Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a rule making power of the Government. Sub-section (1) of section 37 provides that the Central Government may make rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 37 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for various issues contained in clauses (i) to (xxviii) of the said sub-section. Clause (xx) which is relevant for our purpose reads as under:
Incentive scheme was framed as a part of Government’s initiative to encourage modernization of existing industries in under-developed areas. The main purpose of the scheme was to accelerate the industrial development and to disperse industries to under-developed areas as well as to provide additional employment.
The partnership is governed under the provisions the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Section-4 defines partnership as “Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all”. Section-5 provides that the relation of the partnership may be reduced in writing through a contract between them while Section-7 provides that where there is no written contract, the partnership be treated as partnership at will.
Tribunal relying on its decision in case of Radhe Developers v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) held that respondent assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the housing project development though the assessee may not be the owner of the land.
In the present case the CIT (Appeals) had found as a fact that from the assessment year 1997-98 it was the assessee’s wife Mrs. Pallavi Sood who was the owner of M/s Trans World International. It was on that basis that she had filed the return of income and the finding of the CIT (Appeals) was also accepted by the Revenue. The finding of fact has not been challenged before us as perverse. It seems to us that the Revenue, having accepted the finding in the assessee’s wife’s case, cannot take a different view in the assessment of the husband. That would amount to taking contradictory or inconsistent stands without any just cause. We do not, therefore, see any infirmity or error of law in the decision of the Tribunal.
Obviously therefore, the Assessing Officer of the searched person during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, could not have arrived at the satisfaction that the income was that of the present assessee and not the persons originally searched.
In the circumstances, we find no reason or justification to entertain the request for setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007, particularly after the lapse of time that is prescribed in the statutory remedy available under Section 254(2). The petition has been filed almost five and a half years after the order of the Tribunal with no reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay. As we have noted already, there is no merit in the alternate submission that the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007 left open all the grounds of appeal. Plainly that was not so.
Whether or not a secured creditor, which has initiated action for enforcement of its security interest in terms of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including quashing of Ext.P2 circular. The main ground of challenge of the order is that the Securities and Exchange Board of India has no power to issue the notification. The circular is for the benefit of the investors. It ensures transparency or openness as distributors have been asked to disclose the commissions they are entitled to, under different competing schemes of various mutual funds so that the investor can make a considered choice. Conflict of interest is avoided or at least informed to the investor. Distributor is required to disclose commission, if any, payable to him by the mutual fund on the investment made by the investor. Thus the circular does not bar payment of commission by a mutual fund but mutual funds cannot charge upfront load.
The Tribunal by its order dated 17 December 2010 restored the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the Tribunal by passing an order dated 27 December 2010 which states that it has been made under section 254. The Assessing Officer re-computed the loss at Rs.16.82 crores. In this view of the matter, once the Assessing Officer had given effect to the order of the Tribunal, his successor in office had no jurisdiction to pass a fresh order dated 27 December 2011.
