Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed set off of brought forward business loss against income of Rs. 24,94,407/- for the year under consideration. On perusal of profit and loss account , it was revealed that the assessee earned interest income amounting to Rs. 91,26,226/- from the deposits in the banks and thus, wrongly claimed set off of brought forward business loss against such interest income .
A reading of the DRP Proceeding Extracts shows that the DRP has not considered any of the objections raised by the assessee in respect of TP matters. They held that the appeal filed by the assessee on some issues are pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, the issues have not reached finality and for that reason the contentions raised by the assessee for the impugned assessment year 2006-07 are liable to be rejected.
The assessee has obtained a term loan from The Mahanagar Co–operative Bank Ltd., Fort Branch. It had also obtained an over draft facility. The bank debited the term loan account periodically with interest due and thereafter credited the term loan account with interest as received by debiting the over draft account in the bank. In effect, the term loan interest was paid by debiting the overdraft account. The Assessing Officer held this to be a conversion of interest liability into a loan or advance and, hence, not liable for deduction under section 43B.
There is no dispute that the case of the assessee does not fall within any of the exception provided in rule 6DD of the IT Rules,1962 nor the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee made any such claim before us. Only plea of the ld. AR is that affidavits furnished by the assessee of six persons placed at page 7 to 12 of the paper book and certain documents were not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Indisputably, in this case a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 27.2.2007,when certain impounded documents revealed cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- each.
Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs AFT Industries Ltd. 270 ITR 167 (Cal) held that amount paid as cess is eligible for deduction in computing the composite income under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by upholding the order of the C.I.T.(A) who has allowed the deduction of payment of cess on green leaves in computing the composite income from tea business of the assessee under rule 8 of the I.T. Rules. We may further mention that identical issue was the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Empire Plantations (India) Ltd. and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.2005 in I.T.A.No.1600 (Kol)/2004 for A.Y. 2000-01 has allowed the claim of the assessee.
Reckoning point to compute the time limit will be drawing of last panchnama in respect of any authorization issued in a particular case. However, it has already been held that the last panchnama as relevant for Explanation 2 to section 158BE will be the panchnama which show the conclusion of the search. Panchnama dated 3rd January, 2003 in the present case has not recorded the conclusion of search, but, it was a mere formality to revoke prohibitory order passed on 21st December, 2002. Therefore, the limitation was to be reckoned from 21st December, 2002.
The Chennai Tribunal in the case of Quintegra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) of the Act in the case of amalgamation. In that case the CIT(A) held that differential amount between share issued and net assets taken over, being balancing figure, did not represent income assessable under Section 28(iv) of the Act. The view of CIT(A) had been upheld by the Tribunal.
The taxpayer instead of developing the land, transferred the development rights in respect of part of the land to a separate construction company.As per the agreement, the taxpayer jointly with the trust was required to convey the land to the proposed buyers. Instead of developing land, the taxpayer parted with the development rights in respect of part of the land forever. The possession of the land had also been given during the year along with development rights. This was an independent activity having no connection with the development of the remaining part of the land.
Provisions of section 40(a)(i) as it existed prior to it’s amendment by Finance Act, 2003, with “effect from 1-4-2004 provided for disallowance of payment made to a non-resident only where tax is not deducted at source’ on such payment at source. A similar payment to a resident does not result in disallowance in the event of non-deduction of tax at source, Thus a non- resident left with a choice of dealing with’ a resident for a non-resident in business would opt to deal with a resident rather than anon-resident owing to the provisions of section 40(a)(i).
As regards allegation of Withdrawal of exemption from Import Duty, it has been submitted that import of medical equipment had taken place in 1990 and does not pertain to the period under discussion. The duty exemption was withdrawn citing certain noncompliance, assessee has filed appeal before CESTAT challenging the order of withdrawal and that the assessee has complied with all the terms for exemption. The matter is subjudice before the said Tribunal. However, the machineries imported are used by the Hospital namely remote control X-ray system and whole body C.T. Scan. The exemption is with respect to duty under Customs Act and does not make the assessee non-charitable. It continues to render medical relief.
