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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more