Business of the taxpayer is banking and the business connection between the tenant and taxpayer has nothing to do with banking operation carried on by the taxpayer. Further, the Kerala High Court in Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 568 has also taken a similar view. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the taxpayer is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of rental income.
It is settled position of law that where any issue is debatable, it cannot be corrected u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 is relevant wherein an action taken by Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act was found to be illegal.
Merely because the Assessing Officer invoked section 50C(2) and adopted guideline value to be the actual sale consideration and made addition in the assessee’s income automatically become a case attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.
Rs. 27,650/- was paid by the assessee to various Advocates and Consultants in relation to conferences, advice and consultation pertaining to Income-tax matters, therefore, the said payments do not fall within the purview of section 80VV of the Act. The said section restricts deduction in respect of expenses incurred by an assessee in respect of any proceedings before any Income-tax Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or any Court relating to the determination of any liability under the Income-tax Act by way of tax, penalty or interest. In other words Section 80VV of the Act seeks to restrict the allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in respect of a specific proceeding under the Act. Therefore, the said section has no application.
Disallowance u/s 14A is contemplated in respect of exempt income and not which is eligible for deduction under any relevant provision. It is impermissible to mix both the deduction and exemption provisions and then take them in one stride for computing disallowance u/s 14A.
As far as the provisions of the Act is concerned, now it has been streamlined that deemed dividend includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power.
There cannot be any dispute that an assessee who is having losses cannot be compelled to pay the income-tax, as the Income-tax Act does not provide for such a situation, exception being the MAT provisions in the case of companies. What is required to be seen as per the circular issued by CBDT and which was approved by Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226, is that ‘Taxes due’ have been paid by the deductee-assessee.
The first issue before us is whether the assessee is a developer and builder and, thus, entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) qua the Sadguru Krupa Project, or only a Contractor and, thus, not so entitled. No argument, much less materials, has been advanced or adduced before us
The finding of the AO is that expenditure incurred by the head office will have to be allocated to the Indian offices. There has been no allocation made by the assessee. The income is being offered for tax on cost plus basis, therefore, the general and administrative expenditure incurred by the head office for running India offices has to be considered for working out the cost base.
Last proviso to section 54F clearly mentions that when amounts deposited under Capital Gains Account Scheme were not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction within the period specified, then such amount would be charged as income of the previous year in which the period of three years, starting from the date of the transfer of the asset expired.
