The petitioners have approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including quashing of Ext.P2 circular. The main ground of challenge of the order is that the Securities and Exchange Board of India has no power to issue the notification. The circular is for the benefit of the investors. It ensures transparency or openness as distributors have been asked to disclose the commissions they are entitled to, under different competing schemes of various mutual funds so that the investor can make a considered choice. Conflict of interest is avoided or at least informed to the investor. Distributor is required to disclose commission, if any, payable to him by the mutual fund on the investment made by the investor. Thus the circular does not bar payment of commission by a mutual fund but mutual funds cannot charge upfront load.
If the claim of the Revenue that both the assessments were completed by the same officer one under s. 158BC and the other under s. 158BD is correct, then certainly the review has to be allowed as Manish Maheshwari’s case (supra) has no application. We, therefore, allow the review petition by recalling the judgment and by allowing the income-tax appeal by vacating the orders of the Tribunal with following direction to the Tribunal. If, on verification by the Tribunal it is noticed that assessments on both assessees one under s. 158BC and the other under s. 158BD are completed by the very same AO, Tribunal will treat the appeal as allowed by treating their orders as cancelled and by restoring the appeal before the Tribunal for them to take decision on merits after hearing both sides.
Insofar as the absence of any other business or source of income is concerned, first of all, respondents themselves have no case that the petitioner had any other business or source of income. It is also the admitted case of the respondents that the entire properties of the petitioner are under attachment and that the interest liability of the petitioner was satisfied from out of the compensation amount remitted by the Corporation of Cochin. These facts, in my view, prima facie substantiate the case of the petitioner that he had no business or source of income and that payment of interest as demanded, would cause genuine hardship.
Sec. 54F provides that capital gains on transfer of capital assets shall not be charged in cases of investment in residential house. The section pointedly says that such eligibility would be available if the assessee has, within the period prescribed, constructed, a residential house. For the purpose of that section, the residential house so constructed is referred to as new asset.
We have no hesitation to come to a finding that the first respondent company was inviting shares from public by virtue of notice dated 15.2.2001 and going by the deeming provision under s.67(1) and (2) necessarily the company has to comply with the procedure prescribed for inviting public issue of shares. It is needless to state that the Companies Act is a codifying statute. From the preamble to the Companies Act itself it is clear that it is to consolidate and amend the law relating to companies and certain other associations.
Section 54F is intended to encourage construction of or acquisition of residential house with the aid of the proceeds from the transfer of any long term capital asset, which is not a residencial house. The provision contemplates computing the cost of the residential building, but the value of the plot on which the farm house stands and the land appurtenant could also be considered.
If the provisions of clause (d) of notification dated 23.5.1995 are perused, it can be seen that the income must not have been chargeable to tax on the basis of any order passed by the jurisdictional High Court and it should become taxable as a consequence of any retrospective amendment of law or on a decision of the Supreme Court. Insofar as the case in question is concerned, it can be seen that the petitioner was assessed with the status as a Firm and that subsequently, following the judgment of this Court in Narayanan & Co.’s case (supra), assessment was re-opened and the tax was re-assessed treating the petitioner as an Association Of Persons. Therefore, situation as contemplated in paragraph 2 clause (d) was not available to the petitioner to claim the benefit thereof.
By virtue of Rule 22A of Part I KSR, which rules have been formulated by the State Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is obligatory on the part of any State Government employee to have applied for and obtained coverage in respect of life, by subscribing to a Policy, in the official branch of the State Life Insurance and shall continue to subscribe the same till he ceased from the ‘service’. The said provision itself makes it clear that there is a reciprocal statutory duty upon the State Insurance Department, to provide Policy to such State Government employees and this statutory obligation cannot be stated as a ‘taxable service’ provided to any individual or establishment or class of such persons.
On facts, it is seen that by Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner was informed that there are certain points to be clarified in connection with the returns filed by them. Accordingly, they were required to attend the office of the assessing officer with documents, accounts and other evidence to support the return filed.
The Kerala High Court upheld the demand of VAT by holding that Trade Mark is goods and Royalty received from franchisees for use of its trademark and for sharing business know-how is leviable to VAT.
