S. 80HHC; in favor of taxpayer: Post the amendment by Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005 (effective from 1 April 1998), controversy had arisen as to whether in case of an exporter having export turnover of more than INR100 million (where generally conditions mentioned in section 80HHC cannot be satisfied), the entire sale proceeds of DEPB need to be excluded while calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC or only profit on transfer of DEPB should be excluded.
S. 271(1)(c); in favor of taxpayer : The taxpayer was a trust organized in the US and was a resident of the US. As regards India, it was registered with SEBI as a sub- account of M/s Fidelity Management Resources Co. It filed a return of income declaring short-term capital gains and dividend income. Thereafter, based on an AAR ruling in case of XZY/ABC Equity Fund (2005) (250 ITR 194), the taxpayer filed a revised return of income,
The taxpayer was a banking company. In the current appeal, the Revenue’s grievance was that the CIT(A) had erred in directing that the written back ”provision of bad-debts” was not taxable as ”business income” especial y when a deduction of a sum was already al owed under Section 36(1) (vi a). The AO in the assessment order held that such write off of the provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowed as deduction in the previous years and therefore the current write back should be taxable. The CIT(A), while deciding the case before him, held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, an amount of liability written back cannot be taxed as income.
The taxpayer was a wholly owned subsidiary of Denso Thermal Systems, Italy. The taxpayer was engaged in the business of manufacturing certain automobile products and selling the same in India and abroad. For the impugned assessment year, the taxpayer claimed that the royalty paid to its parent company as revenue expenditure. After perusing the details called for, the AO, relying on the decision of CIT vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd. 148 ITR 272 (Mad) held 25% of the royalty claimed as capital expenditure and disallowed the same.
When hiring of trucks and payment thereof was not in consequence upon any written or oral agreement, the natural outcome is that the provisions of section 194C, as has been held in the decisions referred to herein before, were also not applicable to the assessee’s case
These four appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2004- 05 to 2007- 08 are directed against the common order of the CIT (A). Since an identical issue is involved in all these appeals preferred by the assessee, these are being disposed off with this consolidated order.
We have considered the rival submissions carefully in the light of the relevant material on record as well as the decision cited by the parties. After careful perusal of various authorities relied on either side would show that they are quite distinguishable because none of the case law deals with the training expenses. In these cases some principles have been laid down. We further find that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Ishikawajima- Harima Heavy industries Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (supra) is not applicable because that decision
In the case of Mayawati v. CIT [2009] 222 CTR 117 (Delhi), it is nowhere mentioned that for drawing the presumption u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act, there is necessity of acknowledgment due.
The undisputed fact which is confirmed by the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Porus Kaka is that, no e-mail, correspondence, bill or any other documents or evidence pertaining to the impugned assessment year 2003-04 has been furnished or filed before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings despite requests to do so. Shri Porus Kaka on this undisputed fact wants us to rely on the copy of the e-mail correspondence of 27-10-1997 of one Ms. Sonali Surajhita. For ready reference, the copy of the e-mail which is so heavily relied upon by Shri Porus Kaka is extracted hereinbelow:
The controversy squarely involves interpretation and, construction of the words “manufacture” and, “production” . The word `manufacture’ was not defined under the Act, uptill the insertion of section 2(29BA) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009, which reads as under:-
