paid), Aviation Turbine Fuel (Bonded), Aviation Gasoline (Duty paid), Aviation Gasoline (Bonded) and Petrol unless such motor spirits” shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 1st April 2005.”,

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,

Q.C.BHANGADIYA,

Deputy Secretary to Government.

To know the details Type

LICPension <Policy-No>[STAT /ECDUE/ANNPD/PDTHRU/AMOUNT/CHQRET]

and Send To 56677

Enquiries :-

a) IPP Policy Status, (STAT)

b) Existence Certificate Due, (ECDUE)

c) Last Annuity Released Date, (ANNPD)

d) Annuity Payment thru (CHQ/ECS/NEFT) (PDTHRU)

e) Annuity Amount (AMOUNT)

f) Cheque Return Information (CHQRET)

For Individual policy enquiry through SMS,

Type

ASKLIC < POLICY NO > PREMIUM/REVIVAL/BONUS/LOAN/NOM

and Send To 56677

Details

Premium – Installment premium under policy

Revival – If policy is lapsed, Revival amount payable

Bonus – Amount of Bonus vested

Loan – Amount available as Loan

NOM – Details of Nomination

All Mutual Funds/ Asset Management Companies (AMCs) Sir/Madam,

Sub: Circular for Mutual Funds

A. Distributor Due Diligence

1. Please refer to SEBI circular no. SEBI/IMD/DF/13/201 1 dated August 22, 2011 regarding the captioned matter.

2. It is hereby clarified that the due diligence of distributors is solely the responsibility of mutual funds/AMCs. This responsibility shall not be delegated to any agency. However, mutual funds/AMCs may take assistance of an agency of repute while carrying out due diligence process of distributors.

B. Clarification to Regulation 24 of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996

1. In order to address the issue of conflict of interest wherein a fund manager manages schemes of Mutual Fund and is engaged in other permissible activities of AMC, SEBI has amended Regulation 24 of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996.

2. The amended Regulation mandates that AMCs shall appoint separate fund manager for each separate fund managed by it unless the investment objectives and assets allocations are the same and the portfolio is replicated across all the funds managed by the fund manager.

3. It has been represented to SEBI that the perfect replication of portfolio between the mutual fund scheme and schemes/products under other permissible activities of AMC may not be achieved at all times.

4. On examination of the same, it has been decided that the replication of minimum 70% of portfolio value shall be considered as adequate for the purpose of said compliance, provided that AMC has in place a written policy for trade allocation and it ensures at all points of time that the fund manager shall not take directionally opposite positions in the schemes managed by him.

5. In order to bring transparency while addressing the issue of conflict of interest wherein a fund manager is common across mutual fund schemes and schemes/products under other permissible activities of AMC, then the AMC shall :

a) disclose on their websites, the returns provided by the said manager for all the schemes (mutual fund, pension funds, offshore funds etc) on a monthly basis.

b) in case of any performance advertisement is issued by the AMC for any scheme, then the details of returns of all the schemes (mutual fund, pension funds, offshore funds etc) managed by that fund manager shall be provided.

c) in case the difference between the annual returns provided by the schemes managed by the same fund manager is more than 10% then the same shall be reported to the trustee and explanation for the same shall be disclosed on the website of the AMC.

C. This circular is issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, read with the provisions of Regulation 77 of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market.

Yours faithfully,

Medha Sonparote

Deputy General Manager

Tel no. 022-26449312

Email-medhad@sebi.gov.in