Supreme Court inter alia on prerequisites for conversion of a private company into a public company – It is not the records of the Registrar of Companies which determines the status of a company but the definition of a “private company” or “public company” as defined in section 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(iv) of the Companies Act, 1956; having regard to the definition
Where the assessee-society was storing the controlled commodities in its godowns as part of its own trading stock, it was not entitled to claim deduction for the margin of profit between issue price and sale price of the controlled commodities under section 80P(2)(e).
As the principal arguments have been advanced in Civil Appeal No. 1879/2003, we take up the facts of that appeal which are thus, briefly put. M/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited (for short, ‘the company’) is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the activity of manufacture of iron products. The company applied for the supply of electrical energy (2500 KVA)
(1) The Act broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, namely, investment linked incentives and profit linked incentives. Ch VI-A essentially belongs to the category of “profit linked incentives” (2) When ss. 80-IA/80-IB refer to profits derived from eligible business, it is not the ownership of that business which attracts the incentives but the generation of profits (operational profits)
The assessee incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery in a textile mill and claimed the same as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was merely for replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system and did not give rise to a new asset. In the books, the expenditure was capitalized. The CIT (A), ITAT and High Court decided in favour of the assessee
The assessee incurred expenditure on issue of convertible debentures. The department claimed that convertible debentures were akin to shares and that in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Brooke Bond 225 ITR 798 the expenditure was capital in nature. HELD rejecting the claim that:
Supreme Court of India has decided in the Matter Kerala State Electricity Board V/s Hindustan Construction Co. Limited [2009] 91 SCL 183 (SC) inter alia decide that “Confirmation of minutes of Board meeting or any committee meeting does not require confirmation in subsequent meeting. Non confirmation of minutes does not have any effect on the decision taken at the earlier meeting.
8. We shall first deal with the question whether furnishing of bank guarantee amounts to actual payment and fulfils the conditions stipulated in section 43B of the Act. The requirement of Section 43B of the Act is the actual payment and not deemed payment as condition precedent for making the claim for deduction in respect of any of the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the relevant previous year specified in Section 43B.
20. An Income Tax Officer while passing an order of assessment performs judicial function. An appeal lies against his order before the Appellate Authority. A Revision Application would also lie before the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is trite that the jurisdiction exercised by the Revisional Authority pertains to his Appellate jurisdiction. See Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat
Shri. Satish Chandra, former ITAT Member, was appointed judge of the Allahabad High Court on 6.8.2008. The appointment was challenged on the ground that he had not practiced for even a day as an advocate and that he was not eligible for appointment under Article 217(2) and Article 217(1) of the Constitution. It was also alleged that the mandatory process of consultation under the Constitution had not been followed.
