Even if a company which has good and solid financial foundation and also has capacity to pay, cannot avoid its obligation to pay and be allowed to neglect its financial obligations and when a company which is really financially sound and healthy does not make and neglects to make payment of the amount due and payable by it then the Court cannot fail in its duty to take note of such intentional neglect and Court cannot entertain and allow such stand or defence and, consequently, the court cannot deny the petitioner-creditor an order of winding up against the company which neglects, rather wilfully neglects, to discharge its financial obligation/debt.
Though a total sum of Rs. 5 crores was placed by the State Government at the disposal of the assessee-company for allotment of shares, such sum was not utilized for the purpose for which the same was transferred. As per the understanding between the assessee and the State Government pending allocation of shares, whatever interest was earned, should be paid over to the State of Gujarat.
From the facts on records, it is apparent that the impugned notice under section 148 has been issued after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in a case where earlier an assessment had been framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under the circumstances, the proviso to section 147 would be attracted.
Scientific research in the context of the deduction allowable under section 35(1) of the Act would include wide variety of activities. It can also be appreciated that every scientific research need not necessarily result into the ultimate goal with which it may have been undertaken. Often times in the field of research and invention, the efforts undertaken may or may not yield fruitful results.
The main contention of the Income Tax Department is that the Scheme is floated with the sole object to avoid tax liability. Except the Income Tax Department no objections were raised by anyone against sanctioning the Scheme.
In the present case, we notice that in two out of four reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, he stated that he need to verify the claims. In the second ground, he had recorded that admissibility of the bad debts written off required to be verified. In the fourth ground also, he had recorded that admissibility of royalty claim was required to be verified.
Assessee put forth his claim for exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act with respect to three different incomes, namely, (1) interest from SSNNL bonds, (2) interest from GIPCL bonds, and (3) capital gain from sale of shares by GPEC. Such claim was supported by the notes forming part of the return of income. It is not as if the Assessing Officer did not notice these claims.
In the present case, it is not even the case of the Revenue that shares were sold at a price lower than the market rate. If that be so, the question of inflating the loss by transferring the shares to group company would not arise. Under ordinary circumstances, it is always open to the assessee in his own wisdom to either hold on to certain bunch of shares or to sell the same to avoid further loss,
Tribunal were correct in taking the view that the refund was liable to be paid to the present respondents as service tax was not passed on to the buyers/customers and there was no unjust enrichment.
The Tribunal was justified in recording the aforesaid findings. In the facts of the case, it was not possible to ascribe any wilful suppression or mis-statement on the part of the assessee for not paying excise duty because during the period in question, various decisions of the Tribunal were to the effect that the activity of cutting, bending, bunching of plates or channels in which the assessee was engaged, did not amount to manufacturing activity. In Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC), Apex Court observed that when there was bona fide doubt as to non-excisability of the goods due to divergent views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the extended period of 5 years cannot be invoked. Mere failure or negligence in not taking license or not paying duty, is not sufficient for invoking extended period.
