The assessee’s contention is that the provision made towards the non performance guarantee is more in the nature of warranty. Thus, the company assured quality and performance and on any shortfall agreed for damages making provision based on the performance capacity
Variant modes of business transactions between the producer and distributor, distributor and sub-distributor or area distributor or exhibitor (theater owner) are not sale of goods to fall under Entry 54 List II or Entry 92A List I.
Even otherwise, we are of the firm view that the insertion of words or assessable by amending Section 50C with effect from 01.10.2009 is neither a clarification nor an explanation to the already existing provision and it is only an inclusion of new class of transactions namely the transfers of properties without or before registration. Before introducing the said amendment, only the transfers of properties where the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority were subjected to Section 50C application. However after introduction of the words “or assessable” after the words “adopted or assessed”, such transfers where the value assessable by the stamp valuation authority are also brought into the ambit of Section 50C. Thus such introduction of new set of class of transfer would certainly have the prospective application only and not otherwise. Hence the assessee’s transfer admittedly made earlier to such amendment cannot be brought under Section 50C.
Time frame under sub-section (2) of Section 12AA of Income Tax Act is only directory. Tribunal was not right in holding that since the application for registration has not been disposed off within the limitation of six months, the Assessee Company was deemed to have been granted registration under Section 12AA of the Act.
The conviction recorded against the appellant for bigamy stands even today though sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. Hence, the decision taken by the first respondent to remove the name of the appellant from the register maintained by the Chartered Accountants Council, which was upheld by the learned single Judge is valid and no interference is required as the appellant has attracted disqualification by operation of law viz., Section 8 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, due to his involvement in an offence involving moral turpitude.
Period of six months as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 12AA is not mandatory. Though the word ‘shall’ has been used but it is well known that to ascertain whether a provision is mandatory or not, the expression ‘shall’ is not always decisive. It is also well known that whether a statutory provision is mandatory or directory has to be ascertained not only from the wording of the statute but also from nature and design of the Statute and the purpose which it seeks to achieve.
At the outset, it is clear that as it is in the judgment of the Division Bench, which arose almost under similar circumstances, wherein the learned judge has abruptly dismissed the application for injunction on the ground that the company court has no jurisdiction to pass an interlocutory order or injunction or direction, except to safeguard the interest of the creditors.
Referring to R.M. Chidambaram Pillai (supra); Kum. A.B. Shanti (supra); Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (supra), Tribunal held that there is no separate identity for the partnership firm and that the partner is entitled to use the funds of the firm and that the assessee acted bonafide and that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. We do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and the Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs.
Law is well settled that in case of an order passed by an authority, who has no jurisdiction to pass such order, this Court can intervene and set right the things exercising the power conferred under Article 226. But, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent has wrongly calculated service tax based on the amount shown in the trial balance sheet and included the property tax and income from other sources, which are excluded from the purview of service tax
It is seen that the assessee requested the other two companies to make the expenditure on their behalf by way of scientific research as it was not having sufficient funds at that time. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue or disproved by them. Therefore, the payment was made by the other two companies to the CMI. Even though they made the payment and obtained receipts in their name, the fact remains that they have not claimed any deduction nor shown those expenditure in their books of accounts .
