The Tribunal is required to deal with the factual findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and, then after examining the document and evidence, give and record their factual conclusions. The factual conclusion should be based upon reasons and should be outcome of analysis and discussion. The Tribunal being the final fact finding authority cannot merely record its conclusions without discussing the factual matrix, evidence and material.
The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2004-2005, had not furnished any intimation to the Assessing Officer about the alleged misappropriation of funds. Though the FIR was lodged by the Assessee on 16 March, 2006 and the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2004-2005 were completed thereafter on 22 December, 2006, the filing of the FIR was not disclosed to the Assessing Officer.
Respondent has filed the affidavit in which he has affirmed that he had initiated proceedings for reassessment on the basis of precise information received from the Enforcement Directorate vide its letter dated 19th December, 2007 received by him on 20th December, 2007 and that in the said letter the relevant documents were forwarded to the Range Head and subsequently endorsed to the Assessing Officer by his superior. It has been further averred in the affidavit that all the facts contained in the reasons were available within the jurisdiction of the respondent and were in his knowledge.
In order to claim deduction the assessee has to prove by adducing cogent evidence that it was incurred on account of business activities of the company. It appears as rightly pointed out by the respondent that despite opportunity being given, it could not produce any materials that such foreign tour was undertaken in relation to the business of the company. Mere furnishing information and making of statement are not good enough to establish the case of foreign travel.
The Court upheld Section 48(5) of the MVAT Act, ruling that input tax credit cannot exceed tax actually deposited in the Government Treasury. It held that the provision is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14.
The word ‘compromise’ itself signifies an agreement between the two parties to compound the offence. If the parties do not agree to compound the offence, the Court has to proceed with the complaint. It is different thing that the Court on considering the offer of payment of cheque amount plus cost may not award a punishment of imprisonment and may only award penalty plus compensation.
Reading of the judgment dated 07.7.2011 rendered in the earlier writ petition, it becomes clear that the petitioner had challenged the vires of Section 205A and 205C on the ground that these provisions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also argued that these provisions could not be given retrospective effect. The petitioner had also submitted that huge corpus had accumulated in IEPF as unclaimed amount. All these contentions were taken note of and specifically rejected.
NSE byelaws, rules and regulations would have statutory force. These statutory byelaws were brought into effect with the approval of the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) under Section 9 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. The said bye-laws would prevail over the Limitation Act, 1963.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/SOL, it is stated that the student is not entitled to any relief in the present petition for the reason that as per the rules of the respondent No.2/SOL contained in the prospectus, only a bonafide student of a college is entitled to migration to SOL and admittedly, the student had paid her regular fee with I.P. College upto April, 2011 and not thereafter and resultantly, on the date when she had sought migration, she was not a bonafide student enrolled with any college and, therefore, she could not be considered for purposes of migration to the respondent No.2/SOL. In support of the aforesaid averments, a copy of the prospectus of SOL for the academic year 2011-12 with regard to migration/direct admission is enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-1.
There is no legal provision which provides for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on a condition of depositing 50% of the tax amount. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned or refused depending upon the sufficiency of cause for delay. If the party is found to be prevented by a sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal, the delay is condoned and if not found to be prevented by a sufficient cause, the delay is not condoned.
