Under these circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed and process in Criminal Case No. 1171/SS/2009 pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai deserves to be quashed, accordingly, quashed against the appellant herein. The appeal is allowed.
In this case only interest of Rs 2,96,731/- was paid on funds utilized for making investments on which exempted income was receivable. Further it was observed that in respect of investment of Rs. 6,07,775,000/- made in subsidiary companies , they are attributable to commercial expediency, because as per submission made by the assessee,
Mere production of PAN Number or assessment particulars does not establish the identity of a person. The identification of a person includes the place of work, the staff and the fact that it was actually carrying on business and further recognition of the said company/individual in the eyes of public.
There are two types of cases. One in which the assessing officer carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the assessing officer ‘sits back with folded hands’ till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions.
At this juncture Shri Mishra in a malicious and contemptuous manner alleged that the Bench is hurrying the justice and burying the justice. Such type of unprovoked utterances from a Commissioner of Income Tax
Banks undertaking equipment leasing departmentally should follow prudential accounting system and only the interest charge component should be recognised as income and the recovery of cost of asset should be carried to balance sheet on the form of provision of depreciation.
In view of the agreement and various judicial pronouncements the hon’ble tribunal has held that there is a distinction between a case where the software is supplied along with hardware as part of the equipment and there is no separate sale of the software and a case where the software is sold separately. In the case, where the software is an integral part of the supply of equipment, the consideration for that is not assessable as “royalty”
We are aware that adopting a liberal view in condoning delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a licence to file appeals at will-disregarding the time limits fixed by the statutes.
In view of above order and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), we decide Ground No.2 of the appeal in favour of assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the income arising from transaction in derivative by assessee(s), being sub-account FII cannot be treated as business profit or loss.
Section 132B(4) (b) deals with pre-assessment period and there is no conflict between this provision and Section 240 or for that matter 244 (A). The former deals with pre assessment period in the matters of search and seizure and the later deals with post assessment period as per the order in appeal.
