Skip to main content

Mere Allotment of PAN would not make Allottee a Separate Entity

In SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL EDUCATION SOCIETY vs Income Tax Dept., Justices Akil Kureshi and Biren  Vaishnav of Gujarat High Court, held that mere allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN) under section 139A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not not make the allottee necessarily a separate entity for the purpose of assessment of tax. 

The petitioner, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Education Society, is an educational society and is also a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner society runs various educational institutions including one N.G.Patel polytechnic college. The petitioner opened a bank account to maintain the separation of funds of N.G.Patel polytechnic. As required by the bank, the PAN of N.G.Patel polytechnic were given for opening the account and they had deposited a sum of Rs. 2.37 crores in the account. On scrutiny of returns filed by the petitioners, the AO found the above receipt and initiated proceedings on the ground that N.G.Patel polytechnic had a separate PAN and in its savings bank account of Bank of Baroda, sizable cash amount of Rs.2.37 crores was deposited. 

Despite this, they did not filed their returns. Accordingly, re-assessment was carried out against the assessee.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/mere-allotment-pan-not-make-allottee-separate-entity-purpose-tax-assessment-gujarat-hc/11844/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more