CS FUTURE OF NATION

COMPANY SECRETARY FUTURE OF NATION

Difference between http and https

Difference between http and https

THOUGHT THIS WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE BUT AM FORWARDING IN CASE YOU ARE NOT AWARE

What's the difference between http and https-- GOOD information to know!

Don't know how many of you are aware of this difference, but it's worth sending to anyone who may not be aware of it. 
The primary difference between http:// andhttps:// is security. HTTP stands for Hyper Text Transfer Protocol.

The S (big surprise) stands for "Secure." If you visit a website or web page, and look at the address in the web browser, it will likely begin with the following: http:///.
This means that the website is talking to your browser using "unsecured" language which means it is possible for someone to "eavesdrop" on your computer's conversation with that website. If you fill out a form on the website, someone might see the information you send to that site. 
This is why you never ever enter your credit card number in an http website!

But if the web address begins with https://, that basically means your computer is talking to
the website in a secure code that no one can eavesdrop on.

If a website ever asks you to enter your credit card information, you should automatically look to see if the web address begins with https://.

If it doesn't, you should NEVER enter sensitive information...
....such as a credit card number, SS #, etc.

PLEASE PASS IT ON (You may save someone a lot of grief)!

No service tax on reimbursement

In the recent case, Delhi High Court has given it verdict against the constitutionally validity of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.

This decision will have implication for all the assessees providing consulting/technical service to client.

Extract of decision

The petitioner was a company providing consulting engineering services. It was specialises in highways, structures, airports, urban and rural infrastructure projects and was engaged in various road projects outside and inside India.

In the course of the carrying on of its business, the petitioner rendered consultancy services in respect of highway projects to the national highway authority of India (NHAI). The petitioner receives payments not only for its service but is also reimbursed expenses incurred by it such as air travel, hotel stay, etc. It was paying service tax in respect of amounts received by it for services rendered to its clients. It was not paying any service tax in respect of the expenses incurred by it, which was reimbursed by the clients.

The department has raised the demand for service tax on the reimbursement considering the rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.

In the decision Delhi High Court mentioned

"In the aforesaid backdrop of the basic features of any legislation on tax, we have no hesitation in ruling that rule 5 (1) which provides for inclusion of the expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing the taxable service in the value for the purpose of charging service tax is ultra vires section 66 and 67 and travels much beyond the scope of those sections. To that extent it has to be struck down as bad in law"

Intercontinental Consultants and Technorats Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ANR.

This case should also be held true under the new valuation rule which is very much in line with previous rule 5.

Most of the cases relate to recovery of loan defaults which are less than Rs 10 lakh.

Most of the cases relate to recovery of loan defaults which are less than Rs 10 lakh.

MUMBAI, DEC. 6: 

To cut down the number of cheque-dishonour cases, the Finance Ministry is looking at an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, such as a Lok Adalat.

The idea is to consider prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act only if the alternative mechanism too fails. Section 138 deals with penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the drawer.

Further, cheques taken as security without stating the amount of debt may be excluded from the purview of the Section.

These measures were suggested to the Finance Ministry by a committee constituted by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

Under Section138, the drawer of the cheque, which has been returned unpaid by a bank because money in the account is insufficient, is deemed to have committed an offence that is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine that may be up to twice the amount of the cheque, or both.

Attention Students !! A Must-Read for all Students Appearing December, 2012 session of CS Examinations

Attention Students !! 

A Must-Read for all Students Appearing December, 2012 session of CS Examinations    

All students appearing in December, 2012 session of CS examinations (Foundation Programme Old Syllabus, Executive Programme & Professional Programme)  are hereby informed that important preliminary details of  their examination enrollment
 ( including their photograph and signature) have been uploaded on institute’s website www.icsi.edu.

http://www.icsi.edu/WebModules/Student/AnnouncemntDecExam12.pdf

Cheque signature mismatch may lead to criminal proceedings: SC

The account holder must be given a notice and an opportunity to arrange the payments before initiation of criminal proceedings against him, says the apex court.

New Delhi, Dec 2:

A person may face criminal proceedings if a cheque issued by him gets dishonoured on the ground that his signature does not match the specimen signature available with the bank, the Supreme Court has said.

A Bench of justices T.S. Thakur and Gyan Sudha Mishra set aside the verdict of Gujarat High Court which had held that criminal proceedings for dishonouring of cheque can be initiated only when the cheque is dishonoured because of lack of sufficient amount in the bank account and not in case where a cheque is returned due to mismatch of signature of account holder.

“Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, so also dishonour on the ground that the ’signatures do not match’ or that the ‘image is not found’, which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act,” the bench said.

The apex court, however, said that in such cases of dishonouring of cheques, the account holder must be given a notice and an opportunity to arrange the payments before initiation of criminal proceedings against him.

“Dishonour on account of such changes that may occur in the course of ordinary business of a company, partnership or an individual may not constitute an offence by itself because such a dishonour in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 shall have to be preceded by a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon and has the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque,” it said.