The use of word developing’ in juxtaposition to infrastructure facility in section 80-1A(4) indicates that what is eligible for deduction under this sub-section is the profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure facility and not something de hors it; so in order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a particular part of it; it may be possible that some part of development work is assigned by the developer to some contractor for doing it on his behalf; that will not put the doer of such work into the shoes of a developer; therefore, a mere contractor cannot be conferred with the benefit as provided in section 80-IA.
The penalty proceedings and the assessment proceedings both are different. Explanation 1to section 271(1)(c) in respect of any fact relating to the computation of total income states that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of an assessee shall be deemed to be the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. This deeming provision for concealment is not absolute one.
In our considered opinion, no prudent businessman would borrow funds on interest and keep his own funds idle. Besides, (he transaction of loan is also not third party transaction but the funds borrowed from the Indian Overseas Bank by the sister concern have been taken as loan by the assessee without any business necessity because its own funds have remained idle throughout the year. The assessee has also admitted that the funds were kept idle and not utilized during the course of the accounting period. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT (A), which is confirmed.
In the case before us, the Agreement between the assessee and DCIL/Distacorn and Modicorp is to assist the assessee by providing services in the manner setout in Schedule – 1 to the Agreement, [n the Agreement, it has been clearly provided that DCIL and Distacom have technical and operational
An order under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant nominated in this behalf by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and to furnish a report of such audit, does entail civil consequences. The special audit under section 142(2A) is not limited to the mere production of the books and vouchers before the auditor and verification thereof:
The principal of accrual of profit does not come in the way of allocation of profit in the two periods; deduction under different sections can be allowed on different profits, if the same are admissible.
For the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article, and subject to paragraph 5 of this Article, the term ‘fees for technical services’ means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) which:
In respect of properties where restriction under Rent Control Act is not applicable, the annual letting value has got to be determined after taking into consideration various factors and the standard rent or Municipal valuation may be adjusted after taking into account such factors.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P V A L Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 had an occasion to consider the impact of double taxation avoidance agreement provisions of Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that where liability to tax arises under the local enactment, the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act provide for taxation of globle income of an assessee chargeable to tax thereunder
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-707-ITAT-MUM] in the case of Cipla Investments Ltd. (Taxpayer) on taxability of waiver of loan. The ITAT held that since the loan received was on capital account, its subsequent waiver too was on capital account. Hence, the loan waived was not liable to be taxed as profits and gains from its business (business income) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The ITAT also held that waiver would not be taxable as business income if a taxpayer was not allowed deduction of the loan amount earlier.
