Non-filing of the returns for the last several years cannot be a ground for declining to grant registration as the Commissioner is only enjoined to see as to whether the Trust is genuine and whether the object for which it has been formed is for charitable purpose or not.
The award under the Motor Vehicle Act is like a decree of the court. It do not come within the definition of income as mentioned in Section 194A(1) read with Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act. Proceedings regarding claim under Motor Vehicle Act are in the nature of a garnishee proceedings under which the MACT has a right to attach the judgment debt payable by the insurance company.
In the present case we find that the petitioner had changed his registered office w.e.f. 4th November, 1989 from first floor and 6376 Naya Bans Delhi to Y-192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi, and thereafter w.ef. 3rd October, 2000 from Y-92 Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi to Room No.9, Y-3C, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi. The principal place of business is at Agra, where he has a floor mill.
The assessee had wrongly taken the benefit of Section 80IA on the gross total income by reducing the loss of Unit-II from Unit-I and thereby declaring the return at Nil and carried forward the loss of Rs. 23,94,827/-, which was not permissible.
We are of the opinion, that the question is covered by the judgment in India Cements Ltd. (supra). In Kinetic Engg. Ltd. (supra) the Bombay High Court considered almost the same question and held that the bank guarantee commission paid by the assessee for securing timely repayment of the deferred credit facilities for buying machinery for its running business is a revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.
Proviso of sub-section 4 to section 260 is an exception giving High Court a judicial discretion to frame additional substantial question of law during the course of hearing. The language used by the legislature in the proviso is quite clear and does not suffer from any ambiguity.
. The dearness relief is neither compensation received in lieu of termination of the employment, nor any amount due paid in lumpsum or otherwise after cessation of the employment.
Since no agricultural operations were carried on, the income tax authorities rightly concluded that the capital asset was converted into stock-in-trade, and that sales of plots in the case of such land would be treated to be business activity to make profits.
In the instant case, the amendment under Section 260A (2A) has been introduced retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.1998 by the Finance Act, 2010. But fact remains that the cases already settled before the said amendment cannot be re-opened, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Babu Ram v. C. C. Jacob and others; AIR (1999) SC 1845, where it was observed that the prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
In the instant case, ‘R’ has created these trusts and was depositing the amount in cash to be given to the company as loans. He did not produce the trust deeds, the author of the trusts or beneficiaries of the trusts. The method and manner in which the amounts were deposited in the bank accounts of the trusts and was transferring the same on the same day by way of cheques to the company clearly established that he was playing a fraud with the revenue.
