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.
The case of the petitioners is that the impugned explanation below sub-section (13) to section 80IA provides for a levy of tax which was hitherto unknown. It is, therefore, urged that the Court should examine the reasonableness of such provision particularly when the same is brought into operation with retrospective effect. Section 80IA(4) provides for deduction under certain circumstances. If such deductions are withdrawn with retrospective effect, surely there would be a case of providing for a levy which was till then not known.
In short, the Revenue authorities and the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the addition of Rs.50 lacs was justified. We do not find any question of law arising. The entire issue rests solely on appreciation of evidence on record. Particularly when the assessee having made such a statement and repeated the same two months later and in the letter retracting the statement never offered any explanation as to the reason why he made a confessional statement two months after the search, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of two Revenue authorities and the Tribunal.
The petitioners required vacant possession of the land to be able to pass on the title and vacant possession. To be able to do so, the petitioners entered into agreements with the tenants. Such documents thus are documents which definitely belong to the petitioners. Simply because on subsequent date, the land was sold, may have a bearing on the title of such land, the same would not in any manner alter the nature of the document concerned.
