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.
Originally the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, namely, B had started a proprietary concern. His son constituted six private limited companies and registered them under the Companies Act, 1956, and all the shareholders of these companies being the heirs of the late B, the companies were family concerns. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 started defendants Nos. 7 to 12 companies out of the funds of the original concern.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the determining of date when the loss was incurred will have to be derived from the admitted facts. It is not a matter of dispute that the fire which resulted in destruction of the stock of the applicant-assessee took place on 26.3.1978. The aforesaid fire destroyed the stock/goods of the applicant-assessee lying with the PSWC
7. Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully. The question for our consideration is whether the income accruing to the assessee should be assessed as `business income’ as claimed by the assessee or partly as `income from house property’ and partly as `income from other sources’ as held by the Assessing Officer Officer. At the outset, we may mention that the Assessing Officer has committed
11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has clearly held that an admission by the assessee is not conclusive evidence and it is always open to the assessee who made the submission to show that it is incorrect.
Gopal Purohit v. JCIT- The delivery based transaction should be treated as of the nature of investment transactions and profit there from should be treated as short-term capital gain or long term capital gain depending upon the period of holding; employment of an infrastructure so as to keep a track of the developments in the share market cannot turn an investment activity into a business activity.
32. In order to attract section 194D, the commission or any other payment covered under the section should be a remuneration or reward for soliciting or procuring the insurance business. The insurance companies do not procure business for the assessee company nor does the assessee company pay commission or other payment for soliciting the business from the insurance companies.
