When the appellant was paid Rs. 15.00 lakhs by Y. Kalyana Sundaram in full and final settlement towards his 50% share on the dissolution of the firm, there was no “transfer” as understood in law and consequently there cannot be tax on alleged capital gain. The appellant was correct in law in contending that the amount he received from Y. Kalyana Sundaram is towards the full and final settlement of his share and such adjustment of his right is not a transfer in the eye of law.
In the present case we find that the warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act has been issued on 10th November, 2006 in the joint name of three persons. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of Section 292CC, as inserted by Finance Act, 2012 in the Statute Book i.e. the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessments made in the individual capacity of each persons named in he warrant of authorisation was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal were not justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that if the warrant of authorisation was issued jointly in the name of more than one person, the assessment could not have been made in the capacity of an individual.
As regards, more particularly, government securities, and bonds and debentures, the text specifies that premiums or prizes attaching thereto constitute interest. Generally speaking, what constitutes interest yielded by a loan security, and may properly be taxed as such in the State of source, is all that the institution issuing the loan pays over and above the amount paid by the subscriber, that is to say, the interest accruing plus any premium paid at redemption or at issue.
Division Bench of this Court that the brought forward business loss can be set off against the interest earned by the assessee from bank deposit in the subsequent year, if such interest can be attributed to a business activity of the assessee, notwithstanding that such interest is assessable under the head “income from other sources” under the Act.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original assessment order dated 28/2/1997 was set aside by the ITAT with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. Accordingly, fresh assessment order was passed on 24/12/2006 and the demand notice was served on 24/12/2006. As per Section 220(1) of the Act, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of demand within thirty days from the service of demand notice dated 24/12/2006.
Explanation to section 73 does not operate in respect of a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads of ‘interest on securities’, ‘income from house property’, ‘capital gains’ and ‘income from other sources’. In the instant case, the income from other sources was the only chargeable income, as the assessee had suffered a business loss otherwise. Therefore, Explanation to section 73 would not apply in the instant case. Further the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Darshan Securities (P.) Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 68/18 taxmann.com 142 supports the assessee’s case.
The assessee-company initially filed u/s 139(1), a return supported by regular accounts, and showing substantial book profit and offering MAT. However thereafter its accounts came to be inspected by the Registrar of Companies who gave certain directions to modify its Annual Accounts. On the basis of those directions the assessee revised its profit and loss account and balance sheet which resulted in its income being negative. The corrected accounts were placed before the shareholders for their approval. Note no.7 of the Notes attached and forming part of the accounts was approved by the shareholders in the annual general meeting. The assessee however filed the revised return based on the revised accounts, showing a book loss, beyond the time limit prescribed in section 139(5).
The owner of the industry shall issue serially cash/credit memos, for sales of finished goods which will contain name and address of the purchasers, descriptions of the goods sold and its value, exemption certificate number and date, signature of the seller.
Shri Siddharth Chhajlani was a regular employee of the assessee Company since financial year 2003-04 and has taken note of the salary certificate along with the deduction and payment to Employee’s Provident Fund. It has also been noted that Shri Siddharth Chhajlani was sent for higher studies in printing technology, which is the main field of working of the assessee Company and a bond was got executed to ensure that he will work for at least 5 years after return to India.
It is no doubt true that the Tribunal as well as the Assessing Officer had recorded the fact that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. Hence, the accrual theory of interest income was to be assessed in the year in which it had accrued and had become due. As already pointed out by the Apex Court, in the mercantile system of accounting, even though the principle of accrual is followed, the real income theory, nevertheless, has its relevance to find out the assessability of an income.
