Absence of an appeal does not necessarily render the legislation unreasonable as only because no appeal is provided under the Act against the order passed under section 14 of the Securitisation Act will not render section 14 ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.
We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal; and the appeal is devoid of any merits. Both the substantial questions raised by the appellant do not involve any substantial question of law and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
From the above portion, we noticed that the Tribunal has bifurcated the expenditure in two parts – first related to investment of Rs. 5907.18 lakhs in foreign subsidiaries, it was held that the dividend income from such subsidiaries is taxable in India and that therefore, Section 14A would have no applicability. The remaining amount pertain to investment of Rs. 38 Crores [rounded off] made in Indian subsidiaries. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had to its disposal, own interest free funds many times over the investment in question. As per the balance sheet as on 31st March 2005, the assessee had interest free fund of Rs. 929.57 Crores.
It is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner-Association are authorized by the port authorities constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 to provide such services. It is also not in dispute that without such authorization, such services could not be rendered by them. In fact, the petitioners have produced on record, a licence issued by port authorities authorizing the petitioners to provide such services.
We have perused the balance sheet of the company placed on record. Year after year company continued to incur huge loss. Balance sheet suggests that there is no manufacturing or other activity being undertaken by the company and with each successive year, accumulated loss swell. In fact net profit of the company is in negative since long. All these would demonstrate that the petitioners have no means of fulfilling the pre-deposit condition.
Parliament amended Explanation 1 to section 234B by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007 to provide along with tax deducted or collected at source, the MAT credit under section 115JAA also to be excluded while calculating assessed tax.
Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Ranka & Ranka [2012] 206 Taxman 322 wherein the Division Bench has considered Instruction No.3 and the National Litigation, Policy, had held as under: (i) Instruction No.3/11 is also applicable to the pending appeals. (ii) As the tax effect in the instant case is less than Rs.10 lakhs, the appeal stands dismissed on the ground of monetary limit, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, making it clear that the Department is at liberty to proceed against the assessee in future, if there any amount due from the assessee, on similar issue and if it is above the monetary limit prescribed.
Before a pharmaceutical drug could be put in the market, the regulatory authorities would insist on strict tests and research on all possible aspects, such as possible reactions, effect of the drug and so on. Extensive clinical trials, therefore, would be an intrinsic part of development of any such new pharmaceutical drug. It cannot be imagined that such clinical trial can be carried out only in the laboratory of the pharmaceutical company.
In the present case, the Assessing Officer having examined the entire claim threadbare, any deviation from his decision on the ground that the receipts of the assessee from sale of land should be treated as business income in and not as long term capital gain must be taken to be a change of opinion. It may be that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not elaborate on this aspect of the matter. To our mind the same would be of no consequence.
When the Settlement Commission examines an application in terms of statutory powers and finds that such application does not satisfy the legal requirements, as contained in section 245C(1) of the Act, in our view, unless such decision of the Commission is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be warranted.
