On a perusal of the definition of franchise given under Section 65(47) under the Finance Act, 1994, we note that it refers to an agreement by which the franchisee is granted representational right to provide service identified with the franchisor whether or not any ‘service mark’ is involved. Prima facie, in the absence of such an agreement, the appellant themselves would have provided the service to the people/State Government in respect of the bridge under the BOT agreement.
Similarly, if the air travels were undertaken by the company’s executives for business purposes, the necessary nexus between the service and the business activities of the appellant does exist. The show-cause notice did not even attempt to make out a case to the contra. Therefore, the case of the appellant is liable to be accepted.
As regards the demand for payment of an amount @ 8% of the value of the exempted goods under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 made out in the show-cause notice, it has been noted that the appellants have not availed any credit of the duty paid either on the raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturer or on the raw materials used by them on their own account in the manufacture of job-worked product. When they have not availed any credit of the duty paid on the raw materials, the question of payment of duty @ 8% of the value of the exempted product under Rule 57CC will not arise at all.
From the record, it appears that as on March 31, 2003, the figure of Rs. 1 crore was appearing in schedule IV, under the head unsecured loan” in the balance-sheet. In the earlier year it was appearing as 1. Unsecured loan Rs. 60 lakhs. 2. Share application money Rs. 40 lakhs. During the assessment year under consideration, the same was shown as Rs. 1 crore consolidated. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out as to what happened to Rs. 40 lakhs which were earlier appearing in the balance-sheet.
The hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the amount of depreciation debited to the account of charitable institutions is to be deducted to arrive at an available income from charitable or religious purposes. Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, we therefore, hold that the depreciation is to be deducted to arrive at an income available to charitable and religious purposes.
No workmen or employee of the company had appeared to resist the order of winding up. The conduct of those in management of the company in fraudulently selling off assets conservatively estimated at Rs. 2,300 crore makes it just and equitable for the company to be wound up. The company had been unable to show any prospects of it carrying on any business in the near or the distant future. The company’s inability to pay its debts is established and no ground is shown for the company court to exercise its discretion to not wind up the company despite its obvious insolvency.
The ld. CIT(A) considered the issue in detail in the light of exceptions provided under Rule 6DD in order to grant relief to the assessee for violation of section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The finding of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the assessee was a Pakka Arahtia and made purchases from Kachcha Arahtias have not been disputed by the ld. DR during the course of arguments. It is also not in dispute that the assessee acted as per Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Rules.
Tribunal vide their order dt.12.9.2011 had noted all the facts finding when it was the endeavor of the learned CIT to limit himself to satisfy about the charitable nature of the objects of the Trust and find the genuineness of the activities of the Trust. The undisputed fats are that the learned CIT in the second innings has reiterated that the activities carried out are the same as were before and therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 11 to grant registration u/s.12AA.
The facts of the case are that assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of vacuum insulated tanks, cold convertor systems, atmospheric vaporizers and cryo containers, etc. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative for the Revenue submitted that penalty has been levied on the addition amounting to Rs.5,04,326. He submitted that expenditure was claimed as business expenditure under the head “Staff and labour training expenses” incurred on the sponsorship of advance education of the son of the managing director for higher studies at abroad.
Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. The deduction under section 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses. A distinction has been made by the Legislature while incorporating the provisions of Chapter VI-A. Section 80A(1) stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Chapter, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U. Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter. Therefore, the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed in the first instance.
