An assessee that engages itself only or predominantly in activities relating to its ancillary or incidental objects which do not relate to any charitable purpose and does not carry on any activity relating to its main object which pertains to a charitable purpose is not entitled to an exemption under Section 11. A view to the contrary would lead to the most startling results.
The assessment order is bereft of any discussion as to what were the materials adverse to the assessee and what was the inference that could be drawn in the light of those materials and documents. Consequently, even while we do not fault the Tribunal’s reasoning about the denial of opportunity to the assessee, the outcome has to be slightly different especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Pirai Choodi (supra).
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that after the assessment order is passed, the assessee is entitled not only for the refund but also simple interest on the amount as has been provided under sub-section 4(a) and (b) of the Act. Sub-section 4(b) provides that such interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 was executed to the date of completion of the assessment.
In the instant case, we would like to convey that in so far as the books of account are concerned, namely, the balance sheet, the assessee was supposed to follow the mandate of the Reserve Bank of India and, therefore, that by itself would not be a ground to label the securities as ‘investment’. One will have to see the real nature of these securities.
Arrears of rent received by the assessee (as mesne profits) could not be brought to tax for the previous years, when they fell due. They could be brought to tax only during the year of receipt. The revenue had further argued that during the year of receipt, the assessee had shown the amount so received as capital.
It is therefore necessary that there must be debt due and the company must be unable to pay it. If the debt is a disputed debt and the defence is substantial one order of winding up should not be passed. It is also note worthy that after the petitions were admitted no other persons have raised any claim and, therefore, this Court finds that the debt being disputed and there exists a bona fide dispute.
It is seen from the statement of ‘M’ that the assessee’s name was not mentioned by him at all as beneficiary of the accommodation entry business carried by him. Since despite being obliquely prompted, he did not mention the assessee’s name and merely stated that he did not deal with any ship-breaker and he had given only loan after taking cash and deducting commission.
CIT and Anr v Shetron Limited (Karnatka HC) – In the present case, the total income assessed was Rs.21,25,981/-. This income became taxable because of denial of unabsorbed investment allowance and unabsorbed depreciation allowance to the extent of 1/3rd of such amount. When such amounts came to be restricted to an extent of 2/3rd of such amount, automatically Rs.21,25,981/- would be enhanced by virtue of provision of section 34-A.
The Tribunal has not rested its decision on the only circumstance that it is the business of the assessee to collect deposits and, therefore, it was entitled to collect them in cash even if it involves violation of Section 269SS; that is not the substratum of the decision.
It is not denied by the Revenue that U. Mohanrao was the Chairman and Managing Director of some of the companies which got merged with the assessee company. The said U. Mohanrao had access to all information starting from manufacturing process, knowhow to the clientele and the products, including the pricing of the products.
