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.
The petitioner is a share broker. A survey was conducted under Section 133-A of the Act on 24.4.2001 in which a large number of incriminating documents were found. The AO proceeded to make enquiries in which it was found that there were serious defects in the books of accounts. Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal-the Director had created large number of fictitious concerns, which were not doing any business. In the circumstances the AO completed the assessment on protective basis.
The question that arises for consideration in instant case is, whether the payment made by the assessee of Rs. 1.74 crore against the total amount of Rs. 3.61 crore, which included the interest of Rs. 1.83 crore under Section 220(2) and 234-B, was paid as tax or interest.
In this case initially the bank guarantee furnished, was not a duty deposit in advance, but a security. After the duty was determined, the encashment of bank guarantee will amount to duty paid as the encashed bank guarantee lost its character of security.
In the present case we find that the warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act has been issued on 10th November, 2006 in the joint name of three persons. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of Section 292CC, as inserted by Finance Act, 2012 in the Statute Book i.e. the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessments made in the individual capacity of each persons named in he warrant of authorisation was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal were not justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that if the warrant of authorisation was issued jointly in the name of more than one person, the assessment could not have been made in the capacity of an individual.
