Though a total sum of Rs. 5 crores was placed by the State Government at the disposal of the assessee-company for allotment of shares, such sum was not utilized for the purpose for which the same was transferred. As per the understanding between the assessee and the State Government pending allocation of shares, whatever interest was earned, should be paid over to the State of Gujarat.
As per the proposed law that was pending for consideration of the President of India, scheme of amalgamation and/or arrangement would involve two per cent Stamp Duty whereas the ‘conveyance’ as of date would require payment of duty at the rate of seven per cent. It is for the State to fix the rate. So long the new law does not come in force the existing law would prevail.
From the facts on records, it is apparent that the impugned notice under section 148 has been issued after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in a case where earlier an assessment had been framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under the circumstances, the proviso to section 147 would be attracted.
There are concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal that no services are being provided by the assessee to the occupants of its property and that the service charges have to be included as a part of its rental income. The test to determine whether the service agreement is different from the rent agreement would be whether the service agreement could stand independently of the rent agreement.
It is well settled that the Legislature has conferred power to condone the delay to enable the Courts and Tribunals to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. Similarly, if the delay is not inordinate and unexplained when is condoned the maximum that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing parties.
In a case of scheme of arrangement pending for approval of the Court under Section 391 Court should act as umpire. It would not be a rubber stamp being a blind folded instrument of putting of seal of approval. It would certainly consider the objections raised by the objectors, to the extent, permissible under the corporate jurisprudence.
Scientific research in the context of the deduction allowable under section 35(1) of the Act would include wide variety of activities. It can also be appreciated that every scientific research need not necessarily result into the ultimate goal with which it may have been undertaken. Often times in the field of research and invention, the efforts undertaken may or may not yield fruitful results.
After going through the assessment order, annexure-1, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may have submitted his returns showing his total income as ‘NIL’ and has shown book profit of Rs. 2,05,86,930/- under Section 115JB but A.O. has not proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 115JB and clearly mentioned in first para of the order itself that “the case was duly processed u/s 143(1)(a) and thereafter on selection of the case of scrutiny, statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued.” Such notices were duly responded by the assessee’s representative and the case was contested and proceeded under Section 143(1)(a) and assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961.
Law is well-settled that in cases where the company court sells the properties in accordance with various provisions of the Companies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, such sale can be interfered with only in cases where there is a total irregularity or the sale is effected against the provisions of the Companies Act or the Rules framed thereunder. On the factual matrix, it is not the case of the appellant that there has been any irregularity or the sale has been effected in gross violation of the provisions of the Companies Act. T
On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assessees whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the assessees whose assessments have already been concluded.
