However, in the case of a non-competition agreement or covenant, the advantage is a restricted one, in point of time. It does not necessarily – and not in the facts of this case, confer any exclusive right to carry-on the primary business activity.
The assessment order is bereft of any discussion as to what were the materials adverse to the assessee and what was the inference that could be drawn in the light of those materials and documents. Consequently, even while we do not fault the Tribunal’s reasoning about the denial of opportunity to the assessee, the outcome has to be slightly different especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Pirai Choodi (supra).
In the instant case, we would like to convey that in so far as the books of account are concerned, namely, the balance sheet, the assessee was supposed to follow the mandate of the Reserve Bank of India and, therefore, that by itself would not be a ground to label the securities as ‘investment’. One will have to see the real nature of these securities.
Arrears of rent received by the assessee (as mesne profits) could not be brought to tax for the previous years, when they fell due. They could be brought to tax only during the year of receipt. The revenue had further argued that during the year of receipt, the assessee had shown the amount so received as capital.
It is seen from the statement of ‘M’ that the assessee’s name was not mentioned by him at all as beneficiary of the accommodation entry business carried by him. Since despite being obliquely prompted, he did not mention the assessee’s name and merely stated that he did not deal with any ship-breaker and he had given only loan after taking cash and deducting commission.
The Tribunal has not rested its decision on the only circumstance that it is the business of the assessee to collect deposits and, therefore, it was entitled to collect them in cash even if it involves violation of Section 269SS; that is not the substratum of the decision.
In this case, the Tribunal had noticed that there was no dispute as regards the terms of employment of the workers and officers. The only question was the exact quantification of the compensation or wage revision. The Tribunal also held that provision for wage revision was based on past experience, interim Pay Commission of government employees, previous Pay Commission’s reports of public sector employees, union demands and other relevant factors.
Rule 2BA is in the form of guidelines for the purpose of section 10(10C), which relates to taxation of income/amount received by an employee under VRS scheme. The said rule does not deal with the expenditure incurred by the employer when the assessee makes payment under the VRS scheme formulated by them.
It is stated by them that insofar as the revamping the system and giving better assistance to the court is concerned, all necessary action as they would take has been taken. We would thus naturally expect that now there would no lack of proper assistance to the court.
Section 271(1)(c) empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalties wherever the assessee does not furnish accurate particulars, in the form of returns, such as concealing the sources of income, or withholding true and full information. This duty was spelt out by the Supreme Court as one cast on the assessee to disclose all facts, including every potential income.
