7. It is the first contention of the appellant that the amount in issue is not an income within the definition of the term `income’ set out in section 2(24) of the said Act. We are unable to accept this contention of the appellant and we agree with the findings rendered in this regard by all the lower authorities, including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its impugned order dated 26th July, 2006
19. We have given careful thought to the rival submissions of the parties and examined them in the light of material available on record, statutory provisions and case law cited at the Bar. At the very outset, we may state that the basic contention of the assessee that he is and should be considered as an agent under clauses (a), (b) & (c) u/s 163(1) of the Act, is misplaced
6. Section 54EC provides that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long term capital asset and the assessee has at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long term specified asset, the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this section, that is to say, if the cost of the long term specified asset
60. Consider that what sections 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) of the Income tax Act obviously envisage is one single municipality and not two. When the land under consideration admittedly falls outside the Phagwara municipality, as notified by the Central Govt. in accordance with section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. There is no question of it being considered within the limits of the Jalandhar City municipality
30. In our opinion, the assessee must succeed on his Ground. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee being an employer made the valuation of the perquisite provided to Mr. Brian Brown at Rs. 90,40,880/-. The definition of the salary is given in section 17 of the Act and as per the said definition salary includes perquisites. The perquisites in its normal meaning means direct and indirect benefits
6. On the issue as to whether the provisions for warranty liability is deductible for income-tax purposes, a useful reference may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Transformers Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 259, where the Hon’ble Kerala High Court found that the provision for after sales services of transformers on the facts of that case was a reasonable one
3. At the threshold on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel submits that the concept of ownership considering the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act read with Registration Act is different in the context of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. What is to be considered for the purpose of Income Tax Act are the provisions of section.
14. It is relevant to state the provision of section 10A(4) as applicable to the assessment year, in which the assessee began production with effect from 01.02.1993 and became entitled to get deduction. The relevant section 10A(4) reads as under :- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee
5.1 The Act mandates a particular head for each type of income, so that the same has necessarily to be assessed under the said head and in the manner provided under the relevant Chapter. As such, the assessee’s contention of being contractually obliged to bear the said expenditure under the relevant (rent) agreement would be of no moment; the assessee being entitled to claim only the deductions as enumerated u/s. 24 of the Act in the computation of its income assessable u/s. 22.
