CIT and Anr v Shetron Limited (Karnatka HC) – In the present case, the total income assessed was Rs.21,25,981/-. This income became taxable because of denial of unabsorbed investment allowance and unabsorbed depreciation allowance to the extent of 1/3rd of such amount. When such amounts came to be restricted to an extent of 2/3rd of such amount, automatically Rs.21,25,981/- would be enhanced by virtue of provision of section 34-A.
It is highly improbable to believe the statement of Mrs. Bala Kaul that she bought shares of the target company because of its intrinsic value and strong fundamentals. If that was so, it is not clear, what made her sell these shares on April 10, 2008, when Solrex was still in the process of investing more money into the scrip of the target company.
The Tribunal has not rested its decision on the only circumstance that it is the business of the assessee to collect deposits and, therefore, it was entitled to collect them in cash even if it involves violation of Section 269SS; that is not the substratum of the decision.
On going through the impugned Order of the High Court, we find that no reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the re-opening of assessment. In the circumstances, the impugned Order of the High Court dated 23rd December, 2011, in Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
It is not denied by the Revenue that U. Mohanrao was the Chairman and Managing Director of some of the companies which got merged with the assessee company. The said U. Mohanrao had access to all information starting from manufacturing process, knowhow to the clientele and the products, including the pricing of the products.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of search IVPs of the face value of Rs. 16.20 lacs were found and seized from Locker No. 49 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jalandhar. The assessee surrendered income of Rs. 16.20 lacs to cover unexplained investment in IVPs. Such income was also disclosed in the return filed for block assessment. These IVPs can be encashed only on maturity.
In our view, therefore, once the conditions of further proviso of section 194C(3) are satisfied, the liability of the payee to deduct tax at source would cease. The requirement of such payee to furnish details to the income tax authority in the prescribed form within prescribed time would arise later and any infraction in such a requirement would not make the requirement of deduction at source applicable under sub-section (2) of section 1 94C of the Act.
As per proviso attached to the sub-rule (5) of Rule 11AA of the Rules, it is a statutory requirement that no order of rejection of application u/s 80G(5) of the Act shall be passed without giving the institution, trust or fund an opportunity of being heard.
We have found that the procedure laid down under Section 29 of SFC Act has been followed by the Corporations. The independent valuer submitted his report on 17.09.2010 and the off-set price of the unit was fixed after getting it valued by an independent valuer. It was based upon the valuation report that the off-set price of the unit was fixed at Rs.1,77,45,000/- on 17.09.2010.
It is evident from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee was unable to produce confirmations and reconciliations at the time of assessment proceedings and since the details was produced before the CIT(A), the CIT(A), called for the remand report.
