Where the assessee-bank has instituted recovery suits in Courts against it’s debtors, if individual accounts are to be closed, then the Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.
What the proviso to Section 112 essentially requires is that where the tax payable in respect of income arising from a listed security, being a long term capital asset, exceeds 10% of the capital gains before indexation, then such excess beyond 10% is liable to be ignored.
The very purpose of having an independent regulatory authority like SEBI, and vesting it with statutory powers of inquiry, is to enable it to take prompt action in matters relating to issue and transfer of share; particularly, SEBI is expected to be the sentinel, read the fine print of prospectuses keeping the investors’ interests in view; it has both a preventive and corrective role to perform; therefore, it is not possible to place a narrow interpretation on the words “issue and transfer of securities” occurring in Section 55A.
Where the assessee-proprietory concern got merged with a company and the credit entries in the name of the company in the accounts of the assessee came to be assessed to tax at the hands of the company, there could not be a further liability fastened on the proprietary concern which had already suffered tax in the hands of the company with which the proprietary concern got merged.
The eligibility for the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA by applying the restraints of Sec. 80-IA(3) cannot be considered for every year of the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA but can be considered only in the year of formation of the business.
here the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee under Section 140A is refunded, the assessee should be, on principle entitled to interest thereon since the self-assessment tax falls within the expression “refund of any amount”. The computation of interest on self-assessment tax has to be in terms of Section 244A(1)(b), i.e., from the date of payment of such amount up to the date on which refund is actually granted.
We may in concluding note that the basis on which the assessee is sought to be taxed in the present case in respect of the amount of Rs.32,00,000/ is that there was a dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and no other basis has been suggested in the order of the Assessing Officer.
Even if it is assumed that the assessee was authorized to collect sales tax and retain with it, the same will be chargeable to tax as trading receipt in view of decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [228 ITR 253 (SC)].
Keyman Insurance Policy for section 10(10D) is not confined to a policy taken by a person on life of an employee, but also extends to an insurance policy taken with respect to life of another who is connected in any manner whatsoever with business of subscriber.
Where an order passed by the Assessing Officer is subject to an appeal that has been filed, the power of the Commissioner to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can only extend to such matters which have not been considered and decided in the appeal.
