Friday, April 1, 2011
India Inc's Unique Challenges
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
urbanisation to be actively facilitated & comprehensive capacity-building programme for urban governance.
A fare for the poor
Monday, March 21, 2011
What Does Nano Want
Thursday, March 17, 2011
No case for delaying Companies Bill
Laws of work say that 90 per cent of a project takes 10 per cent of the time. The remaining 10 per cent takes 90 per cent of the timeIn the case of the Companies Bill — drafted in 2009, the remaining 10 per cent is taking forever.
It is reported that the Bill, conceived to cleanse and condense a complicated Companies Act, 1956, may not be tabled before Parliament this session. This is ironical considering the fact that close on the heels of announcing 35 Converged Indian Accounting Standards, a new Schedule VI has been drafted.
Revised Schedule VI
For a corporate entity, Schedule VI is the equivalent of the Accounting Constitution. Initial reports suggested that the revised Schedule would apply to all entities, but a detailed look at the Schedule seems to suggest that it could only apply to entities that need to follow the Converged Indian Accounting Standards.
This could immediately spring a question whether one could have two Schedules under the same Act. When one can have multiple accounting standards, why not two Schedules? The stand-out feature in the Revised Schedule is the requirement to segregate both assets and liabilities into Current and Non-Current- a requirement that IFRS swears by.
Business Line : OTHERS / ACCOUNTANCY : No case for delaying Companies Bill
The Garden of Your Mind
If you think of your mind as a garden, what have you planted? You know what's planted there by what's growing!
IFRS: More time will benefit all
The implementation of Ind-AS is also subject to successful enactment of the Companies Amendment Bill, as numerous sections such as 391, 394, 100, 78, Schedule VI and Schedule XIV conflict with the requirements of IFRS.
The tax situation is equally compelling. Typically IFRS accounts are meant for investors. Taxation has a different purpose and hence will have a different perspective compared to an investor. For example, an investor in an investment property company would evaluate the company based on the fair value of the investment properties. Tax, on the other hand, will focus more on rental income and realised profits on sale of the investment properties. Given that the objective of investors and tax authorities will remain different, it is an inevitable consequence that two sets of standards would be required. Taxation authorities cannot indefinitely continue to fill the gap by using court rulings as that would make the entire environment uncertain and litigious.
Business Line : OTHERS / ACCOUNTANCY : IFRS: More time will benefit all