as per these rules, information is to be filed in Form 5 INV. The cut-off date for filing information in Form 5 INV refers to the date of AGM upto which the information relating to a particular year is to be updated and then filed. Example: for the financial year ended 31.03.2012, where date of AGM is 30.09.2012, the complete information regarding unpaid and unclaimed
We are already 122 Cr and will be 143 Cr and the demand for milk in India will be highest. As per data produced by National Dairy Development Board, the milk production in 2010-11 was 121.8 Mn Tn, i.e. 280 gms/per day per capital milk consumption, which has grown @ 5% per annum. If the growth continues @ 5% per annum, the production will be 145 Mn Ton approximately, against estimated milk consumption of 150 Mn Tons by 2015 (as per current five year plan (2012-2015)). Excess of supply over demand, clear signals a business opportunity.
Every statutory auditor appointed by the company in the Annual General Meeting under section 224(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 in form 23B has to intimate whether he has accepted the appointment or not to the concerned Registrar of Companies, within 30 days of the intimation received from the company by the auditor. Till date the form is uploaded free of cost and in lots of cases the auditors does not bother to file the form and intimate the concern ROC even it is free of cost procedure. While filling of Form 23AC where there is space for SRN of Form 23B, they used the SRN Z99999999 or any other SRN that does not exist.
VAT Dept. of maharashtra has issued Fresh Hawala Dealer List containing 1277 dealer. They have removed one dealer from the list. 27760631776V SUJASH STEEL & IRON PVT LTD Download List of Suspicious Dealers who has issued false bills without delivery of goods. Source – http://mahavat.gov.in/Mahavat/index.jsp
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries (supra) and Tata Tea Limited (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea. Similarly, in our view, the industrial units engaged in the very same activity i.e. blending, packing and export of tea in the free trade zone shall also be entitled to enjoy tax exemption under Section 10A of the Act.
A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO in the present case shows that there was no rational or intelligible nexus between the reasons recorded by him and the belief entertained about the escapement of income of the assessee company. There was nothing in the said reasons to show existence of any positive income arising to the assessee company which was assessable in his hands and the belief entertained by the AO was based merely on assumption and surmises.
The assessee has not advanced any arguments with regard to the proposition that on interest income deduction under sec. 80-IC is admissible, therefore, there is no idea to examine the provisions of sec. 80-IC and in what condition the computation for such deduction has to be made. According to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Ram Honda, interest income has to be assessed as a income from other sources. In paragraph 26 of the judgment, Hon’ble Court has observed that interest income on fixed deposit for the purpose of availing of credit facility from the bank does not have an immediate nexus with the export business and, therefore, it has to necessarily be treated as income from other sources and not business income.
An assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer can be rectified or amended under Section 154 or Section 155 or reopened under Section 148 only by him, and by no other income-tax authority. Similarly, an assessment by way of settlement of a case, which is made by the (Income Tax Settlement Commission) ITSC, can be reopened only by the ITSC and that too only in certain circumstances. Applying this general principle that runs through the Act, an assessment by way of a settlement order passed by the ITSC cannot be reopened by a different authority, viz., the Assessing Officer.
On the issue of expenditure of 66.82 lakhs towards the issue of shares to the Employees Stock Option is concerned, the Tribunal pointed out that the shares were issued to the employees only for the interest of the business of the assessee to induce employees to work in the best interest of the assessee. The allotment of shares was done by the assessee in strict compliance of SEBI regulations, which mandate that the difference between the market prices and the price at which the option is exercised by the employees is to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account as an expenditure. The Tribunal pointed out that what had been adopted was not notional or contingent as had been submitted by the Revenue.
It is very sad that AO without following the principles of natural justice and inspite of clear findings of the ITAT in the order dated 18.06.2010 has repeated the same orders as was done originally way back in 1998. Inspite of levying the cost of 5000/- on AO, which we were informed was paid to assessee, there is no change in the attitude of the Revenue with reference to assessees/assessments are concerned. By taking up the assessment at the fag end of the time barring period and by denying natural justice and not considering the evidence on record, assessees were forced to file appeals before the ITAT unnecessarily by incurring heavy cost of not only appeal fees but also engaging Counsels to defend the case. There should be an end to this sorry state of affairs.
