Posted in Uncategorized on Jan 12th, 2009
Pathik sends us another interesting post on the recent ruling of the Bombay High Court in Clifford Chance v. DCIT. The extent to which services provided by foreign law firms such as Clifford Chance are taxable for their services are taxable in India. The Bombay High Court, in a recent decision (Clifford Chance v. DCIT) [...]
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized on Jan 10th, 2009
Continuing from the previous Post, Pathik sends me the following on Clause 49 and the Sarbanes Oxley Act; The Sarbanes Oxley Act was primarily introduced subsequent to the Enron Scandal in order to regulate corporate governance in the US. India however failed to learn from US’s mistakes and did not introduce similar measures in India. [...]
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized on Jan 10th, 2009
Below are my notes of Mr Lyngdoh’s lecture on ‘Electoral Reforms in India’. Mr Lyngdoh gives a good insight into the working system and most of his recommendations are noteworthy and would do a great good if implemented. Please watch out for the one- on- one interview of The Social Blog with Mr. Lyngdoh coming [...]
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized on Jan 10th, 2009
The Times of India reports of a teacher in a village near Ludhiana losing upto 15 lakhs as a result of the Satyam debacle. Being shocked by the loss, he was about to commit suicide when he was stopped. Im pretty sure that he is not the only one who has been affected by India’s [...]
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized on Jan 8th, 2009
The Satyam Chairman’s resignation letter is posted below (letter comprises 5 pages in jpeg format, and maybe viewed by clicking on each) . The brutally candid words are shocking, and one can only speculate as to what could be the future course of action for India’s fourth-largest software company (The image files have been re-routed [...]
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized on Jan 6th, 2009
Another ridiculous judgment by the Supreme Court. In Reliance Infocomm Ltd v. BSNL, (2008) 10 SCC 535, the Court was called upon to decide whether “Unlimited Cordless” service is covered under the definition of WLL(M) service as defined in Regulation 2(xxviii) of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulation, 2003 which defines WLL(M) as limited mobility [...]
Read Full Post »