Banks undertaking equipment leasing departmentally should follow prudential accounting system and only the interest charge component should be recognised as income and the recovery of cost of asset should be carried to balance sheet on the form of provision of depreciation.
In view of the agreement and various judicial pronouncements the hon’ble tribunal has held that there is a distinction between a case where the software is supplied along with hardware as part of the equipment and there is no separate sale of the software and a case where the software is sold separately. In the case, where the software is an integral part of the supply of equipment, the consideration for that is not assessable as “royalty”
We are aware that adopting a liberal view in condoning delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a licence to file appeals at will-disregarding the time limits fixed by the statutes.
In view of above order and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), we decide Ground No.2 of the appeal in favour of assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the income arising from transaction in derivative by assessee(s), being sub-account FII cannot be treated as business profit or loss.
Imparting of yoga training through well structured yoga shivirs/ camps also falls under the category of imparting education, one of the charitable objects defined under section 2(15) of the Act.
ince the assessee did not carry on any profession in the relevant previous year, the receipt cannot be taxed u/s 28 of the Act, since Section 176 (4) does not contain any deeming provision treating such receipt as income falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation” and also, it cannot be taxed as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act.
Client acquisition cost paid by the assessee is towards acquiring an intangible asset and therefore eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
Income Tax Officer being a quasi judicial authority should observed the parameters which are laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in various decisions and reasserted in the case of UTI Mutual Fund Vs ITO (supra) for recovery of outstanding demands.
In the present case before us, the assessee has offered the capital gains tax in the next year and there has not been any prejudice to the revenue. Further, the assessee has explained to the query raised during the scrutiny proceedings before the Assessing Officer was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Order is not erroneous.
Assessee as well as his counsels have done lackluster attempt to represent the matters by not fulfilling all the criterion necessary to represent the matter before the Tribunal
