Deduction on account of loss of Rs.60 lacs as result of dacoity which took place on 7th January 1999. It was explained that the aforesaid amount in cash formed part of the business receipts and that while it was being taken to the bank for being deposited was lost due to dacoity.
What is relevant is whether the unit in question is engaged in the production or manufacture of specified articles or things in its own right. It is not in dispute that the units in question in the assessee-company are engaged in the production of capsules and has also produced the capsules in the year under appeal. The assessee has been denied deduction on the sole ground that all the units are also producing capsules and are therefore part of the same undertaking.
11. Keeping in view the nature of the transaction between the Assessee and the so called Developer, coupled with the transfer and the possession of the immovable properties, we find that the transaction amounts to conveyance in favour of the purchaser of the properties and the transfer was completed on the date when the purchases were executed and possession was handed over.
This appeal by the taxpayer for the AY 2004-05 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) partially setting aside assessment under Section 263 of IT. Act made vide order dated 30 March, 2005 with directions to the Assessing Officer for the fresh determination of Arm’s Length Price of international transaction with AEs in the light of his directions.
15. In so far as the assessee’s contention that as the remuneration paid to the directors were increased in a properly called meeting of the Board of Directors, such payment is to be considered as reasonable and not excessive, we are of the view that this contention of the assessee would be of no much assistance to the assessee as discussed hereafter. There is no dispute in the fact that the Board of Directors
ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – The grounds relating to levy of interest u/s. 234B has not been considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) . However, we are inclined to hold that levy of such interest is to be mandatorily levied in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the section, which the AO is directed to levy. The agitation with respect to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is premature and is dismissed as rightly not considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well.
ACIT vs Mahalaxmi Chemical Works The notice under s.148 was issued for the reason that interest paid was not allowable since funds taken on interest were not used for business purpose.During reassessment said interest was not disallowed, accepting the assessee’s explanation. The reassessment for that reason could not be held to be invalid since there was prima facie reason to believe at the time of issue of notice under s.148 that income had escaped assessment.
The assessment for AY 90-91 was reopened on the ground to verify whether the income from warehousing charges should be treated as income from business or income from house property. Ultimately after investigating the case in detail, the Assessing Officer himself arrived at a conclusion that charges on account of warehousing are business receipts and the reassessment was completed accordingly. Now, for these years under consideration the department had taken a different view, which in our considered opinion,
Though there is no definition of the term ‘total turnover’ in section 10A, there is also nothing in the said section to mandate that what is excluded from the numerator (export turnover) would nevertheless form part of the denominator. One would have to apply consistent standards in understanding and applying a term, particularly when, such term, viz. export turnover has an independent function and at the same time a part of a larger term viz., total turnover.Thus, if some expenses, for any reason are excluded in arriving at the ‘export turnover’ the same should be reduced form ‘total turnover’ also.
The rigour of sec.43B may be applicable in the case of Sales-tax or Excise Duty but the same cannot be said to be the position in case of Service-tax because of two reasons. Firstly, the Assessee is never allowed deduction on account of service tax which is collected on behalf of the Govt., and paid to the Govt. accordingly. Therefore, a service provider is merely acting as an agent of the Govt., and is not entitled to claim deduction on account of service tax. Hence, on this account alone addition under sec.43B could not be made
