The respondent-assessee had borrowed certain funds which were utilized by the assessee to subscribe to the equity capital of the subsidiary company, namely, M/s. Tulip Star Hospitality Services Ltd. This subsidiary company used the said funds for the purpose of acquiring the Centaur Hotel, Juhu Beach, Mumbai, which is now functioning as The Tulip Star , Mumbai. The assessee paid interest on the borrowed money.
he amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 has been specifically made retrospectively applicable from the asst. yr. 2010-11. It has nowhere been expressly set out that the amendment is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law. The intention of the legislature as gathered from the Notes on Clauses and the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the Finance Bill does not particularly indicate any relaxation in the provision retrospectively from asst. yr. 2005-06 by providing that the expenditure on which due tax was deducted upto February, 2005 but paid before the due date specified in s. 139(1) shall not suffer any disallowance in the asst. yr. 2005-06.
The Tribunal is required to deal with the factual findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and, then after examining the document and evidence, give and record their factual conclusions. The factual conclusion should be based upon reasons and should be outcome of analysis and discussion. The Tribunal being the final fact finding authority cannot merely record its conclusions without discussing the factual matrix, evidence and material.
The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2004-2005, had not furnished any intimation to the Assessing Officer about the alleged misappropriation of funds. Though the FIR was lodged by the Assessee on 16 March, 2006 and the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2004-2005 were completed thereafter on 22 December, 2006, the filing of the FIR was not disclosed to the Assessing Officer.
It has been contended by the ld. counsel of the assessee that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in treating Rs. 35,49,091/- as revenue receipt being the amount received from the flat owners and / or tenants for replacement of capital assets and shown as sinking fund in accounts which was considered and treated as capital receipt by the assessee since its inception and the same was duly accepted by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessments.
In Vodafone International Holdings BV Netherlands vs. Union of India and another (345 ITR 1 (SC). a three judge bench of the Supreme Court has laid down that what is needed is to consider the transaction in its entirety and to look at the transaction as a whole. The Supreme Court has advocated that a transaction must be looked at and not looked through.
The rapid expansion of such NBFCs has led to their increased dependence on public funds, including bank finance. To supplement the prudential measures mentioned above, it is proposed that: banks should reduce their regulatory exposure ceiling in a single NBFC, having gold loans to the extent of 50 per cent or more of its total financial assets, from the existing 10 per cent to 7.5 per cent of bank’s capital funds. However, exposure ceiling may go up by 5 per cent, i.e., up to 12.5 per cent of bank’s capital funds if the additional exposure is on account of funds on-lent by NBFCs to the infrastructure sector; and
Circular No. 966/09/2012-CX As clearly stated in para 3 of Boards’ above circular dated 2.4.2012, it is once again reiterated that in terms of the Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, while CENVAT Credit is available in respect of parts of Boiler, the same is not admissible in respect of the structural components used for laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods/ Boiler. The above clarification is in conformity with the views expressed in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court/ different benches of the CESTAT.
Policy Circular No. 65 (RE-2010)/2009-14 It is clarified that Capital Goods sourced from SEZ are treated as ‘imported goods’. Hence, EPCG Scheme-under Para 5.2A is available for import of spares for such imported Capital Goods (i.e. sourced from SEZ) with reduced EO. Besides this, EPCG Authorization for “Spares” is also allowed under Para 5.2 {as clarified in Policy Circular No. 12 dated 17.01.2011 (Point No. 2)}.
Please refer to our Circular UBD.PCB.Cir.No.11/09.09.01/2007-08 dated August 30, 2007 forwarding the guidelines for UCBs on lending to priority sector. In terms of para 7.4 of section I of Annex of the above Circular, assistance given to a non-governmental agency approved by the NHB for the purpose of refinance for construction / reconstruction of dwelling units or for slum clearance and rehabilitation of slum dwellers, subject to a ceiling of loan component of Rs. 5 lakh per dwelling unit, is eligible for classification under priority sector.
