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.
There is no dispute that the employer has entered into agreements with the employees and thereby has taken over an obligation to pay income tax payable by the employees. If the employer was not obliged to pay such income tax, the same would have been payable by the employees in question. Such payment, as has been provided in Section 10 (10CC) is notwithstanding anything contained in Section 200 of the Companies Act, 1956.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009- 2014 and Paragraph 1.1 of Handbook of Procedures (Vol. 1), the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes the following amendment in the Handbook of Procedures, Vol. 2, 2009-2014.
On the contrary, the ld. representative for the assessee submitted that the definition of “manufacture” was introduced by Finance Act, 2009. The assessment years under consideration are 2006-07 and 2007-08, therefore, the definition introduced by Finance Act, 2009 is not applicable to the facts of the case. For the earlier assessment year, this Tribunal had an occasion to consider the very claim of the assessee and this Tribunal found that the activity of the assessee is manufacture and entitled for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
The assessee is a club and all its activities are restricted to among its members and, therefore, ‘principle of mutuality’ applies in the instant case. It has been clarified by the Board vide its Circular No. 11 of 2008, dated 19-12-2008 that in such cases where principle of mutuality are applicable, registration cannot be cancelled simply by relying on the first proviso to section 2(15). No where it has been brought on the record that the activities of the assessee are not governed by ‘principles of mutuality’ or it has been dealing with non-members. Thus, from this aspect also first proviso does not apply to the instant case. In view of the above, the cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) was not tenable.
The contention urged by the Applicant that the Scheme of Demerger must necessarily comply with Section 2(19AA) which is meant for availing tax concession cannot be read as a mandatory requirement for all schemes of amalgamation / arrangement/de-merger under Sections 391/392/394 of 1956 Act . The said provision cannot be read and interpreted to include assets/units/undertakings/business belonging to the respondent-IRSL which were never transferred or intended to be transferred to IRTL and which are not mentioned in the Scheme of Arrangement.
Income Tax authorities say, undisclosed income of Indians totalling 565 crore rupees has been detected in France. The figure was disclosed in the information that India received from France on Indians having bank accounts, under the exchange of information clause of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with the European country.
