In our view, we do not find any substance for the alleged ulterior motive or collusion by Mr. Desai with the OL, since no material is produced to show that any undue benefits was to be derived by the OL. Be it noted that the appeal is not preferred by the OL, but is preferred by the applicant herein in capacity as Party-in-person against the order of the learned Company Judge.
Whether the dividend declared by the company after the effective date of amalgamation but before the date of sanction by the High Court would cease to be dividend declared by the company?
Section 529(1) provides for, ‘the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors……’. It does not classify the secured creditors on the basis of the first chargeholder or the second chargeholder or so on. Similarly, in proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 529
In the original assessment order deduction under section 80I had been granted on the total income, inclusive of the income under section 68 of the Act. The grant of such deduction was not questioned by the revenue at the relevant time. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the same was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue pertaining to addition of Rs. 59,56,000/- credited in the books of account by way of share application money on the ground that the same was an unexplained credit out of income from undisclosed sources of the assessee.
Only aspect mentioned in the reasons recorded is about the requirement of inclusion or non-inclusion of cenvat/modvat credit in closing stock. The Assessing Officer stated in his reasons inter alia that on perusal of break up the loans and advances in the balance-sheet, it was found that the assessee had at the end of previous year a particular amount of cenvat credit not utilised and that the assessee had not credited the said amount to the profit & loss account.
In the present case, there is no unilateral act of the assessee of making any entry in respect of the trading liabilities in its books of account. Therefore, a sine qua non for attracting section 41 in the present case, is that the assessee should have obtained a benefit by way of remission or cessation of a particular amount in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year in question.
The petitioner has been claiming that he is dealing in hedging besides in the wholesale business of gold and silver ornaments. To insure against price fluctuations, he has been hedging in such metals in MCX. The claim of the assessee, therefore, had to be examined in terms of clause (a) to sub-section (5) to section 43 of the Act. If for some reason such claim was not sustainable,
Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act itself provides that the claim for deduction as bad debt would not be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year.
In the present case, the assessee disclosed the factum of housing project, the construction of shops and the profit derived therefrom. These were the primary facts sufficient for the Assessing Officer to proceed in its assessment process. He had undertaken such a process and applied the facts to the provisions of law by applying his mind.
We notice that in the return filed by the petitioner, in addition to claiming deduction of gross income of interest and dividend of Rs.1,81,27,606 under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the petitioner further provided various details. For example, in the Annexure-VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs. 53,71,450 and interest income of Rs. 1,27,56,156.
