In the present case the assessee had taken loans from the bank on which the interest was paid and as a security for those loans, FDRs in question were kept with the bank and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the netting of interest for the interest income and expenses thereto. This is also categorically answered in Shri Ram Honda (supra). The Court was of the opinion that even in a case where the exporter is required to mandatorily keep monies in fixed deposit, in order to avail credit facility for the export business, and interest earned on fixed deposits for the purpose of availing of credit facilities from the bank, it was held that the interest income has to be treated as “income from other sources” and not business income as it does not have an immediate nexus with the export business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for bad debts of Rs.38,20,417/- in respect of the money lending business which was closed down during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in 1998-99, without following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation and contrary to the provisions of Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Merely because the money lending business was subsequently discontinued, that is in the subsequent accounting year relating to the relevant assessment year, it cannot be held that the assessee was disentitled to claim such a deduction though such claim as bad debt was, as a matter of fact, not in dispute.
The assessee’s income was computed u/s 115JB as it had no income under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee claimed that despite the absence of normal profits, it was eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC in computing the book profits under Expl. (iv) of s. 115JB in accordance with the judgement of the Special Bench in Syncome Formulations 106 ITD 193 (Mum) (SB) and that the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Ajanta Pharma 223 CTR 441 (Bom) (which held that Syncome Formulations was overruled) was not applicable. HELD upholding the assessee’s plea:
The second ground for passing provisional order by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act relates to the provision for doubtful debts. As per the CIT, the provision for doubtful debts at Rs.818.03 lacs debited in the Profit and Loss account was not added back for calculating book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, which resulted into underassessment of income to that extent. In forming this opinion, the CIT has governed itself by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Beardsell Ltd., 244 ITR 256, wherein the Madras High Court held that where there is a statutory provision contained in explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act, the provision made for uncertain liabilities are to be disallowed for calculating the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.
Once an appeal against the order passed by an authority is preferred and is decided by the appellate authority, the order of the said authority merges into the order of the appellate authority; with this merger, order of the original authority ceases to exist and the order of the appellate authority prevails; the limitation for the purpose of section 154(7) is to be counted from the date of this order of CIT (A) and not the date of original order of assessment.
Once it is held that the business transactions do not fall within section 2(22)(e), one need not to go further to section 2(22)(e)(ii) to take away the basic meaning, intent and purport of the main part of section 2(22)(e).
In the present case, the dispute relates to the special deduction allowable under Section 80-IA contained in Chapter VI-A. Relevant provisions contained in Chapter VI-A including Section 80-IA (to the extent relevant),read as follows :-
The question raised before us is with regard to the taxability of the discount allotted to the subscribers of the chit, which as per the counsel for the appellant is in the nature of interest in the hands of such subscribers and not dividend
S. 154 (7) provides that a rectification order can be passed within four years “from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed”. The AO passed an assessment order u/s 143 (3) on 24.11.1998 in which he committed the mistake of reducing the depreciation instead of adding to the income resulting in double deduction. The assessee went up in appeal on other issues to the CIT (A) who decided the appeal on 28.6.2004.
As the search warrant was issued in the joint names of the assessee and her spouse, it means that the officer had reason to believe that the undisclosed assets and income were held jointly. If so, it is not open for the AO to assess the assessee individually on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search in pursuance to the said warrant but the assessment ought to have been only in the capacity of AOP or BOI.
