Whether the dividend declared by the company after the effective date of amalgamation but before the date of sanction by the High Court would cease to be dividend declared by the company?
Section 529(1) provides for, ‘the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors……’. It does not classify the secured creditors on the basis of the first chargeholder or the second chargeholder or so on. Similarly, in proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 529
Since assessee had not removed defects/objections within a reasonable period therefrom and had taken more than 6 years to remove defects, memorandum of appeal was rightly rejected being barred by limitation.
Passing of an order under Section 158BC rests on the previous approval of the Commissioner. On a reading of Section 158BG, particularly the proviso, reveal the mandatory nature of such an approval, that the proviso reads as ‘provided that no such order shall be passed without the previous approval of the Commissioner …’. In the background of the above-said provisions, in keeping the law declared by the Apex Court in Sahara India (Firm)’s case (supra) that with civil consequences flowing out of such an approval, we have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the assessee that in the face of such an approval granted to the order passed under Section 158BC, there can be no assumption of jurisdiction by an authority of the same rank under Section 263 of the Act.
On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 07/06/2007 held that foreign travel of the officers did not give rise to any benefit of an enduring nature but enabled efficient running of its business and therefore was revenue in nature. Thus the deduction on account of expenses on account of foreign travel was allowed as claimed by the respondent.
In the original assessment order deduction under section 80I had been granted on the total income, inclusive of the income under section 68 of the Act. The grant of such deduction was not questioned by the revenue at the relevant time. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the same was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue pertaining to addition of Rs. 59,56,000/- credited in the books of account by way of share application money on the ground that the same was an unexplained credit out of income from undisclosed sources of the assessee.
In the present case, lead and zinc concentrates were received by the assessee in its factory whereupon credit had been taken. The assessee had accounted for the shortage in the raw material found during stock taking by writing off these losses. The percentage of shortage found had been about 0.05% during the subject period. The explanation given by the assessee had been that the loss occurred due to dryage of the moisture content and some likely difference in weighment. The significant aspect of the matter is that it had not been the case of the revenue that any part of the duty paid inputs were diverted from the factory with intent to evade duty.
The intent and purport of the CBDT circular No.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007 is to demonstrate that a tax payer could have two portfolios, namely, an investment portfolio and a trading portfolio. In other words, the assessee could own shares for the purposes of investment and/or for the purposes of trading.
It is difficult to sustain the notice issued u/s. 148. The audit objection is only an inference that the royalty payment resulted in a capital benefit; such an opinion expressed by the audit cannot constitute tangible material on the basis of which the assessment can be reopened.
We may however clarify that public interest litigation affecting the administration of justice, at the instance of the Advocates practicing in the court/fora and representing litigants before that court/fora can be entertained in as much as those lawyers would have locus to the extent of being directly affected by the functioning of the said courts/foras.
