On the issue of expenditure of 66.82 lakhs towards the issue of shares to the Employees Stock Option is concerned, the Tribunal pointed out that the shares were issued to the employees only for the interest of the business of the assessee to induce employees to work in the best interest of the assessee. The allotment of shares was done by the assessee in strict compliance of SEBI regulations, which mandate that the difference between the market prices and the price at which the option is exercised by the employees is to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account as an expenditure. The Tribunal pointed out that what had been adopted was not notional or contingent as had been submitted by the Revenue.
Delhi High Court held that whether the prior period expenses were shown separately or not, the assessee would nevertheless be entitled to have the adjustment of the prior period expenses in the matter of computing the net profit of the assessee. Thus on mere fact that the assessee had shown its prior period expenses in the extraordinary items separately, did not mean the net profit was arrived at de hors these items. The Delhi High Court further pointed out that the assessee had not claimed any deduction with the net profit on the basis of any clauses given in the Explanation to section 115JA(2). Consequently the question was answered in favour of the assessee. The view expressed by the Delhi High Court is agreed with and is applied to the instant case.
The Tribunal ignored that the role of the assessee with regard to the goods supplied by supplier was only that of a bailee and so the value of goods cannot constitute income in its hands. The entire contention of the revenue rested on the wrong premise that the payment had been made by the owner NSTL, a fact which was totally against the agreed terms of the contract between the assessee and NSTL.
CIT V. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of shares and debentures of the company to public subscription, which qualify for consideration under Section 35D, are underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus and nothing more. There is a residual clause to sub clause D, which shows such other items of expenditure not being expenditure eligible for any allowance or deduction under any other provisions of the Act as may be prescribed.
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.
