Section 11 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) excludes from the income of charitable or religious trusts, income to the extent it is applied towards the objects of such trusts, during the previous year in India. It may be stated here that there are several conditions laid down under section 11 of the Act, for the purpose of claiming exemption in respect of the income of a charitable or religious trust.
In this regard it may be stated that in the case of a charitable / religious trusts, even capital expenditure is considered as application of income towards the objects of the trust. Therefore, it is the view of the Assessing Officers that if depreciation is allowed on the assets of such a trust, then the same will lead to double deduction; first by way of deduction of capital expenditure and thereafter, by way of deduction of depreciation on the assets of the trust.
It has been observed that for the purpose of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in respect of income exempt from tax, the Assessing Officers (AOs) have been following a totally erroneous method of straight away applying rule 8D of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), without considering the correctness of the claim made by the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to such income.
Sometime back, one of my clients approached me with a query whether education cess presently charged along with the income-tax and surcharge, could be claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The aforesaid query was raised, because some Income-Tax Advisor provided the aforesaid client with an Opinion that the aforesaid education cess is allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Aberdeen Claims Administration Inc., USA and Aberdeen Asset Management Plc., UK that there is no doubt that the settlement amount is relatable to Satyam shares
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Aker Contracting FP ASA, Norway, USA that it is beyond doubt that the consideration received as per amended order is similar to consideration received as per original contract.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), USA, that it is clear that even if right to sue is considered as capital asset covered under the definition of transfer within the meaning of section 2(47), its cost of acquisition cannot be determined.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Dow AgroSciences Agricultural Products Ltd, Mauritius that the Article 13 of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA which deals with the taxation of capital gains is not applicable in the present case.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Tiong Woon Project & Contracting (Pte) Ltd. that the department has correctly provided a positive response that because the project was continued in India only for 178 days in a fiscal year
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of SkillSoft Ireland limited that in the case of Synopsis International Old Ltd. 212 TAXMAN 454 (Kar), high court held that merely because the words non-exclusive and non-transferrable are used in the license agreement, it does not take away the software out of definition of copyright.
