In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding recorded by the CIT is that order passed by the Assessing Officer may be erroneous. The CIT had doubts about the valuation and sale consideration received but the CIT should have examined the said aspect himself and given a finding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous.
As per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kathuria Public School vs. Director of Education 123 (2005) DLT 89 and which had not been interfered with in judgment dated 27th August, 2010 in Ref. 1/2010 titled Delhi School Tribunal v. GNCTD, also, unnecessary interference with the management and functioning of unaided schools is not permissible. The notification aforesaid does not extend the age of retirement but merely allows the schools to re-employ the retiring teachers.
Even after the amendment with effect from 1988 and introduction of the words a person who is the beneficial owner of shares cannot be construed to in a way alter the position that the shareholder has to be the registered shareholder. The amendment imposes an additional condition that the registered shareholder must also be the beneficial shareholder of the company that has furnished loan/advance. the fact that the shareholders of the assessee company were also shareholders of the company which had given loan/advances is not sufficient and does not meet the requirement of Section 2(22)(e). The voting rights of the shareholder, i.e., the assessee can and should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Sharma, learned A.S.G. however submits that the appeal has been filed prior to the issuance of circular dated 9th February, 2011, therefore, the circular does not apply to the present case.In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Polycott Corporation a Division Bench of this high Court, while interpreting similar Instruction No.2 of 2005, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, regarding the earlier limit fixed for filing appeal before the High Court, has held that the circular would have a retrospective effect. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Smt. Vijaya V. Kavekar, a Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting the very circular which is involved in this appeal i.e. Circular No.3 of 2011, has held that the circular has a retrospective operation and instructions contained in the circular would apply even to the pending cases. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sharma that the circular does not apply to the pending cases is rejected.
If on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. From the perusal of materials brought on record, we are of the view that the Commissioner having himself expressed opinion in the order that there is enough strength in the plea of the assessee for stay of the demand, there was no occasion to direct for deposit of 30 percent.
As per Sub-section (2), the ISARC becomes a lender of the financial assets in place of SIDBI and thus, has all the rights of SIDBI in relation to the financial assets which were acquired by it. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no financial facility was extended by SIDBI to ISARC and so the cheques in question would not be financial assets within Sub-section (2), is highly misplaced. SIDBI had advanced certain loans to the petitioners,
It is also relevant to note that in the present proceedings, the petitioner has not assailed the terms and conditions of the Counselling Brochure. Having failed to do so, he cannot be permitted to question the same, by trying to give it an interpretation which runs contrary to the clear terminology used in the relevant clauses. The Court is also not oblivious to the fact that the IIT JEE 2012 is to be held on 8.4.2012 for which the Application Forms of the candidates were required to reach the Zonal IIT as long back as on 15.12.2011. It is therefore not acceptable for the petitioner to approach the Court just about a week before the dated fixed for the examination, when even as per his own case, he had submitted his application form on 12.11.2011 after reading the eligibility conditions laid down in the Brochure. Moreover, no explanation, much less a plausible explanation has been offered by the petitioner for failing to report to IIT (Madras) on 26.7.2011, in terms of the seat allotment letter issued to him on 10.07.2011.
In the present case, as noted earlier, a provisional attachment has already been levied on 7 October 2011 under Section 281B by which the amount which was invested by the Assessee in mutual funds of SBI Mutual Funds was attached. The attachment was to the extent of Rs.36.54 Crores. That being the position evidently there would have been no basis for forming a reason to believe that if the period of 30 days was to be observed under Section 220(1), that would be detrimental to the Revenue.
HC held that When no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in earning dividend income, notional expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s 14A. The assessee had not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend. The dividend income was incidental to the business of sale of shares, which remained unsold by the assessee. It cannot be said that the expenditure incurred in acquiring the shares had to be apportioned to the extent of dividend income and that should be a disallowance u/s 14A.
Section 147 – Sanction Of Superior Officer Renders Reopening Void: Bombay High Court. The notice under section 148 can be issued beyond four year with prior approval of joint commissioner and at the same time joint-commissioner should be satisfied that this is fit case for issue of a notice in view of section 151(2). In the present case no new evidence or fresh evidence produce by assessing officer and the joint-commissioner granted approval without see the record for issuance of notice under section 148. The court held that there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 147 and 151(2), the notice reopening the assessment cannot be sustained in law.
