The fact that in the 80th AGM held on 30th July 2007, the audited accounts for the financial years ended 31st March 2004, 31st March 2005 and 31st March 2006 were placed and adopted makes it clear that any default in that regard by BSMCL stands condoned. No other shareholder has objected to those accounts. They are taken to be the audited accounts. Neither the ROC nor the RD, nor the OL raised any objection. The objection of Mr. H.K. Chadha that adjustment entries have to be made in the accounts prepared by BRS for an earlier period to arrive at the correct picture cannot, in the above circumstances, be countenanced. No material has been placed on record by Mr. H.K. Chadha to substantiate the plea of non-preparation of the audited accounts of the above financial years.
In this case high Court has issued guideline to Income Tax Department in respect of the following :- Uploading Of Wrong Or Fictitious Demand Adjustment Of Refund Contrary To The Mandate Of Section 245 Of The Income Tax Act Denial Of Interest Where Assessee Not At Fault Credit Of Tax Deducted At Source (TDS) Non-communication of adjusted Section 143(1) intimations
As regards the second proposed question, the facts are that the respondent! assessee had purchased the land in question sometime in 1994-96. Since then, the respondent! assessee had shown the said land in its balance sheet as a fixed asset. The same had been consistently shown as such by the respondent! assessee in all the years including the assessment year 2006-07.
In the reopened assessment, the AO has taken the view that the amount in fact did not represent any capital gains on sale of shares, but represented the undisclosed income of the assessee brought in by means of an accommodation entry given by My Money Security Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly he brought the amount to tax with the narration undisclosed income introduced under guise of short term capital gains.
On going through the order dated 28.01.2013 we find that the same has been passed without any application of mind. To say the least, it is a cut-and-paste job. This is apparent from the fact that the paragraph 3 is merely a repetition of the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the said Act. Thereafter, paragraphs 4, 5 upto 5.6 comprise of quotations and extracts from Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
In view of the fact that this pre-condition has not been satisfied, we feel that the impugned notice dated 07.03.2012 as also the order dated 31.05.2012 ought to be set-aside. It is ordered accordingly. All the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 27.03.20 12 are quashed.
In its reply dated 19th June 2012 to the notice dated 26th May 2012 the Respondent has denied any liability whatsoever. It is, inter alia, stated in the reply sent by the Respondent through its counsel that “In the facts and circumstances, please advise your client that my client is not liable to pay any sum of US$ 350,000 or any other amount under the Agreement dated 18.05.2008 as alleged.
Delhi HC upholds deduction claim under Section 80HHC, dismissing penalty. Ruling based on Supreme Court decisions. Full analysis of ITA 47/2013 judgment.
The entire case is based on principal claim of revenue neutrality and non-applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment. It is undisputed fact that the duty amount was not paid on the due date in relation to the period for which the authority had found short-payment essentially because there was subsequent payment of the said amount, that cannot ipso facto result in revenue neutrality, merely because the appellants are entitled to avail credit in respect of the duty paid.
Section 115J/115JB targeted corporate entities for imposing a Minimum Alternate Tax on their book profit. It was noticed by the legislature that as a result of various tax concessions and incentives certain companies making huge profits and also declaring substantial dividends have been managing their affairs in such a way as to avoid payment of income tax.
