Before answering the first question viz., as to whether the interest income of the assessee received from its corporate members on the investments of surplus funds as Fixed Deposits or Debentures etc., is exempted from tax on the concept of Mutuality, it will be worthwhile to refer to the principles laid down on the Doctrine of Mutuality in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as some of the High Courts.
An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in the case of an appeal made, on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, irrespective of the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings relating thereto, be accompanied by a fee of,
As a consequence of the amendments introduced by the 2007 Act, an application which abates for no fault of the applicant would, under section 245HA(2) revert back to the IT Authorities as if no application had, in the first place, been made under section 245C to the Settlement Commission. As inserted by the 2007 Act, Section 245HA(3) of the Act further provides that where an application so reverts to the IT Authorities upon abatement,
CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Disallowance under Section 14A requires finding of incurring of expenditure where it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred, disallowance under Section 14A cannot stand.
The assessee earned dividend income on shares which was exempt from tax. The AO took the view that the investment in shares was made out of borrowed funds on which interest expenditure was incurred and consequently made a disallowance u/s 14A. This was partly upheld by the CIT (A). On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance by noting that the assessee had proved that the investment in shares was made out of non-interest bearing funds.
It is repeatedly held by the Courts that the penalty on the ground of concealment of particulars or non-disclosure of full particulars can be levied only when in the accounts/return an item has been suppressed dishonestly or the item has been claimed fraudulently or a bogus claim has been made. When the facts are clearly disclosed in the return of income,
The Full Bench was constituted to consider whether for the purposes of allowing deduction under Ch. VI-A depreciation could be thrust on the assessee even though it had disclaimed the same for purposes of regular assessment. The assessee argued that as in accordance with Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 (SC), depreciation was optional and as Expl. 5 to s. 32 came into force only from AY 2002-2003, depreciation could not be thrust even for purposes of Ch. VI-A. HELD, deciding against the assessee:
Even if it is accepted that by a transfer of shares u/s 2(47), there is a transfer in the right to use the capital assets of the company, still s. 170 is not attracted because there is no “transfer of business”. A company is a juristic person and owns the business. The share holders are not the owners of the company. By a transfer of the shares, there is no transfer so far as the company is concerned.
The Assessing officer initiated proceedings for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act in as much as the assessee accepted share application money being Rs.20,000/- in cash. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld the stand of the assessee that the amount received
The CLB cannot exercise its inherent powers to pass orders without jurisdiction or in utter disregard to orders passed by the Supreme Court or the High Court; an interim order passed by the CLB without jurisdiction and without giving reasons and in utter disregard to the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot be sustained.
