Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act itself provides that the claim for deduction as bad debt would not be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year.
The authority of Court to direct investigation was elaborately considered by us in our earlier decision when we ultimately permitted the Central Government to carry on investigation. The decisions in the case of Sreeman Chunder Dey (supra), Vinay Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Ushacomm India (P.) Ltd. (supra) were considered by us in the earlier decision rendered in the former appeal referred to above.
It is the case of the accused that he has preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, Madras and by order dated 27.03.1987, the appeal was allowed, whereunder, the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hubli Division on 16.12.1986 was challenged and the same was set aside. The learned Magistrate has further observed that once the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, has allowed the appeal, there was no need to file the criminal case charging them that they are evading Central Excise Tax. Ex.D.1 is the order produced by the accused in Appeal No. 32/1987 and Ex.D.2 is the order passed in Appeal No. 65/1987. Learned Magistrate has held that the petitioners would not have been liable to pay any duty and therefore the complainant should have known that no case is liable to be filed against them. Learned Magistrate has ultimately observed that false proceedings have been initiated against the accused.
Payment of Rs. 24 crores to Group A is to equalize the inequalities in partition of the assets of M/s Hind Samachar Ltd. The amount so paid is immovable property. If such amount is to be treated as income liable to tax, the inequalities would set in as the share of the recipient will diminish to the extent of tax.
In the present case, the assessee disclosed the factum of housing project, the construction of shops and the profit derived therefrom. These were the primary facts sufficient for the Assessing Officer to proceed in its assessment process. He had undertaken such a process and applied the facts to the provisions of law by applying his mind.
In the present case, the first show cause notice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the AO on 25.03.2003 and was served on the assessee on 27.03.2003. Obviously, the later period also expired on 30.09.2003 when six months expired from the end of the month in which the action for imposing the penalty was initiated. The order as passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for the penalty under Section 271D on 28.05.2004 was clearly hit by the bar of limitation and has rightly been set aside in the orders impugned.
An appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act can be filed only on a question of law; a mis-interpretation or mis-reading of document is question of law. There is no dispute that in this case a question of law has arisen as the submission of the appellant is that the correspondences exchanged between the parties were not appreciated by the CLB in its correct perspective.
The facts of the case are that the assessee which is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of medical consumable devices and diagnostic equipment for use by the health care professionals, medical research institutions, industry and general public etc. had claimed provision for warranty service. It had contended that this provision was based on adoption of scientific analysis. T
We notice that in the return filed by the petitioner, in addition to claiming deduction of gross income of interest and dividend of Rs.1,81,27,606 under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the petitioner further provided various details. For example, in the Annexure-VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs. 53,71,450 and interest income of Rs. 1,27,56,156.
Applying the ratio of the judgment in Chandra Prakash Agrawal (supra) to the present case, we find that the Tribunal did not commit any error in recording findings that since nothing was found in the search operations on 26.10.1995 and that though the warrant of authorisation under section 132A was issued on the following day on 27.10.1995,
