Whether the view taken by this Court in case of Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF) (supra) that the instructions of 2011 of the Board providing for revised monetary limits for filing the appeals to the Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court, would apply to all pending cases irrespective of the date of filing of such appeals is correct, particularly, in view of express language used in paragraph 2 of the instructions which provides for revised monetary limits for filing of the appeals and paragraph 11 thereof which provides inter-alia that such instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011?
The Appellate Tribunal was right in law and facts in holding that the value of silver bars which stood confiscated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 could not be added to the wealth of the assessee despite the fact that the confiscation order was subsequently set aside in appeal and the appeal was pending on the date of valuation.
Section 80-IB(10) as amended by inserting clause (d) with effect from April 1, 2005 should be applied retrospectively is also without any merit, because, firstly, clause (d) is specifically inserted with effect from April 1, 2005
In the show-cause notice it was conveyed that the assessee had not registered itself with a view to evading duty and that therefore larger period of limitation would be invoked. It may be that such issue of allegation was not in so many words denied by the assessee.
The impugned circular issued by the Board came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court and it has struck down the circular holding that powers under section 119 would not empower the Board to issue clarification which would take away the exemption which has been granted by the statute. There was no reason to take a different view particularly when the decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and the SLP came to be dismissed
Since no provision is made in the Act or the Rules for claiming refund of excess TDS deducted with respect to remittance to the foreign company, CBDT issued its circular No. 769, dated 6-8-1998 and made provision for granting such refund to the Indian assessee deductee under the following circumstances:
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.
