24.11.2012 Views

Shopper's Stop Limited - Securities and Exchange Board of India

Shopper's Stop Limited - Securities and Exchange Board of India

Shopper's Stop Limited - Securities and Exchange Board of India

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Further our Promoters are unable to state with certainty about any liability or contingent<br />

liability in respect <strong>of</strong> the said entities.<br />

By the Southern Undivided Entities<br />

A) Pending Arbitration Proceedings<br />

There are none<br />

B) Litigation Pending – FEMA<br />

There are none<br />

C) Litigation Pending – Income Tax<br />

ASSESSMENT YEAR -1990-91<br />

Asiatic Properties <strong>Limited</strong><br />

The company’s Return <strong>of</strong> Income for Assessment Year 1990-91 was assessed by the A.O<br />

Additional Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Income Tax , Mumbai under section 143(3) <strong>of</strong> the Income<br />

Tax Act, 1961.<br />

The A.O made <strong>and</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> Rs.2,04,445/- on the ground that interest income earned<br />

on surplus funds to be taxed separately under income from other sour ces. The company<br />

filed an appeal (bearing No CIT(A)X-V/CIR.6/350/1993-94 against the said addition made<br />

by the A.O <strong>and</strong> CIT(A) rejected the company's appeal.<br />

The company has further appealed against the order <strong>of</strong> the CIT(A) with ITAT.<br />

ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97<br />

K. Raheja Hotels & Estates Private <strong>Limited</strong><br />

The company has filed an appeal to the Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Income-tax ( Appeals) – I<br />

against the order <strong>of</strong> Assessing Officer – DCIT , Circle 11(1), Bangalore, passed u/s 143<br />

(3) read with section 148 <strong>of</strong> the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the order <strong>of</strong><br />

reassessment passed is bad in law <strong>and</strong> void abinitio for want <strong>of</strong> requisite jurisdiction in<br />

view <strong>of</strong> the fact that the m<strong>and</strong>atory requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 did not<br />

exist <strong>and</strong> are not complied with. The company has further appealed that the annual value<br />

<strong>of</strong> property let out to Ivory Properties & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., should be Rs.10,00,000/- as<br />

disclosed in the return which represents the actual rent received under the facts <strong>and</strong><br />

circumstances <strong>of</strong> the case instead <strong>of</strong> Rs.94,44,000/- as estimated by the Assessing<br />

Officer <strong>and</strong> that the annual value <strong>of</strong> property let out to UTI Bank should be Rs. 4,26,250/-<br />

as disclosed in the return as against the wrongful estimation <strong>of</strong> the same by the Assessing<br />

Officer at Rs. 17,95,200/- . The company has also appealed against referring the matter <strong>of</strong><br />

determination <strong>of</strong> Annual Value <strong>of</strong> the aforesaid properties to the Divisional Valuation<br />

Office u/s.133(6) by the Assessing Officer <strong>and</strong> against charging <strong>of</strong> interest <strong>of</strong> Rs 188937/-<br />

u/s 234-C <strong>of</strong> the Act.<br />

The order <strong>of</strong> the Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Income Tax ( Appeals) is awaited.<br />

ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98<br />

K. Raheja Hotels & Estates Private <strong>Limited</strong><br />

The company has filed an appeal to the Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Income-tax ( Appeals) – I ,<br />

Bangalore against the order <strong>of</strong> Assessing Officer – DCIT (Asstt) Circle 11(1), Bangalore,<br />

passed u/s 143 (3) read with section 148 <strong>of</strong> the Income-tax Act, 1961 , on the ground that<br />

the order <strong>of</strong> reassessment passed is bad in law <strong>and</strong> void abinitio for want <strong>of</strong> requisite<br />

jurisdiction in view <strong>of</strong> the fact that the m<strong>and</strong>atory requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s<br />

148 did not exist <strong>and</strong> are not complied with. The company has further appealed that the<br />

Annual Value <strong>of</strong> property let out to Ivory Properties & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., should be<br />

Rs.18,00,000/- as disclosed in the return which represents the actual rent received under<br />

the facts <strong>and</strong> circumstances <strong>of</strong> the case instead <strong>of</strong> Rs.94,44,000/- as estimated by the<br />

Assessing Officer <strong>and</strong> that the Annual Value <strong>of</strong> property let out to UTI Bank should be<br />

Rs. 10,23,000/- as disclosed in the return as against the wrongful estimation <strong>of</strong> the same<br />

by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 17,95,200/- . The company has also appealed against<br />

referring <strong>of</strong> the matter <strong>of</strong> determination <strong>of</strong> Annual Value <strong>of</strong> the aforesaid properties to the<br />

Divisional Valuation Office u/s.133(6) by the Assessing Officer <strong>and</strong> for charging <strong>of</strong> interest<br />

<strong>of</strong> Rs 2846060/- u/s 234B <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> Rs 8922/- u/s 234C <strong>of</strong> the Act.<br />

265

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!