The right to subscribe for additional offer of shares/debentures on Rights basis, on the strength of existing shareholding in the Company, comes into existence when the Company decides to come out with the Rights Offer. Prior to that, such right, though embedded in the original shareholding, remains inchoate. The same crystallizes only when the Rights Offer is announced by the Company. Therefore, in order to determine the nature of the gains/loss on renunciation of right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures, the crucial date is the date on which such right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures comes into existence and the date of transfer [renunciation] of such right. The said right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures is a distinct, independent and separate right, capable of being transferred independently of the existing shareholding, on the strength of which such Rights are offered.
The argument that the disclosure of assessment records under RTI would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual also does not apply for two reasons. Firstly, the information has been provided by the assessee to meet his legal obligations and the disclosure of the same to another person cannot be construed as being an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The Citizen’s right to Information should be given greater primacy than privacy. Information provided by individuals in fulfillment of statutory requirements is not covered by the exemption u/s 8 (1) (j). Secondly, as there has been large evasion of taxes by the group, if citizens monitor assessments through RTI, it could be a major gain for public revenue and perhaps a good check on corrupt officials.
In a SLP filed against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics, the Supreme Court, by an ad-interim order dated 18.12.2009 directed issue of notice to the Respondents and also directed “Stay of recovery till further orders”.
The word “production” is wider in its scope than the word “manufacture”. It means manufacture plus something in addition thereto. This ground reality is now noted in s. 2(29BA) inserted by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f 1.4.2009. In Lucky Minmat 245 ITR 830 (SC), it was held that mere mining of limestone and marble and cutting the same before it was sold will not constitute “manufacture” or “production” but conversion into lime and lime dust could constitute the activity of manufacturing or production. In Aman Marble Industries 157 ELT 393 (SC) it was held that cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs was not “manufacture” but the Court was not concerned whether there was “production”.
The deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B, and the amendment to the first proviso, by the Finance Act, 2003 was to overcome implementation problems. Consequently, the amendments, though made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1.4.2004, were curative in nature and would apply retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1988.
The case was a classic one of change of opinion. The question whether a subsidy is capital or revenue depends on the facts of the case. S. 154 can only apply to a “mistake apparent from the record”. A “rectifiable mistake” is a mistake which is obvious and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible. Decision on debatable point of law cannot be treated as a “mistake apparent from the record”.
The judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd vs. UOI 292 ITR 470 holding that s. 43B (f) is arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the apex Court decision in Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 has been stayed by the Supreme Court and it has been clarified that the assessee must pay tax as if s. 43B (f) is on the Statute Book though it is entitled to make a claim in its return.
Though the object behind DEPB etc is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of export product DEPB credit/duty drawback receipt do not come within the first degree source as the said incentives flow from Incentive Schemes enacted by the Government or from s. 75 of the Customs Act. Such incentives profits are not profits derived from the eligible business u/s 80-IB. They are ‘ancillary profits’ of such undertakings
Replacement expenditure is neither “current repairs” nor “revenue” The assessee incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery in a textile mill and claimed the same as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was merely for replacement of spare parts in …
CIT vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (Supreme Court) Read More »
Prior to 1.4.1988, Ss. 41(1) and 41(2) both existed on the statute book. S. 41(1) deals with recoupment of trading liability while s. 41(2) deems balancing charge to be business income. Both operate in different spheres. If the argument of the department that balancing charge should be read as falling within the scope of s. 41(1) is accepted then it was not necessary for Parliament to enact S. 41(2) in the first instance. Section 41(1) alone would have sufficed.