It is clarified that AS-14 (i.e. accounting standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants) is applicable only to amalgamations and not to demerger. On a plain reading of the accounting standard under reference, it is clear that the same is applicable only in case of an amalgamation and not in case of demergers. This has also been held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of 2010 1 CLJ 351 tiled Gallops Realty (P) Ltd. Copy of the order has been placed on record.
The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision.
Assessing authority has himself extended the benefit to storage tank storing water as a component to main machinery namely, boiler, he ought to have extended the benefit to the storage tanks which are also part of the factory premises, in which the by products are stored and thereafter sold as a finished product.
High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by this Court in the case of CCE v. Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. in CEA No.6/2007 disposed of on 01.09.2010. The said question has to be adjudicated by the Apex Court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable.
On the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Range – Ujjain against the impugned order of assessment. The memo of appeal indicates that in the said appeal the petitioner has also questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the parallel remedy before two forums at the same time raising the same issue.
We agree with the assessee’s contention that the written down value of the assets at the hands of the amalgamated company will be the written down value at the hands of the amalgamating company for the immediate preceding previous year arrived at after reducing the depreciation actually allowed in the said preceding previous year and Explanation 3 will have no relevance for the purpose of finding out the written down value of the amalgamating company, which, in turn, is that of the amalgamated company.
There is no dispute that the employer has entered into agreements with the employees and thereby has taken over an obligation to pay income tax payable by the employees. If the employer was not obliged to pay such income tax, the same would have been payable by the employees in question. Such payment, as has been provided in Section 10 (10CC) is notwithstanding anything contained in Section 200 of the Companies Act, 1956.
The contention urged by the Applicant that the Scheme of Demerger must necessarily comply with Section 2(19AA) which is meant for availing tax concession cannot be read as a mandatory requirement for all schemes of amalgamation / arrangement/de-merger under Sections 391/392/394 of 1956 Act . The said provision cannot be read and interpreted to include assets/units/undertakings/business belonging to the respondent-IRSL which were never transferred or intended to be transferred to IRTL and which are not mentioned in the Scheme of Arrangement.
The provision made for advance tax of Rs.23,50, 000/- debited in the P&L account not added back to income is bonafide mistake. Assessee paid advance tax in the month of March only. It is the first time that provision was debited in P&L account. Had there been any intention to file inaccurate particulars then the assessee could not have paid the advance tax in the last month of assessment year. The assessee concern is a firm which is not having expert chartered accountants at its payroll. Further, this was the first year in which the provision for taxation was debited to the P&L account.
The Tribunal while examining this issue went purely by the facts of the case and held that the difficulties in non-production of the documents as was required under the statute was on account of shifting of branch of the bank shortly before the date of the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Since, these documents at the time of survey were not presented, it was inferred that they were collected subsequently in post survey period.
