A chartered accountant has been disqualified from acting as a company director for 12 years after a judge found him guilty of ‘grossly improper’ conduct in respect of his work as liquidator of a large number of companies.
Assessing authority has himself extended the benefit to storage tank storing water as a component to main machinery namely, boiler, he ought to have extended the benefit to the storage tanks which are also part of the factory premises, in which the by products are stored and thereafter sold as a finished product.
High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by this Court in the case of CCE v. Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. in CEA No.6/2007 disposed of on 01.09.2010. The said question has to be adjudicated by the Apex Court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable.
Section 54EC provides for exemption from tax on long-term capital gain when the capital gain arises from the transfer of long-term capital asset and the whole or any part of the said capital gain is invested in certain bonds within the period of 6 months. Section 54EC speaks of the actual capital gain which arises out of transfer of long-term capital asset and not deeming amount. Whereas section 50C provides for deeming fiction where value of consideration is adopted as per the stamp valuation authorities or any authority of the State Government. Even if the property has been sold at a lesser price but under the deeming fiction of section 50C, the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities is to be taken as sale consideration.
Whether where assessee invested sale proceeds of tenancy rights in specified bonds, he was entitled to deduction under section 54EC even though his wife and daughters were co-holders of said bonds? Exemption Under Section 54F if Assessee claims two units as one he has to furnish Approved Municipal Plan.
No. VAT 1512/ CR 84/ Taxation-1. The Government of Maharashtra has issued Notification dated 30.7.2012 amending MVAT Rules. The short gist of such amendments is as under: (1) In rules 17, 25, 41, 45, 45A, 46 and 83 reference is added to late fees, which is required to be paid in case of late filing of returns. The amendment is in technical nature.
On the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Range – Ujjain against the impugned order of assessment. The memo of appeal indicates that in the said appeal the petitioner has also questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the parallel remedy before two forums at the same time raising the same issue.
A liberal view ought to be taken in terms of delay of few days. However, when there is inordinate delay, one should be very cautious while condoning the delay. The delay of 2491 days cannot be condoned simply because the assessee’s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief.
We agree with the assessee’s contention that the written down value of the assets at the hands of the amalgamated company will be the written down value at the hands of the amalgamating company for the immediate preceding previous year arrived at after reducing the depreciation actually allowed in the said preceding previous year and Explanation 3 will have no relevance for the purpose of finding out the written down value of the amalgamating company, which, in turn, is that of the amalgamated company.
It is generally seen in the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessing officers tend to make inquiries and ask questions even at the start of the reassessment proceedings which are totally unconnected to income that is believed to have escaped assessment in the reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings.
