The tax audit report filed by the assessee was as per Form No. 3CA which was applicable to the assessees carrying on business or profession. In the audit report, the nature of business was referred to as investment company and the method of valuation of closing stock was stated to be the lower of cost or market value which method is applicable in case of business stock only.
In the present case, it is an admitted position where the appellant had not furnished the return within time allotted to him under sub sections (1) and (2) and therefore, his case clearly falls within the provision of section 139 (4). Section 139 (5) merely stipulates that it is applicable to any person who has furnished the return under sub sections (1) or (2). In the present case, therefore, if the appellant had filed the return in time, and thereafter had filed a rectified return, he could be permitted to do so under the said provision. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the Legislature in its wisdom had intended to give the benefits of filing a revised return only to those persons who fall within the four corners of section 139 sub sections (1) and (2) of the said Act. If the legislature had intended to also give the same benefits to an assessee who had not furnished the return within time, it would have said so in sub clause (5). The very fact that sub clause 4 is not referred to in sub clause (5) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature.
When the appellant was paid Rs. 15.00 lakhs by Y. Kalyana Sundaram in full and final settlement towards his 50% share on the dissolution of the firm, there was no “transfer” as understood in law and consequently there cannot be tax on alleged capital gain. The appellant was correct in law in contending that the amount he received from Y. Kalyana Sundaram is towards the full and final settlement of his share and such adjustment of his right is not a transfer in the eye of law.
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
The procedure to be followed in the matter of execution of the order made by the company court is different from that laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. As per section 635, it is sufficient to produce to the Court which is required to execute its order, a certified copy of the order sought to be executed. It is not necessary to comply with the procedure laid down in section 39 and Order 21, rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil procedure and get the order first transferred by the Court which made it to the Court which is to enforce it and then make an application to execute it .
Telecom Infrastructure Service Providers – Entitled to procure goods against ‘C’ Forms at concessional rate of CST @2% – Goods purchased are used in the telecommunication network and therefore covered by Section (1) and 8(3)(b) of the CST Act – Petitions allowed – Penalties levied on the appellants set aside.
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.
The appellant/assessee availed the benefit under the Works Contracts Composition Scheme in respect of contracts entered into prior to 1-6-2007. The respondent/department issued show cause notice proposing service tax, interest and penalty on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to avail the benefit under the Composition Scheme. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).
There is no conflict between the statutory relief of winding up and of the contractual right to have disputes settled by arbitration. Once a bona fide defence is shown to exist, arbitration will be the efficacious and proper remedy. Where, however, the defence is mala fide and a moonshine, arbitrable disputes would not exist and the company judge would have the power to pass appropriate orders Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Co. (supra). Existence of an arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of this court to either entertain or to admit a petition for winding up.
The admitted position is that the amount of Rs.30,63,310/- was shown by her in the return. That being the position, it cannot be said that there was any concealment. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount was correctly mentioned and therefore, there is also nothing inaccurate in the particulars furnished by her.
