High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. M/s. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd. (supra), which in our view is distinguishable. In that case the Hon’ble Court held that the mere fact that the asset purchased had been leased back and vendor had undertaken to pay lease charges can not per se lead to the conclusion that the transaction is sham in the absence of any other material.
On reading sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (5) of Section 560, it does seem to me that a company can only be defunct, if it does not reply to the notice or says in reply that it does not carry on any business or is not in operation. If it asserts to the contrary, it cannot be struck off at all. Hence striking off is on the admission by the Company that it is defunct.
As regard the provisions of sec.28(va), the Tribunal held that with the insertion of the said provisions w.e.f. 01.40.2003, receipts on account of giving up right to carry on business even if it is capital receipt would now be charged to tax as ‘income from business’. It was held that if the compensation is paid for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ which the ‘transferor’ is not carrying on, the same would be chargeable u/s.28(va) of the Act.
[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART-II, SECTION-3, SUB-SECTION (ii)] Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) (Central Board of Excise and Customs) Notification No. 68/2012-CUSTOMS (N. T.) New Delhi, 8th August, 2012 17 Shravana, 1934 (SAKA) S. O… (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 63/1994-Customs (N. T.) dated the 21st November, 1994, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 830 (E) dated the 21st November, 1994, namely:- In the said notification in the TABLE, against serial number 2 relating to the land frontier of Bangladesh, in columns 3 and 4, after the existing entries, the following entries shall be inserted, namely:- (1) (2) (3) (4) “(54) Hemnagar in North 24 Parganas District of West Bengal Kolkata/Haldia-Namkhana-Diamond Sand-Satjaliya-Raimongal-Hemnagar-Raimongal-Angithara-Khulna/Mongla/Naryanganj” [F. No. 550/03/1997-LC] (Abhinav Gupta) Under Secretary to the Government of India Note:- The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide notification no. 63/1994-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 21st November, 1994, vide number S. O. 830 (E), dated the 21st November, 1994, and was last amended by notification no. 17/2012-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 29th February, 2012, vide number S. O. 352 (E), dated the 29th February, 2012.
In view of grant of exemption by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to the Intermediate qualified candidates of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India from passing their Common Proficiency Test, the Institute of Cost Accountants of India has granted exemption on reciprocal basis to the Intermediate Examination (by whatever name called) qualified candidates of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India from passing the Foundation Course Examination of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India with immediate effect.
We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and orders of authorities below. We agree that ld CIT(A) is justified to hold that the entire sales which are unaccounted cannot be the undisclosed income of the assessee. It is a fact that department has not disputed that there is unaccounted purchases. Therefore, all the purchases are accounted for. If the sales are unaccounted, which is outside the books of account, only net profit rate should be taken as income of the assessee, as rightly held by ld CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) and reject ground of appeal taken by department.
The suppression of turnover is different from the suppression of income. If there is suppression of turn-over, there is liability to pay excise duty. Merely because the excise duty is paid, there is no presumption that it leads to taxable income in the hands of the assessee. The tax under the Income Tax Act is payable for the income in excess of the limit prescribed under the Act.
Notification No. 68/2012-Cus. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 and sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Near Akashvani, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, to act as a common adjudicating authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred
Whether an assessment has escaped assessment or not must be determined by the Assessing Officer himself. The Assessing Officer cannot blindly follow the opinion of an audit authority for the purpose of arriving at a belief that income has escaped assessment.
Sub-section (2) of Section 194C under ordinary circumstances does not cover an individual or Hindu Undivided family for the liability of deducting tax at source on the payments credited or made to the sub-contractor. However, proviso brings such individual or HUF within the fold of sub-section (2) if in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year during which such sum is credited or paid, such individual or HUF was covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 44AB.
