We find from the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the argument of the assessee that if the addition is confirmed, if any trading result should be allowed to be set off against unaccounted income of Rs. 1,90,000/- introduced in garb of guess deposits. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition of Rs. 75,916/-. Therefore, telescoping effect of this addition was allowed.
In case of transfer of capital asset forming part of block of assets in respect of which depreciation has been allowed, mode of computation and cost of acquisition shall be as per modifications provided in section 50. Thus, special provision made for computation of capital assets in respect of which depreciation has been allowed, is confined for the purpose of section 50 in relation to sections 48 and 49 only.
Learned counsel for the Revenue however, vehemently contended that the assessee and M/s. K.M. Patel & Co. had agreed to share the receipts in ratio of 60:40. They could not have thereafter, modified such arrangement without any written contract. From the record it however, emerges that assessee and M/s. K.M. Patel & Co. agreed to make investment in such proportion for carrying out construction work jointly undertaken by them.
It is well settled that the proceedings of winding up is not a recovery proceeding. Once it is demonstrated that the debt is subject to a bonafide dispute, the court will not order for winding up. The principles in this regard are elucidated in Madhusudan Gordhandas (supra).
The Tribunal, upon detailed examination of the nature of relationship between the assessee and the transporter, came to the conclusion that this is not a case of sub-contract. The Tribunal noted that none of the responsibilities of the contractor vis-a-vis the execution of the work were fastened on the transporters.
In the present case, as stated hereinabove, admittedly original accused No. 2 was appointed as managing director of original accused No. 1-company and original accused No. 1-company had also the whole-time directors and the manager. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused only as a ordinary director.
In Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma [2008] 8 SCC 321 it was reiterated that sufficient cause should be understood in pragmatic and practical manner. The test is that the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction or negligence on part of the appellant.
Circular No. 777 dated 17th March 1999 issued by the CBDT makes it clear that such certificate cannot have retrospective effect. The reason put forth by the assessee that he had a bona fide belief, as for earlier financial years the Assessing Officer of the contractor allowed the assessee to credit or pay without deduction of tax at source did not find favour with the Tribunal on the ground that the Circular issued under Section 197 (1) of the Act cannot have retrospective effect.
Under section 12AA of the Act, the Commissioner has to satisfy himself about the objectives of the trust and the genuineness of its activities. For such purpose, he has the power to call for such documents or information from the trust as he think are necessary.
The view of the Tribunal that in any case the assessee could have encashed the unutilized credit in the CENVAT account and that therefore the same did not make any difference to the Department suffered from fallacy. Firstly, rule 5 of the Rules, 2004 permitted refund of CENVAT credit under certain circumstances which provides that such refund shall be allowed subject to such safeguards,
