This petition filed by the petitioner company M/s. Shree Balkrishna Commercial Company Limited (hereinafter ‘the petitioner company’) under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1956’) seeks winding up of the respondent company M/s. Ask Dairies Private Limited (hereinafter ‘the respondent company’) for reason of its inability to repay the due, […]
Court be very slow in interpreting the statutes where intention legislature is to curb the evasion of tax. This is a peculiar where the Government has granted the benefit under the only to the persons who are not covered under Section and other proceedings.
The words mentioned in the SECTION 158bc notice are `within fifteen days’ whereas the provision mandates the time of not less than fifteen days. As notice which was issued by the authority asking the assessee to file the return within fifteen days is not in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and therefore it is invalid.
1. Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issue of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?
Admittedly, the amounts were lying outstanding for the last couple of years and the assessee has rightly written off the said amount in the books of account and merely because a suit was not filed and that cannot be considered to be a cogent reason to disallow the claim which became bad. One need not incur good money for recovery of the so called irrecoverable or a bad money and file a suit which remains pending for years and with uncertainty.
As civil work and electric generator are taken to be a part of windmill, rate as is applicable for the depreciation for windmill would apply to the civil foundation and electric turbine generator also.
Where assessee was earning booking charges for facilitating transport of goods and was merely a conduit in passing the freight to the truck owners, who were actually plying trucks, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified because freight payment was not even claimed by assessee as an expense in its profit and loss account.
In the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Tulsi Ram Modi, HC of Rajasthan at Jaipur has held that labourer hired by the assessee employed as casual labourers could not be considered to be sub- contractor and therefore provisions of Section 194C and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were not applicable.
In the case of of Pr. CIT vs. M/s Hues India Pvt. Ltd., High court of Rajasthan bench at Jaipur held that that quantum and penalty proceedings under the Act stand on a different footing and relying on decision in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 2002 (256) ITR 243 and Malani Ramjivan
In this case the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act was challenged. Hon’ble HC has followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay HC in the matter of Rashmikant Kundalia and ors. V/s Union of India & ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) where the Hon’ble court has upheld the validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act
