As regards the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the question again is whether in computing the income of the trust on commercial principles, the provision can be deducted or where the deduction can be allowed only in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(i)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. We have already held that the income of the trust available for application to charitable purposes in India should be computed not in accordance with the strict provisions of the Income Tax Act but should be computed in accordance with commercial principles and it is on this footing that the payment of Income Tax Act under the VDIS was treated as a deduction and as proper amplication of the income of the trust. The same line of reasoning holds good for the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Even under the computation provision of the Act such a provision was considered allowable up to and including the assessment year 1988-89 and it was only from the assessment year 1989-90 that the Act required that a mere provision would not be allowable as a deduction and the actual writing off of the debt was a necessary pre-condition. Be that as it may, under the commercial principles it has always been recognized that a provision, reasonably made for a loss or an outgoing, can be deducted from the income if there is apprehension that the debt might become bad. There is nothing brought on record to show that the provision was not made bona fide. In such a situation the ratio of the decisions cited by us while dealing with the deductibility of the taxes paid under the VDIS will equally apply. We accordingly hold that while computing the income available to the trust for application to charitable purposes in India in accordance with Section 11(1)(a) the provision for doubtful debts must be deducted.

Inland Ports were specifically mentioned as an infrastructure facility in the statutory provision and in the understanding of the CBEC, which administers the Customs Act, an Inland Container Depot was actually an Inland Port. There is also no dispute that even in 1983 amendments had been made to the Customs Act by treating the Inland Container Depots as part of the customs port for purpose of customs formalities and clearances.

This Court had the occasion to consider similar issues in a Judgment delivered in the case of DIT (Exemption) v. Chembur Gymkhana [Income Tax Appeal No. 5568 of 2010, dated 13-2-2012]. This Court, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, has held that the fact that the membership of the club is open to a section of the community would not detract from the fact that the club has been constituted for the advancement of any other object of general public utility.

The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the notice issued on 30.12.2004 under Section 143(2) of the Act was validly served upon the assessee-firm on 31.12.2004 as claimed by the Assessing Officer. We proceed on the assumption that the notice was not served on either of the two partners of the assessee-firm and that it was served on some person who was not specifically authorised to receive notice. Even so, we are not persuaded to hold that there was no valid service of the notice upon the assessee-firm.

Expenditure on fully convertible debentures deductible, Export Sales Income Source cannot be said to be located or situated outside India . It is well settled that expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of debentures or obtaining loan is revenue expenditure. Reference in this connection may be made to the leading judgment of the Supreme court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52. The question before us however, is whether it is a debenture issue or an issue of share capital involving the strengthening of the capital base of the company.

Where tax has not been deducted at source, the short deducted tax cannot be realised from the deductor and the liability to pay such tax shall continue to be with the assessee direct, whose income is to be charged and a person who fails to deduct the tax at source, at best is liable for interest and penalty only. The above issues thus, are decided in favour of the petitioner. Sec. 194H – Ad agencies are not agent of newspaper; hence TDS is not required to be deducted on commission paid to such agencies

The assessee had filed and furnished all details and particulars relating to the royalty payment including agreements, calculation and the approval before the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct all material facts. The facts were available before and were within the knowledge of the AO. The new AO as per the reasons recorded on the basis of the same facts, has observed that royalty payment should have been disallowed as it was capital in nature. This is a question of legal inference or interpretation which has been drawn from the same material facts on record. Therefore, the case falls in the category of change of opinion as at the time of original preceding the AO examined and gone into the question of royalty. Even if there was any legal error or illegality the same cannot be rectified and be made the subject matter of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The re-assessment order is also quashed.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/SOL, it is stated that the student is not entitled to any relief in the present petition for the reason that as per the rules of the respondent No.2/SOL contained in the prospectus, only a bonafide student of a college is entitled to migration to SOL and admittedly, the student had paid her regular fee with I.P. College upto April, 2011 and not thereafter and resultantly, on the date when she had sought migration, she was not a bonafide student enrolled with any college and, therefore, she could not be considered for purposes of migration to the respondent No.2/SOL. In support of the aforesaid averments, a copy of the prospectus of SOL for the academic year 2011-12 with regard to migration/direct admission is enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-1.

Learned Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the award so far as the upholding the claims under claim Nos.8 to 75 are not seriously opposed and it need not be set aside, urging that the challenge to the award on the ground it is opposed to public policy is against the awarding of claims under 1 to 7, we are not impressed by that submission. When the award is found to be void as opposed to public policy no question of segregation of any part of the award would emerge for consideration

What is prohibited and barred is application of income or use of the property of the institution directly or indirectly for benefit of a person mentioned in Section 13(3) i.e. he is paid beyond what is reasonable, adequate, commensurate and justified for the services rendered or goods supplied. The said person should not profit at the expense of the trust/institution. Charity should not become the primary or important source of business profits and a façade to promote business interest or secure advantage, for persons mentioned in Section 13(3) in the name of charity. The word “benefit” need not be restricted to direct material benefit, but is of wide significance comprehending whatever would be beneficial in any respect, materially or otherwise. Benefit can be pecuniary or non pecuniary. This would be the correct legislative intent.