In the instant case, the agreement was entered into between the parties on 1-7-2012 and by the mail dated 4-7-2012, the petitioner evinced her desire not to go ahead with the transaction. Indeed, the petitioner unilaterally offered the deduction in terms of the agreement though it would have been understandable for the petitioner even to require a reconsideration of the matter since the termination followed within the days of the execution of the agreement.
Moment the commercial surcharge is recovered irrespective of the provisions of the agreement entered into by and between the landlord and tenant it immediately become exigible to tax as rental income from house property for agreement binds the parties thereto and it becomes irrelevant the moment it is found to be in conflict with legal provision on the subject.
The company cannot demonstrate that it had, contemporaneously or otherwise, complained of the goods supplied by the petitioner not adhering to any of the specifications stipulated in the purchase orders. Even the company’s grievance as to the size of the goods is not tenable since the purchase orders specified the size to be 0-1 mm.
Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
There has to be a sanctity to the order of Court otherwise the Court orders would be meaningless. An order of the Court may be set aside by a higher Court. A Court of coordinate jurisdiction should ordinarily not recall the order of another learned Judge unless and until there was an ex facie apparent error on the face of the record. Moreover, if it was to be done, it should be done by the same Judge if he was available.
This issue in fact fell for decision before this Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 130 of 1998, dated 17-12-1998] wherein this Court by its judgment and order has upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the claim of loss of the assessee in the matter of sale of Part B of the PCD in the self-same rights issue is permissible as short-term capital loss.
While making assessment of any returns any deduction is sought for it is the duty of the revenue official to examine not only the account but also substantive right of claiming deduction under the Act on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not a case that the said assets and properties do not belong to the appellant, therefore depreciation in any assets and properties is a regular phenomenon and deduction on this account is allowable under Section 32 automatically.
A creditor can maintain a winding up petition if he complies with the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the said Act of 1956. In the present case, the respondent-Bank was admittedly a creditor of the company. The company did not dispute such relationship. The company did not dispute receipt of the notice, hence, the winding up petition was maintainable.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Assessing Officer on fact after having examined accounts and accompanying documents found that total funds available with the assessee on 31st March, 1999 was Rs. 1,44,82,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 22.75 lakhs was given as loans as on 31st March, 1999 representing 15.70% of the funds available with the assessee.
The parties are not to blame for this creditor’s winding-up petition having lingered for an unnecessary length of time and there being a more protracted hearing than is ordinarily called for in a matter of this kind. It was only an observation of the court that led to a relatively innocuous matter being blown out of proportion upon the court considering it to be significant that subsequent to the present petition
