Where larger bench of SC overrules its earlier decision on which Tribunal relied on, Tribunal can rectify that – Clearly, a time limit of four years from the date of the order has been prescribed in respect of the exercise of the power of rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. There is absolutely no doubt that had an appeal or other proceeding been pending in respect of the order of the Tribunal in this case, when the decision in Gold Coin (supra) was rendered, that decision would have to be followed. But, as it happens, no appeal or other proceeding was pending. However, the period of four years stipulated in Section 254(2) had not elapsed. Thus, in our view, once we recognize the fact that the Supreme Court decision in Gold Coin (supra) operates retrospectively and therefore it has to be regarded as the law as it existed when the order was passed by Tribunal,
For issue a notice u/s 143(2), reasons to believe are not required to be recorded in writing and power of the Assessing Officer to take up the return for scrutiny is much wider and the jurisdictional pre-conditions stipulated u/s 147 are not required to be satisfied. The respondents have agreed to and will be bound by the statement to withdraw notice u/s 147/148, but will have liberty and right to issue fresh notice u/s 147/148, after recording reasons to believe. The said notice will not be barred because the respondents had not initiated proceedings by issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act or they had earlier issued notice under Sections 147/148. With the aforesaid findings and observations writ petition is disposed of.
As regards the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the question again is whether in computing the income of the trust on commercial principles, the provision can be deducted or where the deduction can be allowed only in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(i)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. We have already held that the income of the trust available for application to charitable purposes in India should be computed not in accordance with the strict provisions of the Income Tax Act but should be computed in accordance with commercial principles and it is on this footing that the payment of Income Tax Act under the VDIS was treated as a deduction and as proper amplication of the income of the trust. The same line of reasoning holds good for the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Even under the computation provision of the Act such a provision was considered allowable up to and including the assessment year 1988-89 and it was only from the assessment year 1989-90 that the Act required that a mere provision would not be allowable as a deduction and the actual writing off of the debt was a necessary pre-condition. Be that as it may, under the commercial principles it has always been recognized that a provision, reasonably made for a loss or an outgoing, can be deducted from the income if there is apprehension that the debt might become bad. There is nothing brought on record to show that the provision was not made bona fide. In such a situation the ratio of the decisions cited by us while dealing with the deductibility of the taxes paid under the VDIS will equally apply. We accordingly hold that while computing the income available to the trust for application to charitable purposes in India in accordance with Section 11(1)(a) the provision for doubtful debts must be deducted.
Inland Ports were specifically mentioned as an infrastructure facility in the statutory provision and in the understanding of the CBEC, which administers the Customs Act, an Inland Container Depot was actually an Inland Port. There is also no dispute that even in 1983 amendments had been made to the Customs Act by treating the Inland Container Depots as part of the customs port for purpose of customs formalities and clearances.
The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the notice issued on 30.12.2004 under Section 143(2) of the Act was validly served upon the assessee-firm on 31.12.2004 as claimed by the Assessing Officer. We proceed on the assumption that the notice was not served on either of the two partners of the assessee-firm and that it was served on some person who was not specifically authorised to receive notice. Even so, we are not persuaded to hold that there was no valid service of the notice upon the assessee-firm.
Expenditure on fully convertible debentures deductible, Export Sales Income Source cannot be said to be located or situated outside India . It is well settled that expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of debentures or obtaining loan is revenue expenditure. Reference in this connection may be made to the leading judgment of the Supreme court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52. The question before us however, is whether it is a debenture issue or an issue of share capital involving the strengthening of the capital base of the company.
The assessee had filed and furnished all details and particulars relating to the royalty payment including agreements, calculation and the approval before the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct all material facts. The facts were available before and were within the knowledge of the AO. The new AO as per the reasons recorded on the basis of the same facts, has observed that royalty payment should have been disallowed as it was capital in nature. This is a question of legal inference or interpretation which has been drawn from the same material facts on record. Therefore, the case falls in the category of change of opinion as at the time of original preceding the AO examined and gone into the question of royalty. Even if there was any legal error or illegality the same cannot be rectified and be made the subject matter of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The re-assessment order is also quashed.
What is prohibited and barred is application of income or use of the property of the institution directly or indirectly for benefit of a person mentioned in Section 13(3) i.e. he is paid beyond what is reasonable, adequate, commensurate and justified for the services rendered or goods supplied. The said person should not profit at the expense of the trust/institution. Charity should not become the primary or important source of business profits and a façade to promote business interest or secure advantage, for persons mentioned in Section 13(3) in the name of charity. The word “benefit” need not be restricted to direct material benefit, but is of wide significance comprehending whatever would be beneficial in any respect, materially or otherwise. Benefit can be pecuniary or non pecuniary. This would be the correct legislative intent.
Receipt of the impugned amount was on account of part services rendered by the assessee to his previous foreign employer outside India. Under section 5 of the I.T. Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all incomes from whatever source derived, which is received or deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person; or accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year; or accrues or arises to him outside India during such year.
The order of Sh. K.S.Mohi basically implements the resolution of DDCA dated 1.3.2007 and on which aspect I have already commented above that there is absolutely no resolution whatsoever dated 1.3.2007 and if even there is such a resolution, the same will be an illegal resolution because the same amounts to an amendment of the Memorandum of Association or Rules without prior sanction/approval of the Central Government as required under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, the license granted to the DDCA and as duly incorporated in Clause 4(vii) of the Memorandum of Association.Therefore, the order dated 12.4.2007 cannot bind the appellants/plaintiffs either on principle of res judicata or because there is no resolution dated 1.3.2007 of DDCA on which the order was passed, or on the ground even if there is a resolution dated 1.3.2007, the said resolution would be an illegal resolution in the absence of any prior sanction or approval from the Central Government.
