Clarification on Applicability of CPE hours requirement for the new members enrolled for the first time during the block of three years 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2013
As per the Statement on CPE a member is exempted only for the particular calendar year during which he gets his membership for the first time.
For Example: members enrolled at any point of time during the Calendar year 2011 (1st January-31st December, 2011) are exempted for the Calendar Year 2011. For the Calendar Years 2012 & 2013 they would be required to comply with proportionate CPE hours requirement. Members enrolled during the year 2011 with COP would be required to complete 60 CPE hours in the calendar year 2012 and 13. Out of 60 CPE hours, minimum 40 CPE hours should be under Structured Learning and 20 CPE hours under Structured/Unstructured Learning as per choice and Non-COP holders are required to complete 30 CPE hours under Structured/Unstructured Learning as per choice.
Members enrolled at any point of time during the Calendar year 2012 (1st January-31st December, 2012) are exempted for the Calendar Year 2012. For the Calendar Year 2013 they would be required to comply with proportionate CPE hours requirement. Members enrolled during the year 2012 with COP would be required to complete 30 CPE hours for the calendar year 2013. Out of 30 CPE hours minimum 20 CPE hours should be under Structured Learning and 10 CPE hours under Structured/Unstructured Learning as per choice and Non-COP holders are required to complete 15 CPE hours under Structured/Unstructured Learning as per choice for the calendar year 2013.
Members enrolled at any point of time during the Calendar year 2013 (1st January-31st December, 2013) whether holding COP or not are exempted for this block of three years (2011 to 2013)
ICAI's CPE Advisory on Unstructured Learning and prescribed format for claiming Unstructured CPE Credit hours is available at URL: http://www.cpeicai.org/Advisory-Unstructured%20Learning%20Activities .Clarification on Applicability of CPE hours requirement for the new members enrolled for the first time during the block of three years 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2013
· Have you maximized the limited liability characteristics of your operating entities?
· Are your real estate, franchise rights, intellectual property rights and other non-operating assets held in separate entities?
· Have you spun off under-performing stores into separate entities in order to minimize cross default and cross collateralization issues?
· Are you providing separate supplier agreements for different entities?
· Do all of your leases provide the ability to sublet, have buy-out provisions and/or have an option to purchase the real estate?
· Are you prioritizing the payment of your business obligations so that items that have potential personal liability, such as payroll taxes, are satisfied first?
· Have you done a good job of minimizing spousal guarantees and making sure that any required personal guarantees have burn-off provisions (or were subsequently renegotiated to add such provisions)?
· Have you built sufficient walls between your business assets and personal assets, and are you avoiding the commingling of business obligations and personal assets?
· Have all of your shareholder loans to your business been collateralized (even if only on a secondary basis)?
· Do your buy/sell agreements sufficiently incorporate mechanisms to account for an economic downturn, particularly in the areas of valuation and put options?
· Have you considered the use of tools such as a family limited partnership to shift assets to family members and also create additional layers of ownership that creditors must work through?
The responses to these questions highlight any areas that may need attention. The ultimate goal is implementation of a comprehensive plan that will provide maximum protection from the risks inherent in the client's business and personal situation, while still allowing for the beneficial enjoyment of such assets.
We have identified certain recurring themes that our clients in the restaurant industry need to focus on.
Giving job to unmarried daughters of government servants but denying the same benefit to married daughters violates the right to equality, equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and right to life which are enshrined in the Constitution, the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by 29-year-old Swati Kulkarni against Maharashtra Irrigation Department's decision to reject her claim for a job on compassionate grounds after her father's demise.
The department had cited a 1994 Government Resolution (GR) which said that only unmarried daughters would get this benefit.
The petitioner's father Ashok Kulkarni died while in service in 2008. Both her mother and younger sister did not wish to take the job, so Kulkarni herself staked claim.
Her name was put on waiting list. But when she got married, the name was struck off. Aggrieved, she moved the High Court challenging the October 1994 GR.
The division bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Revati Mohite Dere yesterday quashed the Irrigation Officer's decision and ordered that Kulkarni's name be included in the waiting list.
According to Credit Information Bureau of India Limited (Cibil), there are four major factors that affect the credit score of a person. They are:
- Defaults or late payments: Make sure you keep note of the dates when your equitable monthly installments (EMI) cheques pass. Do not default on your payments or delay them. “Missed payments negatively impact credit history which most lenders look into to determine the risk on a prospective borrower, though the recency of this occurrence is also considered,” said the senior official.
- High Utilization of credit limits: “While the balances on your loans will only reduce over time as payments are made, you must be diligent about making timely payments on your credit cards. While increased spending on your credit cards may not necessarily negatively affect your Score, an increase in the current balance on the card over time is an indication of an increased repayment burden and may negatively impact your Score. It’s always prudent to not use too much credit,” said the Cibil website.
- Get home loan and not credit cards: Lenders love to see a person have a home loan or a car loan over unsecured loans (credit card and personal loans). Home loans and car loans give longevity to a credit history unlike personal and credit card accounts. The unsecured loans show that a person it too dependent on credit which is something that lenders frown upon. Also, unsecured loans are expensive. So keep away from them.
- Credit hungry: You have just been granted a loan. Wait for a while before you apply for another one. A couple of loan officers that Creditvidya.com spoke to indicate that ideally a borrower should wait for a minimum of one year before he applies for another loan. “If you have made many applications for loans, or have recently been sanctioned new credit facilities, a credit institution is likely to view your application with caution. This ‘Credit Hungry’ behaviour indicates your debt burden is likely to, or has increased and you are less capable of honouring any additional debt and is likely to negatively impact your Score,” said the Cibil website.
Even info from CBI won't authorize search unless it is based on reasons given under sec. 132(1)
Search conducted in pursuance of authorization issued in absence of the eventualities mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132, couldn’t be deemed as valid search.
a) On the basis of information given by CBI that undisclosed cash was being carried by assessee, search proceedings under section 132 were initiated by issuing warrant of authorization by the Director (Investigation);
b) Some alleged incriminating documents containing details of unexplained payments were found and seized. Thereafter, notice under section 153A was issued by the Assessing Officer;
c) The assessee filed his returns of income and the assessments were completed. On appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of assessments based on said search;
d) The CIT (A) held that the search was valid and the proceedings under section 153A were validly initiated by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:
1) From the provisions of section 132(1) it is clear that it contemplates existence of certain eventualities whereof the competent authority can authorize search;
2) In the instant case, there was no complete information in possession CBI about any bullion, jewellery, cash or any other document, which could reveal that the assessee was in possession of undisclosed assets or incriminating documents;
3) It appeared that the department had acted upon the information provided by the police department on 29-3-2007 and on the same day, the warrant of authorization was issued and the search was conducted, but nothing was brought on record to substantiate that any cash was found, although search was conducted on the information that undisclosed cash was being carried out by the assessee;
4) Thus, the authorization to conduct search based on reason under section 132(1) did not exist and search became invalid. Therefore, the assessment order based on the said search was not valid and had to be set aside - PARMA RAM BHAKAR V. DY. CIT (2013) 39 taxmann.com 119 (Jodhpur - Trib.)
E-Mail : firstname.lastname@example.org