7. After going through the orders of the learned Members as well as the orders of the lower authorities, I am of the view that no disallowance was required to be made for the reasons given hereafter. The question for consideration is whether on facts of the case, the disallowance was justified in view of the specific provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the said provision below:
The company in liquidation is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 171 of the Contract Act relating to general lien over the properties offered as security to cover all the loans availed by the owners’ POA and the claim of the owners seeking redemption of the title deeds in terms of section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act must yield to such right and consequently the right to claim redemption cannot be accepted.
In the present case, the only ground on which it was proposed to deny Cenvat Credit on Service Tax is the non-installation of mobile phones in the appellant’s premises. Neither is there any ground in the notice nor any finding that the calls made from the mobile were not relatable to the business of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant. Following the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute. Under section 194H of the Act any person not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family who is responsible for paying on or after the first day of June 2001 to a resident any income by way of commission or brokerage, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment of such income i
4.3 Both the authorities below have taken a view that though section 24(b) does not draw any distinction between a property that is self-occupied and one that is not, the assessee having not disclosed any income (annual value) there-against, and which can only be in respect of one house property, which stands already specified by him (the residential property at Shalimar Enclave, Agra), the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 24(b) is not maintainable.
7. There was a search and seizure action against the assessee on 10-10-1995. In pursuance thereto, the A.0 initiated proceedings u/s 158BC of the Act. Notice u/s 158BC read with section 158BD dated 10-9-1996 was issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to prepare and file the return of income in the prescribed form setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period from 1-4-1985 to 10-10-1995
10. In the case of Commr. of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara v. Nandlal Bhandari Mills Ltd. – (1966) 60 ITR 173, which judgment was in the context of composite income, the question inter alia arose whether depreciation “actually allowed” would mean depreciation deducted in arriving at the taxable income or the depreciation deducted in arriving at the world income (composite income)
On a reference to the Board for Industrial and financial Reconstruction (BIFR) by the company, a scheme of rehabilitation was sanctioned and the management of the company was taken over under the directions of the Board. The scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction failed to reflect the dues of the Petitioners.
The Appellant filed a Civil Suit upon refusal by the Second Respondent Company to register shares transferred by the First Respondent in the name of the Appellant on the ground that the signature of the transferor did not tally with the signature in the company records. The transferor did not contest the suit and the trial court passed a decree in favour of the Appellants.
The Appellant, a State level institution incorporated for the purpose of development of industries in the State, was an equity shareholder in the Third Respondent Company. The company was referred to the Board For Industrial Reconstruction (BIFR) for the purpose of framing a scheme for rehabilitation. The Board approved the draft revival scheme and circulated the scheme seeking suggestions and objections of the shareholders including the Appellant.
