Premier Mills Limited merely used the assessee firm as a special vehicle for the purpose of achieving, what it would not be possible for it to achieve in a legal way. It was found that as Premier Mills Limited could not purchase its own shares and in order to circumvent Section 77 of the Companies Act, it decided to repurchase the shares through the assessee herein, which subsequently sold the same to the sister concern, wherein the spouse of Managing Director of Premier Mills Limited was a Managing Director of the sister concern.
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mir Mohammed Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165 had considered the meaning of the word ‘machinery’ and pointed out that the word is not a technical term and in the absence of any definition under the Act, ordinary meaning would prevail. Indeed rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules treats aero-engines separately from aircraft, but this cannot be used to interpret the clauses in the Act that what was purchased and installed was machinery and after installation, a wider meaning has to be given to the said term.
The appellant is said to have entered into a lease agreement with the company-in-liquidation on 22-1-2000, for demised building of 8,400 sq.ft. along with adjacent vacant land (about 5.33 acres) for a lease rent of Rs. 5,000 per month for a period of 11 months, which expired on 21-12-2000. Again, the company-in-liquidation is said to have entered into a fresh lease agreement for a period of 30 years in respect of the said building of 8,400 sq.ft. and the adjacent vacant land at Rs. 5,000 per month with 20 per cent increase in rent on every five years, commencing from 22-12-2005 and so on. The terms of lease deed are heavily loaded in favour of the lessee. It is difficult to understand as to how such large extent of property with a spacious building has been rented out for a meagre sum of Rs. 5,000 per month with marginal increase once in 5 years.
When the defendant has alleged non-receipt of the said letter dated July 31, 2006 and urges the same for not taking steps, the reasons stated by the appellant do not appear to be false or frivolous. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there is some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea. As held by the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy[1998] 7 SCC 123 if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suito
On consideration, the contention raised by the appellants is found to have force. The Company Law Board, cannot issue injunction in implementing the decision to be taken by the shareholders in its meeting, unless the prima facie finding is recorded, that the decision is prejudicial to the public interest or the company at large.
Under section 12AA, the Commissioner is empowered to grant or refuse the registration and after granting registration, would be empowered to cancel and that too, only on two conditions laid down under section 12AA(3) of the Act. Whether the income derived from such transaction would be assessed for tax and also whether the trust would be entitled to exemption under section 11 are entirely the matters left to the assessing officer to decide as to whether it should be assessed or exempted.
In the instant case, admittedly, sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent-director in the year 1989, while purchasing the land on behalf of the company. The property was mortgaged by the respondent-director in his individual capacity. The parties also came to know about the property being in the name of the respondent-director, when the suit was filed and got settled by respondent-director by redeeming the property.
Subsequently, a tripartite agreement was entered into on 27.10.1994 between the vendors P. Srinivsan, R. Dhanapal, T.T.V. Dhinakaran T.R. Harikrishnan G. Balasundaram, R. Annamalai, K. Sadagopal and M.K. Saravanan represented by the Power of Attorney M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd., who in turn also appeared as a confirming party and M/s. Sudsun Housing I Ltd. as a purchaser, wherein the above said vendors agreed to convey the balance of 83.96% undivided share of the lands in favour of the purchaser.
It cannot be said that all tax planning is illegal/ illegitimate/impermissible. Applying the rationale of this decision to the case on hand, in the absence of any material to pronounce on the genuineness of the transaction herein, the mere fact that what had been purchased had been leased out to the vendor or that vendor had undertaken to pay the hire charges on behalf of the assessee to the hire purchase company, per se, cannot lead to a conclusion that the transaction is a sham one. In the circumstances, even invoking the decision in McDowell case, we do not find any ground to accept the plea of the Revenue that the claim of the assessee has to be rejected as a sham one.
SUMMARY OF MISTAKES IN THE CA FINAL NOVEMBER 2011 EXAMS CONDUCTED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA (A BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT) (Mistakes /Errors committed by respondent 2 while setting and evaluating the papers which would have a direct impact on the marks obtained by the students)
