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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings had been conducted behind their back. Th
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

"as is where is" defined

This is a fairly contentious issue as often sale conducted on "as is where is basis" goes into litigation due to lack of understanding or otherwise on both sides. Below are two judgments with different conclusions but helps reveal the problem 1) Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. District Magistrate Dehradun & Ors. - Uttarakhand HC Bank takes possession of borrower's property and issues auction notice for sale of properties so possessed. The successful bidder pay part of the money and request the Bank to demarcate the property so that sale deed may executed and physical possession handed over. The Bank did make several representation to the concerned authorities to demarcate the property. That did not happenand the Bank instead of pursuing the demarcation proceedings with the Revenue Authorities called upon the successful bidder to make balance payment failing which deposit amount was informed to be liable for forfeiture. The bidder due to failure of revenue authoriti
Post a Comment
Read more