Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

A bill seeking to provide for four nominees by a bank account holder was introduced in the <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Sabha" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Lok Sabha">Lok Sabha</keyword> on Friday to ensure better protection of depositors and enhance customer convenience. Introduced by Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary in the Lower House, the Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has a provision for simultaneous and successive nominations to bank accounts, lockers, etc. As per the provision of the bill, a bank account holder can nominate up to four persons. The bill also seeks to transfer of unclaimed dividends, shares, and interest or redemption of bonds to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF), allowing individuals to claim transfers or refunds from the fund, and thus safeguarding investors' interests. As the banking sector has evolved over the years, and with a view to improving bank governance and investor protection, it has become necessary to make certain amendments to five Acts, according to Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill. The Bill, which was approved by the <keyword id="19916620" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Union-Cabinet" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Union Cabinet" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Union Cabinet">Union Cabinet</keyword> last week, proposes to amend the <keyword id="20824389" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Reserve-Bank-of-India-Act" source="keywords">Reserve Bank of India Act</keyword>, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The proposed bill seeks to improve governance standards, provide consistency in reporting by banks to the Reserve Bank of India, ensure better protection for depositors and investors, improve audit quality in public sector banks, bring customer convenience in respect of nominations, and to provide for increase in the tenure of the directors in co-operative banks. Another proposed change relates to redefining 'substantial interest' for directorships, which could increase to Rs 2 crore instead of the current limit of Rs 5 lakh, which was fixed almost six decades ago. Congress member Manish Tewari opposed the introduction of the bill, saying the power to legislate with regard to cooperatives vests with state governments. RSP member N K Premachandran opposed amending five legislations through one bill, while TMC member Saugata Roy termed the bill "superfluous", saying the the amendments proposed in the bill could have been done through administrative decisions. Responding to opposition's remarks, <keyword id="19956758" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Minister" source="keywords">Finance Minister</keyword> Nirmala Sitharaman said the various amendments done in Banking Regulations Act with respect to <keyword id="20814377" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cooperative-banks" source="keywords">cooperative banks</keyword> are not just one or two but several. "Simple understanding is we are not touching any aspect of the cooperatives other than that which claims under the name of banking...the sections which have been brought in for amendments, as also the court verdicts, have repeatedly reinforced the point that Banking Regulation Act and the Cooperative Banks do have this relationship and therefore it has to be taken through this route," she said. Otherwise, there is no attempt to undermine the cooperatives, particularly cooperatives dealing with everything other than banks, she said defending the Bill. The bill proposes to increase the tenure of directors (excluding the chairman and whole-time director) in cooperative banks from 8 years to 10 years, so as to align with the Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. Once passed, the bill would allow a director of a Central Cooperative Bank to serve on the board of a State Cooperative Bank. The bill also seeks to give greater freedom to banks in deciding the remuneration to be paid to statutory auditors. It also seeks to redefine the reporting dates for banks for regulatory compliance to the 15th and last day of every month, instead of the second and fourth Fridays. "What's the rationale behind it? The current reporting Friday system has several limitations that impact the accuracy and effectiveness of the reporting of data. "These limitations are incomplete coverage of monthly data, seasonal fluctuations in banking activity which lead to inconsistent reporting, and the need for adjustment every 11th year which introduces complications and inconsistencies. That is why, in order to address the issue, it is proposed to amend the legislation," she said. The announcement about amendments to the Banking Regulation Act was made by the Finance Minister in the 2023-24 Budget speech. "To improve bank governance and enhance <keyword id="22728161" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="investors-protection" source="keywords">investors' protection</keyword>, certain amendments to the Banking Regulation Act, the Banking Companies Act and the Reserve Bank of India Act are proposed," she had said.

Bill to provide up to four nominees to a bank account introduced in Lok Sabha

The <keyword id="20449324" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Bill" source="keywords">Finance Bill</keyword> 2024 was passed by <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Sabha" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Lok Sabha">Lok Sabha</keyword> on Wednesday evening, with a few amendments moved by the government. Replying to the debate, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharman said the approach of the government has been to bring greater simplification of <keyword id="19987671" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tax" source="keywords">tax</keyword> laws and procedures and enable growth and employment in the country. She responded to points made by members. The Finance Minister clarified that in real estate, the roll over provisions have not been withdrawn and are applicable. She said if the capital gain in a property transaction is invested in buying another one or two properties up to a maximum value of Rs 10 crore, no capital gain tax is required to be paid on such profits. <keyword id="20619608" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="capital-gains" source="keywords">Capital gains</keyword> can also still be invested in bonds which are notified under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act up to a maximum of Rs 50 lakh annually and save on taxes. To give relief on budget proposals, Sitharaman also moved an amendment in the Finance Bill on the changes in the capital gains tax on <keyword id="20412285" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="property-transactions" source="keywords">property transactions</keyword>. The amendment implies that taxpayers can avail either a lower tax of 12.5% without indexation or a rate of 20% with indexation, if the property is acquired prior to July 23, 2024, the day union budget was presented in the Lok Sabha. Sitharaman clarified that taxpayers can compute taxes under both provisions and choose to pay tax under the scheme where lower tax is applied. Effectively, July 23, 2024, is now set as the cut-off date for the calculation of the capital gains versus the earlier cut-off of 2001. Sitharaman said she has proposed these amendments as some members have raised hypothetical calculation to prove that under new provisions taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes. The new tax proposals on capital gains tax was brought in to bring in parity among different asset classes like equities, mutual funds and real estate. In the Finance Bill introduced on July 23, the Finance Minister had proposed a flat long term capital gains tax of 12.5% with no <keyword id="943856" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="indexation-benefit" source="Orion">indexation benefit</keyword>s, prior to it property transactions used to be taxed at 20% with indexation benefit. The minister also clarified that the grandfathering proposal will be allowed only for individual and Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) taxpayers and not for companies and Non Resident Individuals. They have to pay flat 12.5% LTCG tax without indexation. The proposed amendment will apply not only on real estate transactions, but also on unlisted equity transactions, which are done before July 23, 2024. All such transactions will be taxed at 10% long term capital gains instead of FY24-25 budget provision of 12.5% tax. With the opposition members demanding removal of <keyword id="19951327" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="GST" source="keywords">GST</keyword> on health insurance, Sitharaman said tax was there on medical insurance even before GST was introduced. "There was already a Service Tax on medical insurance, before the GST was introduced. This is not a new tax, it was already there in all the states. Those protesting here, did they discuss regarding the removal of this tax in their states? Did they write to the Finance Ministers of their respective states about it and asked them to raise it in the GST Council where states have 2/3rd part? No, but they are protesting here. This is their double standards, this is their drama," she said. "Wrongful protests have happened recently, and comments have been passed on the basis of a news report which suggested that the 'Centre has pocketed Rs. 24,529 crores of health insurance premiums alone'. This is incorrect and highly misleading. The GST rate of 18% on health insurance comprises of 9% CGST and 9% SGST. Thus, of the total collections of Rs 24,529 crores from health insurance in the last 3 years, Half of it, Rs. 12,264 crores, went straight to the states as SGST. It doesn't even come to the Centre," she added. The minister said that apart from this, roughly 41%of the Centre's share of GST collection on health insurance is devolved back to the states again, as part of Tax Devolution as per the Finance Commission's formula. Sitharaman said the new income tax regime is simpler and offers lower income tax rates for individuals. "It gives flexibility to the taxpayer to see where he wants to put his money in the absence of exemptions which is available in the old income tax regime. The old regime has not been dissolved and is still an alternative to the new tax regime. It still offers benefits of various deductions such as interest on home loan, etc. Individuals without business income can choose between regimes once and can revert back too. Hence, a choice has been provided to assesse," she said. For the previous Assessment Year 2023-24 till December 31, 2023, about 3.8% of taxpayers opted for the new tax regime, which equates to 30.93 lakh individuals, from a total of 7.98 crore ITRs filed in the categories of ITR-1 to ITR-4, she said. "However, for the Assessment Year 2024-25 until July 31, 2024, there was a dramatic increase in adoption of the new regime, with approximately 72.8% of taxpayers choosing the new tax regime. This represents about 5.25 crore individuals, out of a total of 7.22 crore ITRs filed in the same category." Sitharaman said this shows a substantial shift in taxpayer preference towards the new tax regime, over the span of just one year. "Taxpayers opting for the new regime does not mean savings and investments are not happening in the economy by the middle-class. Due to growth in fintech, better awareness, and ease of investment due to UPI, e-KYC, progressive regulations, investments in mutual funds have increased tremendously. On an average, 17.88 lakh new folios have been added every month in the last 5 years since June 2019. The number of unique mutual fund investors has grown from under 1 crore in 2014 to about 4 crore today," she added. The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2024 was passed after amendments moved by opposition were negatived. Sitharaman said the vision of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been to establish a simple, efficient and fair technology-driven taxation regime in the country. "So, simplification and ease of compliance for the taxpayer has been the primary objective. In the last 10 years, and this year, in the third term of PM Modi, the approach to taxation has been to simplify it, reduce the burden on taxpayer and make sure it is transparent and equitable," she said. "This year also, our approach has been that we bring in greater simplification of tax laws and procedures, and that we enable growth and employment in this country," she added. Sitharaman presented the Union Budget in Parliament on July 23. This is the first full budget of the NDA government led by PM Modi. The BJP-led alliance won a third successive term earlier this year. The Lok Sabha took up discussion on the Finance Bill after the Appropriation Bill for the central government's expenditure for 2024-25 was passed by the House on Monday. The Finance Bill will now be discussed by Rajya Sabha. The passage of bill will complete the budget process.

Lok Sabha passes Finance Bill, provision on LTCG tax on property transactions amended

The <keyword id="19900449" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="government" source="keywords">government</keyword> may relax the requirement of making payments to <keyword id="19910977" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="MSMEs" source="keywords">MSMEs</keyword> within 45 days of buying goods and services, to prevent large corporates from looking at other sourcing avenues, sources have noted. An announcement to this effect could be made in the Budget likely to be presented on July 23. The government is considering suggestions regarding changes to Section 43B(h) of the <keyword id="19936187" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Income-Tax-Act" source="keywords">Income Tax Act</keyword> made by MSMEs during pre-budget consultations, sources said. The government, in last year's budget added a new clause under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act to address the challenge of delayed payments faced by MSMEs in the country. According to Section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, introduced through the Finance Act 2023, if a larger company does not pay an <keyword id="19990810" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="MSME" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="MSME" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="MSME">MSME</keyword> on time -- within 45 days in case of written agreement -- it cannot deduct that expense from its taxable income, leading to potentially higher taxes. MSMEs fear that due to this provision, large buyers could cold-shoulder MSME suppliers and start buying either from those MSMEs that are not registered with Udyam or from non-MSMEs. The amendment was brought in for MSMEs to get timely payment, but a lot of concerns were raised by them, sources said, adding that they feared that large corporate, in bid to safeguard their interest, can shift their sourcing requirement to bigger firms or ask their vendors to give up their MSME registration to do business with them. Earlier in May, Finance Minister <keyword id="19916618" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nirmala-sitharaman" source="keywords">Nirmala Sitharaman</keyword> had said the changes, if any, to the rule will have to be done in the full Budget in July under the new government as per the representations submitted by MSMEs. The MSME sector accounts for 30% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) and the second largest employer after agriculture. The share of <keyword id="35090" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Exports" source="Orion">exports</keyword> from products specified for MSMEs constituted 45.56 % of the country's total exports.

Govt may relax 45-day payment rule for MSMEs in Budget 2024

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A Black Workday employee sued the company, claiming race and disability discrimination.</li><li>Workday sent police to his home while he was in the hospital.</li></ul>A Black <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hr-software-tech-companies-employees-productivity-workday-oracle-adp-2024-8">Workday</a> employee filed a race and disability discrimination lawsuit against his employer after it sent police to his house for a "wellness check" while he was being treated at a hospital and had requested medical leave.Anthony Hill, a senior legal counsel at Workday, who is Black and on leave from the company, filed the lawsuit against the company in the Northern District of California's court in December 2023. The case is still ongoing.In June, the case was dismissed without prejudice because the court ruled that Hill had not adequately pleaded that California law should apply extraterritorially. Workday is based in California, while Hill is based in Maryland. Hill has filed an amended complaint, which Workday has moved to dismiss. Court-mediated settlement negotiations last month were unsuccessful.Hill alleges that he was on medical leave from October 12, 2022, to November 22, 2022.Leading up to his leave, Hill said he started drinking more as he faced more stress. On October 12, 2022, he went to the hospital due to "stress, exhaustion, and trauma associated with this and other disparate, discriminatory, retaliatory, harassing and hostile treatment of him" by other Workday employees, the lawsuit said.That day, Hill emailed his manager to inform her that he was having a medical emergency and going to the hospital. He also sent a completed leave request form and said he would file the required <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-pregnant-workers-parental-maternity-leave-can-be-laid-off-2023-3">Family and Medical Leave Act</a> paperwork soon.The following day, his manager replied with information about FMLA and said, "Please don't worry about work and focus on feeling better."On October 20, 2022, while he was still at the hospital, Workday sent police to his house for a "wellness check."According to a police report about the incident, a safety and security manager at Workday called the police for a welfare check on Hill because the company was unable to contact Hill or his wife, his emergency contact. The police spoke with Hill's wife, who confirmed that Hill was in medical treatment, the report said.Hill told Business Insider that he did not receive any records, calls or emails from Workday after the last email from his manager on October 13 and before the incident.At the hospital, Hill couldn't use his cellphone, so a member of the rehabilitation center staff informed Hill about this and allowed him to call his wife. Hill said when he heard about this, he felt like he "was going to have a heart attack," and his wife, who was home at the time, was "rattled" about the incident.The police department of Montgomery County, where the wellness check took place, declined to comment as it is not involved in the lawsuit."There's nothing they would've thought cops with guns could solve on October 20 that doctors with stethoscopes could not have solved," Hill told BI.Workday declined to comment on this report.FMLA guarantees eligible employees of covered employers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid medical or family leave in a year. The employee must make it clear they need to take leave for FMLA reasons, while the employer should let the employee know they qualify for medical leave and provide the paperwork for the employee to complete.The Department of Labor requires that employers give employees 15 calendar days to provide their complete medical certification under FMLA.Hill said he was initially worried about complying with the FMLA when he was admitted to the hospital because he had not finished the paperwork at the time, but the staff told him of this legal protection, and he said the hospital provided the FMLA paperwork within 15 days.Hill filed an EEOC charge against Workday in April 2023. In August 2023, he first filed a lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.<h2 id="4f3f4d72-e4f6-4265-82fc-03ca97b5fe9d">Returning from medical leave</h2>A few months after returning from leave, Hill asked Workday's HR department in March 2023 for more information on the wellness check. The staff declined to provide him with information or documentation about it."They won't tell me anything. Did they think it was an emergency? Did they think I was in danger?" Hill said."Did they think I was going to hurt someone? Why did they send police to my house and endanger my wife and kids?"While Workday may have been trying to contact Hill to finish his FMLA paperwork, it's uncommon to send police to an employee's house for a wellness check, said Cassie Lenning, partner at Outten and Golden, a law firm that represents tech employees and is not involved in the lawsuit.If an employee had mental health issues that the employer was aware of, that could be a situation where an employer may send someone for a wellness check, Lenning said."Even in that circumstance, why wouldn't they send someone from the office as opposed to the police? There's still a level of escalation in calling the police, well-intentioned or not," Lenning said. "I question the judgment of someone who would send police to the home of a Black man. There are racial implications that are being ignored."Hill said after he went back to work, he received "awful treatment," such as receiving more pushback at work and getting left out of meeting invites. He said he had a modified schedule where he worked half-time.In January 2023, he reported to HR about his racial and disability discrimination claims at the company and asked to be transferred to a different group at work. The company's HR staff investigated the case and then closed it in March, concluding that his claims "lacked merit," the lawsuit said.<h2 id="c07eb502-03de-4d81-968b-8ee1f7197d20">Other claims of work discrimination</h2>Hill has worked at Workday since January 2021. Leading up to his leave, he said he had been seeking a promotion but had been denied one. When he asked his manager for one, he was told he had to put together and submit a document on his accomplishments."That's a hurdle my non-Black colleagues didn't have to overcome," Hill said.Later, he said he started getting more pushback in his work, such as when he enforced policies around limiting gift-giving to federal officials that the company wanted him to sign off on. According to the lawsuit, Hill also said a colleague told him during a meeting, "Everybody knows you don't want to work, Anthony," and doubled down on his work ethic and professional reputation. Hill told his manager that the incident "appeared racist.""It was quite clear to me they were setting me up to fail," Hill said.In March 2023, Hill was put on paid administrative suspension for five weeks. In May 2023, Hill went on approved disability and medical leave, although he said he was denied long-term disability leave."Without a doubt, I was retaliated against over and over again," Hill said.Workday is also facing a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/eeoc-says-workday-covered-by-anti-bias-laws-ai-discrimination-case-2024-04-11/">class action lawsuit</a> claiming its AI software for employers screens out job applicants for discriminatory reasons.In 2020, after the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black people at the hands of police, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-executives-racism-diversity-black-lives-matter-protests-2020-6">several tech companies</a> shared statements taking a stand against racism. These promises have led to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-tech-diversity-dei-change-years-george-floyd-protests-2022-6">little action</a> to improve diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging at tech companies.Got a tip? Contact this reporter via email at <a target="_blank" href="mailto:rmchan@businessinsider.com">rmchan@businessinsider.com</a>, Signal at rosal.13, or Telegram at @rosaliechan. (PR pitches by email only, please.) Other types of secure messaging available upon request.

A Black Workday employee sued the company after it sent police to his home for a 'wellness check' 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Many companies are introducing return-to-office mandates, and not all employees are happy with them.</li><li>Companies requiring 5-day RTO will lose valuable employees, says Craig Levey, an employment lawyer.</li></ul>This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Craig Levey, an employment law attorney and partner at Bennett &amp; Belfort, P.C., a law firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The following has been edited for length and clarity.Companies want their employees to be productive, and they generally have the right to introduce policies that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-requiring-return-to-office-rto-mandate">mandate returning to the office</a> five days per week.In some businesses, employees can be productive remotely, but I truly believe in others, they do need to be in the office. Personally, I think <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/pros-of-hybrid-work-why-it-could-be-best-scenario-2023-10">hybrid is the perfect balance</a>, with employees working in the office three to four days a week and being remote one to two days per week.I think every company that mandates five days per week in office is going to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ravin-jesuthasan-why-companies-enforce-rto-mandates-future-of-work-2024-8">lose some very valuable employees</a>, which will be a blow to them.Ultimately, an employee whose company implements a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-ceo-return-to-office-mandate-5-days-week-2024-9">five-day RTO policy</a> will have to decide: Am I going to return to the office five days per week as required, or am I not?<h2 id="1e6a75e7-2928-421f-b032-7e66cdd4c43c">Here are the steps I'd take if a client came to me about their company switching to a five-day RTO policy:</h2><h3 id="55023514-e6e1-4d10-84ad-451fcd33d232">1. Look at your employment contract</h3>First, I would look at their employment agreement to see whether it was represented to them that they could work hybrid or remote. Although the company can change their policy, the employee could go back to their supervisor and say, "Hey, our agreement was that I'm going to be working remote or hybrid."Well-written employment agreements will include a clause providing the employer with the flexibility the amend any and all terms. But if you have some leverage, you can <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-i-negotiated-flexible-work-schedule-with-my-boss-2020-12">negotiate into your employment agreement</a> that you're going to be working remote or hybrid.The typical 9-to-5 hourly minimum wage employee doesn't have a ton of leverage, but the higher up you get, you can negotiate for that. We saw that recently with the new Starbucks CEO, who will be mainly <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-ceo-wont-tell-employees-days-to-work-in-office-2024-9">working remotely from Newport Beach</a> rather than relocating to Seattle.<h3 id="e21df687-b0ea-41e1-a5cf-b63acd72da93">2. Consider your legal protections</h3>Next, I would help them assess if there are <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/employee-return-to-office-mandates-no-legal-recourse-employer-2024-9">any legitimate legal avenues</a> to take. Do you have a disability that requires an accommodation? Are there certain leave requirements under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that you're entitled to?If employees meet the requirements of certain laws — whether it's parental leave laws, pregnancy laws, or other similar laws — then they can use those laws regardless of an RTO policy. But if they don't meet the requirements and are using that as a tool to try to defeat the RTO policy, that's a bad idea.When an employee has a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/return-to-office-mandate-doctor-prescribed-accomodation-2024-9">documented disability</a> covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the company has to deal with that employee a little bit differently. They may have a policy that says employees have to be in the office five days a week, but when an employee with a disability contacts the company and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-ask-for-health-accommodations-remote-work-flexible-hours-2022-8">requests an accommodation</a>, the employer can't simply just say no.The company needs to engage in an <a target="_blank" href="https://askjan.org/topics/interactive.cfm">interactive process</a> to assess whether it can grant the accommodation because it's reasonable, or if it'll deny it because it's an undue burden on the business.Lawsuits happen all the time involving employees who feel like their companies have violated the law by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-worker-disability-sues-after-elon-musks-remote-work-change-2022-11">not granting a reasonable accommodation</a>. If you feel you've been discriminated against because of your disability, you can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or with your state agency. You could also file a lawsuit in court.The plaintiff — usually the employee — would ultimately have the burden of proof, but if they can demonstrate that it's a reasonable accommodation, the company would need to set forth evidence as to why it was a burden. For example, let's say a person works in Amazon's customer service and they're on the phone the entire time. If they have a documented disability and ask to work remotely over the phone, it might be difficult for the company to prove that it's a true burden on the company to allow them to work from home doing the exact same things.Sometimes, employees' requests are unreasonable because they're going to cost a ton of money or they're just not something that a company is required to do. Ultimately, it comes down to the facts of the case.<h3 id="4789e1f1-22bc-4ed2-b3e6-8c009e611b10">3. Speak with your supervisor</h3>If you find yourself in a situation where you either have to return to the office or not — and in that case, effectively resign — and you're debating resigning, I think it makes sense to have a heart-to-heart conversation with your supervisor, explain you're fully capable of performing your duties remotely, and ask about a hybrid agreement.That may not get you very far, but if you're at that point of potentially leaving the company anyway, it doesn't hurt to try to work out some sort of agreement.<h3 id="3c876e4c-7440-4d3a-abfc-21f58c036893">4. Apply for unemployment</h3>In many instances, if the employee doesn't return to work, they'll be deemed to have abandoned their job, which can have implications for unemployment benefits: Is it a termination or is it a resignation? The company's going to say you're effectively resigning because returning to office is a duty of your job.Each state has different rules and laws around unemployment, and you can run the risk of potentially not getting unemployment benefits if you've resigned from the job because you haven't returned to the office.Still, I would recommend that you <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-file-for-unemployment-benefits-2020-3">apply for unemployment benefits</a> because other than your time, there isn't a lot to lose — you're either denied or approved. It really depends on the state you're in and who's assessing your claim, but I don't think it hurts to apply.<h2 id="cf51b9c0-dcd6-4910-bda5-dacd99bf110a">The shift back to in-office work may have an interesting outcome</h2>I wouldn't be surprised if, in one to two years, we see more in-office work. Companies that are mandating five days a week will inevitably result in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rto-amazon-relocate-remote-work2024-8">a lot of employees leaving</a> because they just don't want to do that.It'll be interesting to see what the outcome of this will be. There'll be a subsection of these employees that find remote work, but beyond that, I think it'll result in more entrepreneurs and people doing social media because if these employees can't find <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/return-to-office-hybrid-work-model-quit-jobs-2023-8">the remote lifestyle</a> that they want, they're going to just create their own business opportunities.If your company implemented a return-to-office policy and you'd like to share your experience, email Jane Zhang at <a target="_blank" href="mailto:janezhang@businessinsider.com">janezhang@businessinsider.com</a>.

4 steps workers should take when their companies announce 5-day RTO, according to an employment lawyer

<ul><li>The Companies Amendment Bill was approved by the Cabinet, said that any amount left unspent should be transferred to a special account called the ‘Unspent Corporate Social Responsibility Account’. </li><li>Government will be taking over the money they are asked to spend, and transferred to its own fund. </li><li>Indian companies are known to spend as much as ₹15,000 crore<a href="https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/companies-will-have-to-pay-unused-csr-money-into-state-corpus/amp-1563381925491.html?__twitter_impression=true"> annually on</a> corporate social responsibility. </li></ul> It is common for most companies to miss out on fulfilling the government mandate to spend a certain amount of funds on social activities. And, soon government will be taking over the money they are asked to spend, and transfer to its own fund, as per the amendments to the <keyword id="1850989" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Companies-Act-2013">Companies Act 2013</keyword>, approved by the Cabinet. Most companies, <a href="https://thewire.in/business/one-in-three-bse-100-firms-falls-short-in-mandatory-csr-spending">including publicly listed </a>companies take the 2013 mandate of the government casually. As per the norm, companies with a net profit of over ₹5 crore or revenues of ₹1,000 crore or net worth of ₹500 crore; should spend 2% on their profits on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Six years on, few companies take it seriously though most top companies like Reliance Industries, L&amp;T and all public sector companies do take the efforts to ensure money flows to the right causes. Those who spend regularly tend to focus on education, rural development and healthcare. The Companies Bill amendments say that any amount left unspent should be transferred to a special account called the ‘Unspent Corporate Social Responsibility Account’. “Such amount shall be spent by the company in pursuance of its Corporate Social Responsibility Policy within a period of three financial years from the date of such transfer,” the draft amendment said. Indian companies are known to spend as much as ₹15,000 crore<a href="https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/companies-will-have-to-pay-unused-csr-money-into-state-corpus/amp-1563381925491.html?__twitter_impression=true"> annually on</a> corporate social responsibility.

Indian companies will have to hand over the unspent money in the social responsibility fund to the government

The <keyword id="19899810" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reserve-bank-of-india" source="keywords">Reserve Bank of India</keyword> (<keyword id="19899808" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rbi" source="keywords">RBI</keyword>) has approved <keyword id="19895995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="hdfc-bank" source="keywords">HDFC Bank</keyword>'s proposal to acquire an up to 9.5% stake in <keyword id="19901053" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="indusind-bank" source="keywords">IndusInd Bank</keyword>. "Pursuant to Regulation 30 of the <keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> Listing Regulations, we would like to inform you that the Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated February 5, 2024 has accorded its approval to HDFC Bank Limited ("applicant") for acquiring "aggregate holding" of up to 9.50% of the paid-up share capital or voting rights in IndusInd Bank Limited. The aforesaid RBI approval has been granted with reference to the application made by the applicant to the RBI," IndusInd Bank said in a stock exchange filing. The approval also stipulates that if the "aggregate holding" of HDFC Bank falls below 5%, prior approval of the RBI will be required to increase it to 5% or more of the paid-up share capital or voting rights. The RBI approval is subject to compliance with the <keyword id="19976511" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="banking-regulation-act" source="keywords">Banking Regulation Act</keyword>, 1949, RBI's Master Direction and Guidelines on Acquisition and Holding of Shares or Voting Rights in Banking Companies dated January 16, 2023 (as amended), provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, regulations by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and other applicable statutes, regulations, and guidelines, the filing noted. --IANS sps/dpb

HDFC gets RBI nod to acquire 9.5% stake in IndusInd Bank

New Delhi, <keyword id="47209" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="finance-ministry" source="Orion">Finance Ministry</keyword> would consider capital infusion in three loss-making public sector general insurance companies based on their financial performance of nine months. The infusion if required would be made in the fourth quarter of the current financial year, sources said. According to sources, the finance ministry last year asked three insurers -- National Insurance Company Limited, <keyword id="94451" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="oriental-insurance-company-limited" source="Orion">Oriental Insurance Company Limited</keyword> and <keyword id="356117" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="united-india-insurance-company" source="Orion">United India Insurance Company</keyword> -- to chase bottomlines rather than topline and underwrite only good proposals. The financial review would give some idea about the impact of restructuring initiated on the profitability numbers and the solvency margin, sources said. The solvency margin is the extra capital the companies must hold over and above the claim amounts they are likely to incur. It acts as a financial backup in extreme situations, enabling the company to settle all claims. The government last year provided Rs 5,000 crore capital to three insurers -- National Insurance Company Limited, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and United India Insurance Company. Kolkata-based National Insurance Company Limited was given the highest, Rs 3,700 crore, followed by Delhi-based Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Rs 1,200 crore) and Chennai-based United India Insurance Company (Rs 100 crore). According to sources these companies have been asked to improve their solvency ratio and meet the regulatory requirement of 150 per cent. The solvency ratio is a measure of capital adequacy. A higher ratio reflects better financial health and the ability of the company to pay claims and meet future contingencies and business growth plans. Barring the solvency ratio of <keyword id="6369780" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="new-india-assurance" source="Orion">New India Assurance</keyword>, this key indicator of the three public sector general insurance companies stood below the regulatory requirement of 150 per cent. During 2019-20, the government infused Rs 2,500 crore in these three companies. It increased substantially to Rs 9,950 crore in the following year and Rs 5,000 crore in 2021-22. In all, the government infused Rs 17,450 crore into these insurance firms so far to improve their financial health. Public sector general insurance companies are undergoing various reforms, including organisational restructuring, product rationalisation, cost rationalisation and digitalisation. For efficient use of capital and to push profitable growth, the sources said, a set of key performance indicators linked reforms have been initiated by all public sector general insurance companies effective 2020-21, when the maximum capital infusion was made. Of the four state-run general insurance companies only New India Assurance Company is listed on the stock exchanges, the remaining three are wholly owned by the government. The government has already announced its intention to privatise one general insurance company. To facilitate privatisation, Parliament has already approved amendments to the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act (GIBNA). Finance Minister <keyword id="129243" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nirmala-sitharaman" source="Orion">Nirmala Sitharaman</keyword> in the Budget 2021-22 announced a big-ticket privatisation agenda, which included two public sector banks and one general insurance company. "We propose to take up the privatisation of two public sector Banks and one general insurance company in the year 2021-22. This would require legislative amendments," she had said.

Govt may infuse capital in PSU general insurers in Q4 based on performance

If only Boeing’s problems were just about a nightmare flight — a screw loose, a blown-out door plug, and 177 people who will probably need therapy for the rest of their lives. But as the iconic American plane manufacturer tries to make amends for the disastrous Alaska Airlines flight in January, it’s become clear that Boeing’s problems run far deeper. They expose decades of American corporate philosophy gone awry. Boeing is a quintessential example of America’s rotting business culture over the past 40 years. The company relentlessly disgorged cash to shareholders when it could’ve spent it on building a better (and safer) product. Investments that could’ve benefited employees, communities, and other corporate stakeholders were often sacrificed at the altar of efficiency and free cash flow. Boeing focused on pleasing Wall Street because that’s how American executives believe companies should operate.“The people who are at the top are there for a reason, and it’s basically to maximize shareholder value,” the University of Massachusetts economist William Lazonick told me. “It’s so ingrained in their thinking they don’t understand the problem itself. It’s built into the structure of these companies.”Simply changing CEOs or hiring more engineers won’t make Boeing’s problems go away. The company needs to rethink its very reason for existing and what it should provide to society as an enterprise. A good American company isn’t just a vehicle for financial returns; it is first and foremost an employer, a contributor to economic and/or technological innovation, and a source of US power. Whether the recent disasters shake Boeing out of its somnambulance remains unclear. It’s also questionable whether other major companies with a similar maximize-shareholder-value-at-all-costs ethos will learn from the mistakes. But it’s clear that what Boeing — and the entire American corporate body politic — needs is nothing short of a philosophical counterrevolution. There was a time when pilots had stickers on their bags that said, “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going.” Founded in 1916, the manufacturer helped the US launch NASA and win World War II. For decades it was the pinnacle of American engineering. “Boeing was America’s crown jewel,” William McGee, a journalist, advocate, and aviation-industry old hand, told me. “It was one of the most important and impressive companies in the US.”This started to change in the late 1980s when T.A. Wilson, the last Boeing CEO with an engineering background, was replaced by Frank Shrontz, an attorney and businessman. The choice was a signal to Wall Street that engineering excesses would be curbed in favor of cost discipline and investor rewards. Lazonick’s research indicates that from 1998 to 2018, Boeing did $61 billion worth of share buybacks to pump its stock price and paid out $29.3 billion in dividends. Over these three decades of plenty for Boeing’s shareholders, the company’s staff was asked to penny-pinch. An investigation into battery fires on Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner in 2013 found that it wasn’t allowing engineers to stress test its products enough, that it wasn’t catching manufacturing defects, and that passengers could be in danger as a result. But he finance guys loved Boeing’s new focus, and the C-suite — which receives the lion's share of its compensation in stock — loved it too. In the first quarter of 2019, Boeing announced a $2.7 billion stock buyback, and the market rewarded the company with an all-time-high share price of $426.76. But later that year, it all fell apart. The 737 Max 8 was supposed to be the most efficient, cost-effective, environmentally friendly narrowbody on the market. Instead, the plane exposed the rot at the core of the company’s culture. In his book “Flying Blind: The 737 Max Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing,” the journalist Peter Robison wrote that when the new model was being built, managers asked for a detailed accounting of every test flight and talked frequently about how any change had to “buy its way onto the airplane.” A manager lamented to one of Robison’s sources that people would “have to die” before Boeing made changes to the aircraft. And so they did: Two crashes — which were the result of the company’s attempt to work around a technical failure — claimed the lives of more than 300 people and grounded the 737 Max 8 for about 20 months. Boeing’s stock cratered, and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-set-to-break-order-records-beat-boeing-fifth-year-in-a-row-2023-12">France’s Airbus</a>, a rival once colloquially known as “Scare Bus,” started to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-struggling-outsider-beating-boeing-737-max-a320neo-2024-1">eat the American company’s lunch</a>. Executives promised to fix the problems that plagued the 737 Max 8, but the recent Alaska Airlines Max 9 mess has returned the focus to Boeing’s communication, supply chain, and overall quality-control failures. In Boeing’s quarterly earnings call at the end of January, President and CEO Dave Calhoun (who was hired after the previous 737 Max disaster) promised more of a focus on quality and encouraged employees to speak up about issues on the factory floor. “Since day one, we’ve been focused on inculcating safety and quality to everything that we do,” he said, “and getting back to our legacy of getting engineering excellence back at the center of our business.”To many talking-head Wall Street analysts and TV stock influencers, Calhoun’s comments were enough. Sure, this is a rough period for the company, but Boeing would be fine. Buy the dip. Others in the aviation industry aren’t so sure. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, one of Boeing’s customers, called the Max 9 fiasco “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” He expressed frustration at Boeing’s seemingly constant blunders and its nearly five-year delay in the delivery of the Max 10 (which hasn’t been certified by the Federal Aviation Administration). “We’re going to at least build a plan that doesn’t have the Max 10 in it,” he told CNBC. Rather than a blip on the radar, this should be a come-to-Jesus moment for Boeing — a moment when it puts engineering back at the center of its culture. Some have argued that Boeing’s problems go back further and are bigger than the recent quality issues. But the problems are the result of something even bigger than Boeing. The transition from an obsession with engineering to an obsession with financial engineering at Boeing, Lazonick told me, wasn’t just the case of one company suddenly changing strategy; it “reflected what was going on in the US.”Until the 1970s, he says, corporations were generally considered parts of a community with responsibilities to a plethora of stakeholders: the employees who work for them, the communities that house them, the customers who pay for their products.But then the US stock market flatlined, and the economy was in the doldrums, so Wall Street and Washington decided that the way American companies did business needed a shake-up. This wasn’t a simple tweak around the edges — refining regulations and adding a few new roles to executive teams — it was about an ideological full-court press to change American corporate culture.At the root of this shake-up was the influence of the economist Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago. In Friedman’s view, humans are selfish and look out for their own interests by nature. He argued that meant a company would see its social responsibility as being to its shareholders and its shareholders alone. One of Friedman’s disciples, the economist Michael Jensen, took the theory a step further in 1976 and argued that the corporation should be built to serve the interests of shareholders. Soon the two economists’ ideas were finding acolytes at business schools, think tanks, and congressional offices around the country. Jensen in particular pushed for CEOs to be paid in stock, arguing that they were being paid like bureaucrats and needed their compensation to be more in line with performance. This incentivized CEOs to maximize profits for shareholders. It’s probably no surprise that CEO pay increased by 1,322% from 1978 to 2020.The ideas also started to permeate Washington. Rule changes had allowed companies to repurchase their own shares, a practice that was previously considered stock manipulation and a general waste of capital that should be reinvested in the company. It also opened the door for Wall Street’s corporate raiders to pressure management to buy back stock to juice the price. Money that could have been spent investing in workers or products instead went straight to investors. By the 1990s, nary a thought was given to whether efficiency was enough of a reason to send jobs overseas. There was no time for that while politicians were busy talking about how America should be <a target="_blank" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/10/the-roaring-nineties/302604/">run as a business</a>.The CEO who best personified this ideology was Jack Welch, who helmed General Electric from 1981 to 2001. During his tenure, he was celebrated as one of America’s great CEOs for putting shareholder primacy into practice. He sliced costs for the things that had made the company innovative — like research, development, and quality control — and siphoned them off to shareholders in the form of buybacks and dividend payments. Wall Street rewarded his mentality richly, GE’s stock peaked at $318.26 in 2000, and Welch’s disciples at GE spread out all over corporate America. But a corporation can run on past innovation only for so long. In 2018, after over 100 years of prestige, GE was dropped from the Dow Jones Industrial Average because of the work Welch did to hollow it out. During the first few years of his tenure he fired a quarter of the company and continued to fire 10% of the workforce annually thereafter. He was such a fan of sending factories abroad — to American unions’ ire — that he infamously said, ''Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge.'' GE was stripped to free up cash for shareholders time and time again — one of those, of course, being Welch. Even after he left the company, his pay package was so avaricious that the Securities and Exchange Commission fined GE in 2004 for failing to disclose its magnitude. The problem with playing Wall Street’s game is that you have to keep playing forever, and the efficiency doctrine has diminishing returns.“The ones where the most value is being extracted are the ones that were the most innovative in the past,” Lazonick told me, “but then they go into decline.” <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-baby-boomers-became-the-most-selfish-generation-2016-11">An entire generation</a> of politicians and executives preached the doctrine of efficiency in the name of maximizing profits for shareholders, and we’ve seen the results: stagnant wages, massive inequality, legislators captured by industry lobbyists, and companies that coast on past innovation and financialization because it’s easier than investing in something new.As Boeing has been forced to reckon with the corporate culture it developed over the past 40 years, corporate America has been forced to face the long-term cost of its obsession with shareholder primacy and efficiency. We’ve lost a sense of balancing stakeholder interests. Not every company is as rich as, for example, Meta, which has been able to invest $50 billion in Reality Labs (the “metaverse”) since 2020 and still buy <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-zuckerberg-dividend-stock-buyback-growth-shareholder-returns-buffett-berkshire-2024-2">back its own stock at its highs</a>. Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank has projected that across the S&amp;P 500 buybacks will surge to $1 trillion in 2024. Surely not all of these companies occupy the same reality — virtual, financial, or otherwise. Besides, part of Wall Street’s good vibes for Meta stem from the fact that the company has <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-layoffs-office-closures-stock-price-mark-zuckerberg-earnings-2024-2">cut 22% of its workforce</a> over the past year. In an economy where taxpayers kept some businesses afloat through the pandemic, widespread layoffs in the name of efficiency and shareholder value will hit a nerve that has been irritated for years now. Americans — whether they’re shareholders are not — have started to notice their contributions to the corporations as workers and taxpayers are being taken for granted, and they’re naturally angry. The populism that has taken over our political discourse is anger over inequality harnessed for political action. In response, executives have offered only lip service. In 2019, the Business Roundtable, an advocacy group formed in the 1970s for corporations, read the populist <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-short-termism-saps-the-economy-1475018087">tea leaves</a> and published a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans">statement</a> that said the purpose of a corporation was to serve all stakeholders, “<a target="_blank" href="https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/">customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders</a>.” The problem is it’s hard to see how corporate behavior has actually changed since then. Look at General Motors. Right now, the company is trying to keep up in a global race to electrify the car industry. If there was any time to focus on productive investments over shareholders’ wallets, this would be it. When the United Auto Workers union went on strike in September, CEO Mary Barra <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-gms-10-billion-buyback-may-ice-its-ev-transition">warned workers</a> that it would cost the company money that should be invested in that transition. But in November, after the strike, she announced a $10 billion stock buyback, the company's largest share-repurchase plan and a larger sum <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-buy-back-10-billion-shares-cut-cruise-spending-2023-11-29/">than it gave its workers</a>. The size of the buybacks is even more staggering when you consider that the company promised to spend $35 billion total on developing EVs from 2020 to 2025. Companies like GM and Boeing are crucial to the American economy. Their success keeps people employed and enriches communities, which is good for society. Maintaining and growing these iconic companies is a long-term business, but the people who run the business are motivated to play a short-term game.“Boeing is vital, but we don’t treat it like it’s vital,” McGee said. “We treat it like a casino.”There are ways to change all of this, as Lazonick outlines in his 2023 book “Investing in Innovation.” Companies could decouple executive pay from stock prices or change the composition of boards to include employees. But more fundamentally, it will take a total rethink of America’s corporate incentive structure. Instead of favoring shareholders and playing a quarterly game with Wall Street, C-suites should prioritize sustainable, long-term businesses that employ as many productive workers as possible. This means companies won’t suddenly fall out of the sky when the economy sours or their products start to give way for lack of investment. In Boeing’s case, that could mean bringing suppliers closer to home, investing in more layers of quality control, and allowing more time for testing and research. It could mean a more expensive, more redundant company, but a better one. The first step is believing that the state of Boeing is not a natural one — that it can be changed with conscious effort. We just have to choose a better way.<a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/linette-lopez">Linette Lopez</a> is a senior correspondent at Business Insider.

Boeing lost its way. Other companies should take heed.

The government is expected to propose amendments to the competition law after taking into consideration various suggestions of a Parliamentary panel, in the upcoming <keyword id="105431" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Budget-session" source="Orion">Budget session</keyword> of <keyword id="6354721" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="parliament" source="Orion">Parliament</keyword>, according to a senior official. Besides, discussions are going on with respect to amendments to the <keyword id="6354456" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code" source="Orion">Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code</keyword> (<keyword id="192838" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="ibc" source="Orion">IBC</keyword>) as well as the Companies Act, 2013. The official also said that the corporate affairs ministry is examining a Parliamentary panel's suggestions for having a new digital competition law. The ministry is implementing the Competition Act, IBC and the Companies Act, and amendments to these laws are expected this year. A bill to amend the competition law was introduced in Parliament on August 5 last year and was later referred to the <keyword id="403206" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="parliamentary-standing-committee-on-finance" source="Orion">Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance</keyword>. The panel tabled its report on December 13 last year and the ministry will now be coming up with an amendment bill after taking into consideration various recommendations of the committee. The senior official said the bill to amend the competition law is expected in the <keyword id="6358021" type="General" weightage="70" keywordseo="budget" source="Orion">Budget</keyword> session of Parliament. The introduction of a 'Settlement and Commitment framework to reduce litigations' and incentivising parties in an ongoing cartel investigation in terms of lesser penalty to disclose information regarding other cartels were among the proposals in the bill that was introduced in August last year. In its report, the Parliamentary panel recommended various changes to the bill to amend the competition law, including bringing cartels under the scope of settlements as a "pragmatic recourse". The Budget session of Parliament will commence on January 31 with President <keyword id="2848422" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="droupadi-murmu" source="Orion">Droupadi Murmu</keyword>'s address to the joint sitting of <keyword id="6355187" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="lok-sabha" source="Orion">Lok Sabha</keyword> and <keyword id="48510" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="rajya-sabha" source="Orion">Rajya Sabha</keyword>. The session will have 27 sittings and will continue till April 6 with a month-long recess to examine the budget papers. The first part of the session will conclude on February 14 and after a break, reconvene on March 12. In another report on 'Anti-Competitive Practices by Big Tech Companies', the Parliamentary panel, on December 22, proposed a new digital competition law, ex-ante regulations and the creation of a category of systemically important digital intermediaries to curb anti-competitive practices in the digital market. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/budget/news/i-belong-to-middle-class-understand-their-pressures-sitharaman-before-budget/articleshow/97031282.cms">I belong to middle class, understand their pressures: Sitharaman before Budget</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/over-5-4-lakh-housing-units-to-be-completed-across-top-7-cities-in-2023-anarock-report/articleshow/97029912.cms">Over 5.4 lakh housing units to be completed across top 7 cities in 2023: Anarock report</a>

Amendments to competition law likely in Budget session

New Delhi, Feb 1 () Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Saturday said the government plans to amend the Companies Act to decriminalise civil offences.
 In her second Budget presentation, the finance minister said tax harassment cannot be tolerated and added that wealth creators will be respected in the country.
 Taxpayer's charter will be part of statute, the finance minister added.
 She further said national security is top priority for this government. TEAM MBI RKL ANZ DRR

Companies Act to be amended to decriminalise civil offences: FM

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Trump's fraud-trial verdict targets his cash, NY business address, and Trump Organization control.</li><li>The verdict notes that Trump continued to commit fraud even while under investigation.</li></ul><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-civil-fraud-verdict-whats-in-judge-engorons-decision-2024-2#:~:text=Trump%2C%20his%20eldest%20sons%2C%20and,conscience%2C%22%20the%20judge%20wrote.">Donald Trump's fraud verdict</a> targets three things he values dearly: his cash, his New York business address, and the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-ny-fraud-verdict-could-kill-the-trump-organization-2023-12">Trump Organization</a> steering wheel.It'll take many months of appeals to get there. But if Friday's verdict is upheld, Trump must relinquish $355 million in ill-gotten gains, plus yet-tallied interest that could approach $100 million.He'll be barred for three years from running a New York business, borrowing from a New York-registered bank, and buying commercial property anywhere in the state.And a now-strengthened court-appointed monitor who, so far, no appeal effort has managed to dislodge, will continue to oversee Trump's finances.These penalties — his punishment for a decade of fraud-filled financial statements he sent to banks and insurers — did not sneak up on the GOP frontrunner.For the past five years, Trump has known he was going to be first probed, then sued, then put on trial for his financial frauds.He's known he's been watched since March 2019, when New York Attorney General <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-trumps-expert-witnesses-helping-case-2023-12">Letitia James</a> sent her first blizzard of subpoenas snowing down on his banks, accountants, and assessors.Yet Trump has spent these five years frauding like nobody's watching.He <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-trumps-expert-witnesses-helping-case-2023-12">d</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-must-write-check-to-ny-ag-letitia-james-2022-5">odged his subpoenas</a>. He continued inflating his worth in financial statements by as much as <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-net-worth-math-even-fuzzier-than-ny-last-alleged-2023-9">$3.6 billion a year</a>.And even while a court-installed independent monitor watched these past 14 months, he still hid a transfer of $40 million, state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron noted in Friday's verdict.The verdict ratchets back many penalties James sought. Trump's properties won't be <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-must-write-check-to-ny-ag-letitia-james-2022-5">plac</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-ruling-corporate-death-penalty-for-his-empire-experts-2023-9">ed under receivership and sold</a>, and he'll lose his Trump Organization steering wheel for three years rather than permanently.But Trump's persisting penchant for fraud, even under an investigatory microscope for five years — means he'll be watched far more closely now.Trump's monitor, the retired federal judge Barbara Jones — still in place despite his prior appeals — has for 14 months reviewed all of his company's financial disclosures to third parties after they were sent out.Now, as the verdict orders, "the Trump Organization shall be required to obtain prior approval — not, as things are now, subsequent review — from Judge Jones before submitting any financial disclosure to a third party, so that such disclosure may be reviewed beforehand for material misrepresentations."That means for at least the next three years, Jones will be checking the Trump Organization's math in advance.This includes every financial disclosure to a bank, insurer, or potential buyer of his properties. That's the paperwork for his many branding deals, licensing deals, and corporate tax returns.Jones will send any fuzzy math back for corrections. Meanwhile, Trump must continue, under the verdict, to give Jones 30 days' notice of any restructuring, refinancing, or selling of assets.Otherwise, as Engoron noted in his verdict, Trump, his company, and his sons, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-donald-trump-jr-penalties-fraud-trial-verdict-2024-2">Donald Trum</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-ruling-corporate-death-penalty-for-his-empire-experts-2023-9">p </a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-must-write-check-to-ny-ag-letitia-james-2022-5">Jr. and Eric Trump</a>, "are likely to continue their fraudulent ways."<h2>Knew he was being watched</h2>The AG's office believes Trump knew he was under investigation in March 2019. That's when the AG served her first fraud-probe subpoena, demanding records from Trump's favorite lender, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-victim-deutsche-bank-shuns-f-word-2023-11">Deutsche Bank</a>.Two months later, Trump's outside accountants, Mazars USA, got a subpoena. Cushman-Wakefield, Trump's go-to assessor, got one a month later. Trump Organization lawyers met with the AG's office regarding these subpoenas throughout summer 2019.Yet the following Halloween, the AG's office said, Trump still issued an intentionally inflated 2019 net-worth statement, claiming he was worth $6.1 billion, well over twice his actual worth. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-donald-trump-jr-penalties-fraud-trial-verdict-2024-2">Donald T</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-victim-deutsche-bank-shuns-f-word-2023-11">rump Jr.</a> and the then-Trump Org CFO <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-weisselberg-perjury-hardly-surprising-ny-says-2024-2">Allen Weisselberg certified the statement's accuracy</a>.Trump was still president in 2019 and otherwise occupied. But the judge found that Trump continued frauding over the next four years as a civilian, inflating his net worth in official banking documents even as the AG's investigation pressed forward.In 2020, more AG subpoenas snowed down. The Trump Organization got one. So did the company's leadership, from Trump on down to Patrick Birney, an assistant finance guy, trial evidence showed.Some fun 2020 deposition facts: responding to his subpoena, Birney memorably swore that Weisselberg, the Trump Org CFO, told him, "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-told-organization-executives-make-him-look-richer-each-year-2023-10">Donald likes to see it go up.</a>" And Weisselberg and Eric Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 500 times each in their subpoena-ordered depositions.Still, even as the AG's microscope focused ever tighter, the 2020 financial statement issued at year's end again more than doubled Trump's net worth, saying it was $4.7 billion rather than $2.2 billion, as officials say it was.In 2021, Trump kept at it, the AG argued, even as <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-weisselberg-perjury-hardly-surprising-ny-says-2024-2">Mazars publicly dropped Tr</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-accountants-quit-while-preparing-his-and-melanias-taxes-2022-2">ump</a> as a client and Weisselberg and the Trump Organization were indicted on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-org-tax-fraud-profits-well-exceed-16m-sentence-friday-2023-1#:~:text=Donald%20Trump's%20real%2Destate%20and,conviction%20on%20payroll%2Dtax%20fraud.">payroll-tax fraud</a> charges that a jury would convict on a year later."While the investigation was ongoing, defendants continued their efforts to actively conceal their fraud," state lawyers said <a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24429125-nyag-v-trump-ag-proposed-statements-of-fact-202401">in a filing last month</a>.That includes Trump "failing to turn over more than one million pages of documents" in defiance of an AG subpoena and "refusing to sit for testimony absent court order."On October 29, 2021 — AG microscope be damned — Trump claimed that he was worth $4.5 billion, nearly $2 billion higher than his actual worth. And <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-weisselberg-invoked-5th-amendment-rights-500-times-2022-1">Eric Trump </a>certified the claim as accurate."Defendants were aware of our investigation since the middle of March 2019," Andrew Amer, a lawyer for James, said in closings.But over the next three years, "they issued three more statements of financial condition with the fraud continuing, while they knew they were under investigation for this activity."<h2>Not his first fraud rodeo</h2>The AG's lawyers noted that it wasn't even Trump's first fraud rodeo.In previous years, Trump has settled allegations of fraud involving the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foundation-lawsuit-2-million-settlement-2019-11">Trump Foundation</a>, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reached-a-settlement-in-a-trump-university-case-2016-11">T</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foundation-lawsuit-2-million-settlement-2019-11">rump University,</a> and the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reached-a-settlement-in-a-trump-university-case-2016-11">2017 Inau</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-to-pay-750k-penalty-for-2017-inaugural-funds-corruption-2022-5">gural Committee</a>, Amer pointed out in closings.None of these legal exposures — nor the AG's fraud lawsuit — slowed him down.The same day James concluded her initial investigation and filed her massive <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foundation-lawsuit-2-million-settlement-2019-11">Trump fraud</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-letitia-james-civil-lawsuit-trump-family-business-2022-4"> l</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reached-a-settlement-in-a-trump-university-case-2016-11">awsuit</a>, on September 21, 2022, Trump incorporated "Trump Organization II" in what her office worried was an attempt to shift and protect assets.<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-trump-fraud-case-judge-arthur-engoron-bio-2023-10">Engoron,</a> at this point, had already been presiding over the AG's fraud investigation for two years, repeatedly ordering Trump defendants to stop defying her subpoenas for their testimony and documents.The judge quickly agreed with the AG's request for <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-trump-fraud-case-judge-arthur-engoron-bio-2023-10">an in</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-organization-judge-orders-watchdog-ny-attorney-general-case-2022-11">dependent monitor</a> to oversee the Trump Organization, citing Trump's "demonstrated propensity to engage in persistent fraud."<h2>Violations all over the place</h2>Since her appointment just over a year ago, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-fraud-trial-judge-saves-him-just-this-once-from-himself-2023-11">Jones has repeatedly criticized</a> the Trump Organization's transparency and its sometimes-suspect money transfers.Last August, she cited the company's "incomplete" data to lenders, accusing it of hiding in its reporting such liabilities as "refundable golf-club membership deposits."In November — mid-trial — Jones dinged the company for failing to immediately disclose $40 million in cash transfers, money she said Trump used to pay $29 million in taxes and a $5 million civil judgment in the first E. Jean Carroll defamation case."It shows an inability to follow the law," Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for the New York AG's office, said during last month's closings.And in January, Jones suggested that Trump hid an internal Trump Organization money transfer that amounts to a $48 million <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-48-million-loan-tax-evasion-special-monitor-report-2024-1">tax-free loan</a>."Even after the Independent Monitor was in place, defendants were still incapable of complying with Court orders," the AG's lawyers wrote last month."In short," they added, Trump and Trump Organization leadership "have proven themselves incapable, time and again, of following the law."<h2>But no outright fraud</h2>Trump's lawyers have said in his defense that any discrepancies or requests for additional data have been promptly cleared up and that Jones never made any allegations of outright fraud."The monitor has issued five reports so far," Christopher Kise, Trump's attorney, said in the fraud trial's closing arguments last month."The word fraud does not appear in any one of those reports," Kise said.But Jones is not authorized to accuse Trump of fraud, as she points out in her reports to the judge. She's just there to alert the court to anything suspicious. And there's been plenty of that.Trump "submitted disclosures to third parties that fail to include significant liabilities," the verdict said, referring to Jones' findings.Not only that, but "the internal accounting structure of the Trump Organization continues to be plagued by math and/or reporting errors," the verdict noted."There are no adequate internal controls over financial reporting in place at the Trump Organization to ensure that there will not continue to be misstatements and errors going forward."Until now.If Trump continues to fraud like nobody's watching, Jones and a yet-designated "Independent Director of Compliance" who will report to her can propose even more drastic oversight and punishment — whatever it takes "to keep defendants honest."That includes, under the verdict, "the restructuring and potential dissolution" of Trump's properties.And all this monitoring? That team of skeptical accountants with their noses in his books for at least the next three years? Trump will pay their salaries, on top of his $355 million verdict, plus interest.

You Searched For "companies act 2013 amendment" and got 12 results

Bill to provide up to four nominees to a bank account introduced in Lok Sabha

PTI

Lok Sabha passes Finance Bill, provision on LTCG tax on property transactions amended

ANI

Govt may relax 45-day payment rule for MSMEs in Budget 2024

PTI

A Black Workday employee sued the company after it sent police to his home for a 'wellness check'

Rosalie Chan

4 steps workers should take when their companies announce 5-day RTO, according to an employment lawyer

Jane Zhang

Indian companies will have to hand over the unspent money in the social responsibility fund to the government

BI India Bureau

HDFC gets RBI nod to acquire 9.5% stake in IndusInd Bank

IANS

Govt may infuse capital in PSU general insurers in Q4 based on performance

PTI

Boeing lost its way. Other companies should take heed.

Linette Lopez

Amendments to competition law likely in Budget session

PTI

Companies Act to be amended to decriminalise civil offences: FM

PTI

Fraud like nobody's watching: Trump was probed for 5 years, and still wouldn't clean up his act

Laura Italiano

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides