From the fact that the income of the society comprised of receipts from the activity of letting out a kalyana mantapa owned by it on rent, fees received from the members on sale of liquor in the bar run by the assesse, it does not follow that the activities of the Assessee are not genuine or that the activities are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Assessee.
The other point considered by the authorities below marring the benefit u/s 72A(1) is that the assessee company failed to lead evidence that the amalgamation was to ensure the revival of the business of the amalgamating company. Objections of the AO in points nos. (iii) and (iv) of para 3 of this order about the violation of the conditions prescribed in Rule 9C are also related to this very aspect of the matter. The case of the AO is that the assessee failed to substantiate the steps taken by it to revive business of BTPU and further it did not satisfy the twin conditions as per rule 9C, being, achieving the stipulated level of production of at least fifty percent of the installed capacity of BTPU and furnishing certificate in Form no. 62.
SEBI vide Circular dated May 30, 2012 had issued the Guidelines for exit of stock exchanges This contained details of the conditions for exit of de-recognised/non-operational stock exchanges interalia including treatment of assets of de-recognised exchanges and a facility of dissemination Board for companies listed exclusively on such exchanges, while taking care of the interest of Investors.
Update of TAN registration details is allowed on successful logging to TAN account. For updating the TAN registration details click on “Update Profile”. Under ‘update profile’ user can update demographic and contact details including e-mail ID (s) On successful update of TAN registration details, an alert e-mail is sent intimating updates have been successfully processed […]
1. As a major relief to small traders, the threshold limit for Registration under VAT has been proposed to be raised from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 20 lakh. 2. A new composition scheme is to come into effect from April 1, 2013, under which dealers would be allowed to pay a tax based on their […]
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record it is observed that the due date for filing the return of income by the assessee under section 139(1) for the relevant year is 30.11.2006. The AO has drawn a chart at page-4 of the assessment order showing the dates of actual deposits and due dates for the said contributions of EPF and ESIC.
A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that Smt. Madhumita Paul, had been summoned under section 131 of the Act and her statements have been recorded. It is shown in the statements recorded that Smt. Madhumita Paul did do work at the business premises of the assessee firm.
Assessee, in fact, was enjoying possession of the impugned property and for peaceful vacation thereof it had received the impugned amount which was described by both parties as amount paid for surrender of tenancy rights. The assessee had acquired the said right long back and the licensor to the assessee also had recognised the said right of the assessee.
The explanation to section 4 of the Act defines dominant position to mean a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in the relevant market in India which enables it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market or affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. On examining the dominant position of the OP, it was seen that the OP had no legal existence in India and did not engage in any business in India. Further, the relevant market was fragmented with many players engaging in the activity of production/ manufacture of ARV drugs in India. Accordingly, the OP was not a dominant player in the relevant market in India and therefore, no abuse as envisaged under section 4 of the Act could exist.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the demolition of the building took place at the behest of the assessee and it is not an act of God in which event, it has to be said that demolition of house would fall within the definition of ‘transfer’. This aspect was not properly analysed by the ITAT in the case of co-owner since the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collis (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench. Since this aspect was not looked into by learned CIT(A), we deem it fair and reasonable to set aside the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) who is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law in the light of our above observations.
