Proviso to Clause (a) of Explanation under section 158BB of the Act for the purpose of determination of undisclosed income or loss of each previous year for the purpose of aggregation is to be taken as the total income or loss computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act without giving effect to set off or brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act.
Going by the definition of ‘housing project’ under section 80HHBA, to mean the construction of ‘any building’ and going by the deduction available under section 80-IB to be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to the assessment year from such housing project complying with the condition, each block in the larger project by name ‘Agrini’ and ‘Vajra’, has to be taken as an independent building and hence a housing project,
Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice.
From a perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, we find that he had simply recorded the finding in the assessment order passed for the assessment year 1996-97 and a vague reference was made that similar was the position in respect of the assessment year in question. The assessment order was for the assessment year 1996-97 on which observation regarding the previous assessment year had been made, has also been reproduced above, while quoting the order passed by CIT appeal.
It will be relevant to record that the primary objection noticed by the assessing authority while serving notice upon the assessee as provided U/s 148 of the Act, 1961 was in regard to dis-allowance of salary of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Managing Director of the assessee company on 30th March, 2002 in cash and Rs.5 Lacs towards advance salary for the assessment year 2002-03 in cash on 10.04.2002 and since it was payment of salary in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-, the above expenses were dis-allowable as provided U/s 40A(3) of the Act, 1961.
Tribunal has on examination of the agreement dated 30-4-2003 entered into between ‘R’ and the assessee concluded that ‘R’ in terms of the agreement had only a right to use the network during the tenure of the 20 year agreement. Further, that the agreement was liable to be terminated at the sole discretion of ‘R’ and, consequently, the amount received as advance for 20-year lease period would have to be returned on such termination for the balance un-utilized period.
Looked at from the angle of the subscriber, while there may be a certainty as to the dividend received every month for considering the same for assessment on accrual basis, as far as a company running the chit business is concerned, the dividend and the discount can properly be ascertained only at the completion of the transaction and not in the midway.
Cooperative bank carrying on business of banking is statutorily required to place a part of its funds in approved securities. The income as interest from such deposits of SLR Funds in the approved security, is an income, which is attributable to the business of bank and is deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
A bare look at section 80-IB(4) would reveal that reference made to ‘profits and gains derived from such industrial undertakings’ and not to ‘profit and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking’. A conjoint reading of Section 80-IB(l) and 80-IB(4) would reveal that the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business’ is to be read as ‘profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking’
It is noted that the appropriation of the amounts, to the extent of Rs.18,32,782/-, towards the alleged service tax dues said to be payable by the petitioner, from the amount of Rs.47,00,094/- said to be due to the petitioner as export duty rebate, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The petitioner ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the second respondent had appropriated the said amount towards the alleged excise duty liability of the petitioner.
