Admittedly, the assessee company was dealing in Cement and also engaged in the business of dealing in shares. There is no dispute over the fact that the assessee had taken delivery of shares before selling them. The assessee company had claimed set off of unabsorbed speculation loss relating to assessment year 1995-96 and 1997-98 carried forward in the current assessment year 2003-04.
The offshore supply of equipment from abroad, in common parlance, means that the supply of goods is made outside India. Ordinarily in such a case, the Indian party opens a letter of credit and nominates a bank to issue irrevocable LOC favouring the foreign party.
The assessee is engaged in rendering Business & Management Consultancy and Marketing Services to its various clients against payment of professional fees. The assessee invested Rs 2,00,00,000/ – in 14,38,848.929 units of Sun F &C fund. The dividend of Rs.43,16,546. 70 received on 22.02.2001 was also reinvested in 4,09,151.252 units of the said fund as per the scheme of reinvestment plan.
. Section 132(1) empowers the Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or any such Joint Director or Joint Commissioner, as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board to authorize Joint Director, Joint Commissioner or other lower authorities to conduct the search if the former authority has reason to believe that the case falls under clauses (a) to (c) of subsection (1).
Explanation to s. 37 (1) does not apply to “penalty” which is not of the nature of illegal / unlawful expenditure The assessee became liable to pay “penalty” for overloading wagons under the rules of the Railways. The question arose whether the said “penalty” was disallowable under the Explanation to s. 37 (1) which provides that
Expl. (baa) to S. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean the profits under the head “profits and gains” as reduced by 90% of the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid). The 2nd & 3rd Provisos to s. 80HHC (3) provide that the profits computed there under shall be increased by the said 90% amount computed in the proportion of export turnover
The assessee had borrowed funds for the purpose of investing in shares. The shares were held for capital purposes as well as for investment purposes. In AY 2004-2005, the assessee did not receive any dividend on the said shares and so there was no exempt income. The Special Bench had to consider whether the interest expenditure
4.1 The Assessing Officer from the details filed noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.3,24,91,003/- as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee vide letter dated 15th December, 2005 submitted that a new call center was in the process of being completed, but was not completed during the year.
In this case it is not disputed that the assessee is a firm of Solicitors & Advocates. It would be necessary to first examine as to whether The Bombay High Court (Original Side Rules are applicable in the case of the solicitors and then to consider the obligations of the Solicitor firm under the said Rules, if found applicable. For this purpose, it will be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co. (supra). In this case the Hon’ble High Court, while examining the method of accounting followed by the appellant firm, has stated as under: –
1. This Special Bench was constituted on the recommendation of the regular Bench which was hearing above appeals. The controversy relates to the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC to an assessee (industrial undertaking) after it has been allowed deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income Tax Act. In other words, the effect of provision of Section 80-IA(9) introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 is to be seen.
