The next two items are penal charges of Rs.5,11,688/ – and Rs. 10,970/-. These amounts have already been held to be business income while discussing the issues of section 80IB. Accordingly, we direct the AO to treat these two amounts as part of business income for computation under section 80HHC.
The assets did not fall under any of the above exceptional three conditions. The said block of assets was used for the purpose of business during the year. Under the circumstances the assets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration ,
We have heard both the sides in detail. Thrust given by the C1T(A) on the mens rea reflected in the conduct of the assessee does not survive with usual force, since the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., 306 1TR 277.
In this view of the matter, we hold that the payment of royalty made by the assessee is out side the purview of section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, no TDS is required to be made from such royalty payment. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
In Y. Venugopala Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2003) 263 ITR 30, the Karnataka High Court interpreted the words ‘notwithstanding’ used in Section 88 of KVSS and has held that a matter which has already been settled cannot be reopened under the scheme and the benefit under the scheme should not be extended to an assessee even with regard to the admitted income.
The Section indicates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court no further appeal shall lie notwithstanding the above three situations mentioned.
The consequence of non-production of certified copy will naturally lead to dis allowance of claims of deduction toward? payment of interest, remuneration, bonus etc. paid to partner by the firm by virtue of Section 185 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the production of certified copy of instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a – firm for any -assessment year commencing from 1993-94 on wards irrespective of whether such assesses was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94. In principle, we therefore, uphold the findings of the Tribunal.
In this matter, the issue which arises for determination is whether contract carriage manufactured according to specifications is tourist vehicle and whether services provided by the assessee under Contract carriage makes assessee a tour operator under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. In our view, this question is important. It has wide implication on the revenues. We find from the impugned judgment that there is no discussion on this point.
The assessee was engaged in the business of real estate development. It held land as stock in trade with a book value of Rs. 4.4 crs. The said land was introduced at its market value of Rs. 11.50 crs as capital contribution into a new firm. The surplus of Rs. 6.01 crore was credited to the profit and loss account. Relying on Hind Construction 83 ITR 211 (SC), it was claimed that the surplus of Rs. 6.01 crs was not liable to tax as the introduction of an asset into a partnership was not a sale.
When Satyam collapsed and the buzz in the word was that this will be another winding up of the company as the situation demand. Moreover no one was there to remove the stains of corporate default and the broken corporate governance. The world economy was merged in to the problems of recession and India was struggling to make a come out from the cold breeze of cash crunch.
