The Appellant, a State level institution incorporated for the purpose of development of industries in the State, was an equity shareholder in the Third Respondent Company. The company was referred to the Board For Industrial Reconstruction (BIFR) for the purpose of framing a scheme for rehabilitation. The Board approved the draft revival scheme and circulated the scheme seeking suggestions and objections of the shareholders including the Appellant.
Originally the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, namely, B had started a proprietary concern. His son constituted six private limited companies and registered them under the Companies Act, 1956, and all the shareholders of these companies being the heirs of the late B, the companies were family concerns. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 started defendants Nos. 7 to 12 companies out of the funds of the original concern.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the determining of date when the loss was incurred will have to be derived from the admitted facts. It is not a matter of dispute that the fire which resulted in destruction of the stock of the applicant-assessee took place on 26.3.1978. The aforesaid fire destroyed the stock/goods of the applicant-assessee lying with the PSWC
There is a difference between dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and dismissal of an Appeal. While the dismissal of a SLP does not result in merger of the judgment of the High Court with that of the Supreme Court and there is no affirmation, the dismissal of an Appeal results in an affirmation and merger of the order of the High Court into that of the Supreme Court.
Where the assessee had its own funds as well as borrowed funds and it advanced funds to its sister concerns for allegedly non-business purposes and the question arose whether the AO was justified in disallowing the interest on the borrowed funds on the ground that they had been used for non-business purposes, HELD: Where an assessee has his own funds as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that t
(i) S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be “issued” but not “served” within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment;
17.1 According to us, as correctly held by the Tribunal, the assessee’s claim for deduction had to be allowed, in one lump sum, keeping in view the provisions of Section 43B(d) which provides that any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any financial institution shall be allowed to the assessee in the year in which the same is paid irrespective of the provisions in which the liability to pay
22. The primary function of the Income Tax Act is to bring the income of various kinds into the tax net. The Income Tax authorities are not concerned about the manner or means of acquiring income. The income might have been earned illegally or by resorting to unlawful means. Illegality tainted with the earning has no bearing on its taxability.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessee’s contention that when the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging interest under Section 234B of the Act by relying upon the decision in the case of Motorola Inc. rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT, “A” Bench, Delhi, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 269.”
There was a divergent view of the various High Courts whether crushing of bigger stones or boulders into smaller pieces amounts to manufacture. In view of the divergent views, of the various High Courts, there was a bona fide doubt as to whether or not such an activity amounted to manufacture. This being the position, it cannot be said that merely because the appellants did not take out a licence and did not pay the duty the provisions of Section 11A got attracted.
