In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability.
The provisions of Rent Control Act can be applied only in case of bonafide letting out of properties and not in case of colourable transactions which are only an arrangement to reduce tax liability. In this case the company had let out the property to the daughter of the director who controlled the company and is responsible for taking all decisions Instead of letting out the property at market rate which is very high, the director had let out property to her daughter at a very low rent, obviously to reduce tax liabilities. Therefore, in our view, the provisions of Rent Control Act can not be applied to such arrangements.
Moment the commercial surcharge is recovered irrespective of the provisions of the agreement entered into by and between the landlord and tenant it immediately become exigible to tax as rental income from house property for agreement binds the parties thereto and it becomes irrelevant the moment it is found to be in conflict with legal provision on the subject.
It is obvious that when the assessee revised its return and claimed deduction under section 44C at higher level than that claimed in the original return, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to consider the higher claim under section 44C and not to restrict himself to the claim made in original return. Any absurdity in the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer to consider deduction under section 44C on the basis of revised return subject to verification of the correctness of the revised return.
The assessee’s prime grievance is the non-examination by the Assessing Officer of the material adduced before Commissioner (Appeals) for the first time. At the same time, there has been, without doubt, a clear violation of rule 46A. The question of consideration of the additional evidence/s by the Commissioner (Appeals) comes only subsequent to first qualifying for admission in terms of rule 46A, which is mandatory in nature.
The application made, for recalling the order dated 19th November, 2012, has failed to convince the Court to the fullest extent. The person sworn-in to the affidavit has stated that he was managing the affairs of the Company and he was in the Country for six months, itself, is not sufficient to recall the winding-up order. First of all, he should have stated as to how only he was responsible to file this affidavit when other Directors were available.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-firm filed its return of income (ROI) on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. ‘NIL’. The books of accounts of the firm are duly audited u/s 44AB and the report in form No 3 CA and 3CB dated 26/09/2009 were filed alongwith the ROI. The assessee-firm derives its income from sale of Petrol and Diesel and also from transport business. The A.O has completed his order u/s 143(3) on 7.1.2011.
one cannot read any limitation into the expression housing project to mean the residential project alone and that if and when the projects have mixed built-up area of commercial and residential, the question of disallowance will arise only if and when the residential flats are beyond the limit as provided under sub clause (c) of Section 80-IB(10) of the Act and not otherwise.
Since the proposed minutes containing the terms of consensus filed on 28/02/2012 does not contain any authorization by R-l in favour of Mr. C.S. Agarwal R-2 to sign such minutes on its behalf, the minutes dated 28/02/2012 and the order dated 23/03/2012 cannot be enforced against the R-l company. It is open to the parties to file a joint application for disposal of the petition (CP No. 77(ND)/2009) in terms of the MoS dated 26/04/2010. In the present scenario, as prayed in CA 236/2012, there is no justification for passing an order appointing Receiver/Administrator in the R-l company or to injunct the Respondents from operating the bank accounts of R-1. The direction contained in para 6(a) of the order dated 18/07/2012 for freezing all accounts of Rockman Breweries TNK Limited and stopping any transactions in such accounts till further orders therefore deserves to be and is accordingly recalled. It is open to the Petitioner to receive and encash the cheque for Rs. 9.5 lac deposited by R-l with the Bench Officer.
Some machinery and equipment relating to the construction of the projects were not actually put to use, though they were kept ready for use and this factual position is not in dispute.
