key issue is whether the ownership of an industrial undertaking is a relevant factor for the purposes of construing the provisions of Section 80-I of the said Act. We find ourselves to be in agreement with the submission made by Mr Ganesh that Section 80-I does not speak of the ownership of an industrial undertaking.
Assessee as an honest citizen not only made a complaint to the registering authority that the sale deed has been registered at a value much below the amount, which he has actually received, he deposited the entire amount in the bank and voluntarily filed return.
In the said case, the respondent was a publisher of books but did not have a printing press. He would procure manuscripts, hit upon a suitable format, get it printed from third parties under his supervision, get the book bound and put it out for sale.
The Assessing Officer had noticed that grant of Rs.35 crores was sanctioned by the Government in the said year to improve air connectivity in North-Eastern Region. The respondent-assessee had taken on lease four ATR-42-320 aircrafts for five years from Ms/ Aviande Transport Regional
Company, whose Audit Report is stated to have been prepared by respondent No.1 contrary to the prescribed norms, has not made any complaint against respondent No.1. One of the Directors of the Company, namely, Vipan Gupta, appeared before the Disciplinary Committee as a witness but he did not state a word about the aforesaid Audit Report.
Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a company engaged in manufacture of hosiery goods at Ludhiana.
While Bombay HC has refused to grant bail application pending payment of Service tax for service tax evasion for the period starting before 10.05.2013 in the case of Kandra Rameshbabu Naidu but on the other hand Kolkutta High Court in the case of Sudip Das granted to bail to accused who had been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The important question that has got to be considered is from which date are the expenses of this business to be considered permissible deductions and for that purpose the section that we have got to look to is section 2(11) and that section defines the „previous year‟
The assessment in the instant case was re-opened on the ground that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had reversed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2005-06 whereby the Special Bench held that the commission of Rs.1 .20 crores to the three Directors was in lieu of dividend and the same was not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii).
Issue- Whether while computing the capital gain, exemption available under the head Capital Gain should be given effect and then only the provisions for set off and carry forward of losses should be applied under the Act?
