This article summarizes recent ruling of the Madras High Court (HC) in the case of CIT v M/s Hi Tech Arai Limited (Taxpayer) [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 670 and 671 of 2009] on the issue of allowability of additional depreciation on newly set-up windmills, under the Indian Tax Law (ITL),
This ruling provides guidance that withdrawal from a revaluation reserve is permitted to be reduced from the book profit, computed under the MAT provisions, only in a case where the book profit was increased by the amount of revaluation reserve in the year of creation.
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue are that the defendant no.1 company was a tenant in property no. 3 Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi. This property was leased by defendant no.5 M/s H.G.Gupta & Sons (HUF) to defendant No. 1 Company for residence of its officers. The company by a resolution in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 27.2.1974 allotted this property to late Lala Hansraj Gupta in his capacity as CEO/Chairman of the company. Late Lala Hansraj Gupta was father of plaintiff no. 2 and defendants no. 2-4 and grandfather of plaintiff no. 1.
In the event of a reasonable doubt about the applicability of Chapter XVII-B, Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked, would be stretching our jurisdiction beyond the permissible limit which cannot be done. In as much as we have reached a conclusion that the object sought to be achieved while enacting Section 40(a)(ia) was for augmenting the provision of TDS, with which object we do not find any impermissibility or lack of constitutionality and hence there is no scope for applying the doctrine of Reading Down to the said provision.
In the instant case, the deductee has already discharged tax liability with interest payable under Section 201(1)(a) of the Act. As such no further interest can be claimed by the revenue from the respondents either under Section 234A or 234B or 234C of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal for the reasons stated cannot be faulted.
It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that unless a particular asset is used for the purpose of business or provision, depreciation is not allowed. No doubt, as per Section 32(1) of the Act, in order to be entitled to claim depreciation, the asset is to be owned by the assessee and it is also to be used for the purpose of business or profession. However, the expression “used for the purpose of business” when applied to block asset would mean use of block asset and not any specific building machinery, plant or furniture in the said block asset as individual assets have lost their identity after becoming inseparable part of the block asset. That is the only manner in which various provisions can be harmonized.
From the nature of activities being pursued by the petitioners, particularly as contained in the ‘memorandum of association’ extracted by the respondent in the statement filed in WP(C) 6899/2009 (stated as more or Jess similar in the other case as well), it is very much evident that the derivation of income by the petitioner cannot be held as merely the income from property, so as to oust the involvement of ‘trade, commerce or business’ or any service in connection with trade commerce or business as contemplated under the statute, which requires to be exempted and appreciated in detail by the departmen
Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Techno Shares & Shares Limited and Various other Stock Broking Houses (ITA no. 971 of 2006 and 218 of 2007) held that the depreciation cannot be granted on Bombay Stock Exchange Membership Card (BSE card) acquired on or after 1 April 1998 either by nomination or directly through the stock exchange.
The Bombay High Court ruled that once the taxpayer’s submissions with respect to section 14A was accepted by a tax officer, the Tribunal cannot send back the same matter for the tax officer’s re¬consideration. Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-458-HC-MUM-IT) has held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not justified in sending back the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) after applying the ratio of the decision in the case of ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd [2008] 312 ITR (SB) (Mum) since the submissions made by the taxpayer in this regard was accepted by the tax officer during the assessment proceedings.
Foreign Law Firms are not eligible to open liaison offices or to practice law in India. Even giving an opinion on a legal matter amounts to “practise of law”. Non-Advocates cannot practise law.
