Land in question was declared surplus land under the Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulation] Act, 1976 which was having depressing effect on the value of the asset, the valuation had to be made on the basis of assumption that the purchaser would be able to enjoy the property as the holder, but with restrictions and prohibitions contained in the ULC Act and in such case value of the property or land would be reduced.
In the instant case, Amish Kumar Patel in his statement under Section 131 of the IT Act has nowhere said that the money in question belonged to the petitioner’s firm or was to be delivered to it. Instead, he has stated that the money in question was handed over to him by Praveen Bhai who was found untraceable at the address provided by Amish Kumar. This being so, the petitioners do not get any advantage of Vindhya Metal Corpn.’s case (supra), being distinguishable on facts.
We may also notice that the proviso to Section 147 of the Act is fully applicable as the assessee had disclosed all the materials facts at the time of original assessment. Even if the materials/evidence was not enclosed with the return, full and true details/material was disclosed during the course of the original proceedings. The turnover or sales made to DMRC has not been disputed.
If there is no dispute as to the company’s liability, it is difficult to hold that the company should be able to pay its debts merely by proving that it is able to pay the debts. If the debt is an undisputedly owing, then it should be paid. If the company refuses to pay, without good reason, it should not be able to avoid the statutory demand by proving at the statutory demand stage, that it is solvent. In other words, commercial solvency can be seen as relevant as to whether there was a dispute as to the debt, not as a ground in itself, that means it cannot be characterised as a stand alone ground
If the argument of the appellant were to be accepted, it would make the provisions of compulsory registration under the Registration Act redundant and otiose. Thus the appellant, in the absence of any valid agreement can neither seek a direction to the Official Liquidator nor will any purpose be served in granting permission to the appellant to sue the company-in-liquidation for specific performance when as per the admitted facts, the appellant is unable to prove and/or is prohibited from proving the agreement.
The refusal of OSIL to convert 35,00,000 warrants held by Bhushan Energy Limited into equal number of equity shares may amount to a breach of contract but such breach of contract cannot constitute the ingredients of a complaint under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act. As decided in the case of Incable Net (Andhra) Ltd. (supra), such breach could give rise to an action of breach of contract under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972.
Tribunal after examining the evidence upheld the order of CIT(A) and concluded that the respondent was an investor in shares and entitled to be taxed under the head capital gains in respect of purchase and sale of shares. The Tribunal after examining the facts found that the respondent had not borrowed any funds for its investments and that the long terms gains were attributable to only shares of 4 companies and 3 of them were held for a period of about 5 to 12 years. So far as short terms capital gains were concerned the Tribunal held that about 93% of the short terms gain/loss was attributable to shares of six companies and in any case all the shares were held for periods ranging in excess of 1 month.
Ultimately the assessing officer was of the opinion that a firm, which had the capacity to lend an amount of Rs. 71,50,000/- that too, to one of its partners or others is reasonably presumed to have the taxable income and if the assessee had never disclosed its expenditure or otherwise earlier and in such circumstances, if the officer records that he has reason to believe that assessee had taxable income and a non-filing of the return is not merely suspicion and therefore in bringing to tax such amount by re-opening.
The AO has simply mentioned in the asstt. Order that on enquiry some of the vehicles shown to have been involved in the supply of seeds have been found to be two-wheelers and cars and not trucks & metadors, but has not given any specific instance. Therefore, the charge made by the AO to this extent cannot be verified by this office. Even otherwise, it is a fact that the vehicle Nos. are being mentioned at the gate-passes by the security staff who are not highly literate and who may write an alphabet of insurance in such a way that any person may read it to be some other alphabet. For example it is quite possible that the gate-keeper writes the alphabets OD on the gate pass which the next record may read as OO or DO or DD for the simple reason that the first person might have written the two alphabets in a near similar fashion. Therefore, no adverse inference can be derived only for the reason of discrepancy in the vehicle numbers
CIT V. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of shares and debentures of the company to public subscription, which qualify for consideration under Section 35D, are underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus and nothing more. There is a residual clause to sub clause D, which shows such other items of expenditure not being expenditure eligible for any allowance or deduction under any other provisions of the Act as may be prescribed.
