Ostensibly, while denying the assessee’s claim of carried forward unabsorbed loss/depreciation assessed under the normal provisions of the Act, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis that section 10A of the Act provides an exemption and, therefore, loss suffered in such unit is not allowed to be set off or carried forward for further set off against other normal business income.
Circular No. 20 /2012-Cus Changes in the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 issued – In para 4.1.2 of FTP (applicable to Advance Authorization and DFIA schemes) the formula/norm for Value Addition (except for gems and jewelery) has been tightened by including reference to intent of claiming drawback, and in para 4.1.14 of FTP it has been made clear that drawback would be allowed only for such duty paid items which have been endorsed on the authorization by the Regional Authority.
An issuer proposing to issue debt securities to the public through the on-line system of the designated stock exchange shall comply with the relevant applicable requirements as may be specified by the Board.
According to us for charging capital gains, the assets must have been acquired by incurring cost. In the instant case, the assessee has not incurred any cost for the acquisition of asset because the same was allotted to the assessee’s father by Government of India being refugee from Pakistan at relevant point of time.
Verification Certificate under provisions of Rules 114(4) of IT Rules, 1962 of PAN (Individual / HUF) – A format has been prescribed for verification certificate under provisions of Rules 114(4) of IT Rules, 1962. An individual / HUF PAN Applicant who files certificate of MP / MLA / MC / Gazetted officer as proof of his / her identity or address is to file the same in prescribed format only.
A Notification vide No. G.S.R. 716(E). dated 23.09.2011 was issued, in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dtd. 21.04.2011 in the matter of M/s. S.E. Investment Limited Vs Union Of India and Others {W.P. (c) 2393/2010 and CM Appl. 4794/2011}, the Hon’ble Court had inter alia held that there is no provision in Delhi Stamp Act for payment of stamp duty on Increased authorized share capital.
The fact that the assessee has received the amount in the capacity of beneficiaries has also not been controverted, therefore, the amount received by the trust is in pursuance of dissolution of trust. The amount received in pursuance of dissolution of trust cannot be termed to be an amount received by the beneficiaries “without consideration”. The fact that the trust had borne the tax at maximum marginal rate on its income has also not been controverted. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the addition cannot be upheld on the applicability of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act, as the money received by the assessee is not “without consideration”
It is undisputable fact that though the Assessing Officer had concluded the assessment way back in 1999, the assessment reaches its finality in all respects only when the appellate forum decided the issues on such an assessment. Consequent on the final findings recorded by the appellate authorities, there was no liability to pay tax under section 207 for the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, levy of interest under section 234C for deferment of advance-tax payable by the assessee does not arise when the income of the assessee had finally been arrived at a loss of Rs. 1.6 crores. Interest paid under section 234C is for deferment of advance tax. When advance-tax paid is refunded and also interest paid under section 234B, there is no logic in making the assessee liable for interest under section 234C, namely, for deferment of payment of advance tax. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to refund interest levied under section 234C.
The Tribunal while examining this issue went purely by the facts of the case and held that the difficulties in non-production of the documents as was required under the statute was on account of shifting of branch of the bank shortly before the date of the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Since, these documents at the time of survey were not presented, it was inferred that they were collected subsequently in post survey period.
The Assessing Officer had asked the respondent-assessee, as to why Rs. 1,63,37,365/- should not be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability payable to sundry creditors. The assessee on the same date Was asked to furnish details with regard to the change in address and to furnish the proof of payment made to Makkar Traders in the following years and to explain the current status.
