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
As per sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 40 which has been substituted by Finance Act 1988 w.e.f 1st April 1989 to extend the applicability of the clause also to the payments made to non-resident of royalty, fee for technical services or any other payment chargeable under this Act. Now, the inclusion of the words ‘any another payments’ in the amended provision has widened the scope of the meaning of the word payment and so the payments made by the assessee through M/s Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV, Netherlands to the non-residents in respect of mobilization and demobilization charges amounting to Rs. 8,65,57,909/- under consideration is covered within the provision of section 40 (a) (i) of the Act.
RBF Rig Corpn. LIC (RBFRC) v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) -Section 10(10CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Perquisite, not provided by monetary payment – Assessment year 2004-05 – Whether payment of tax on behalf of employee at option of employer is a non-monetary perquisite fully covered by sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of section 17 and, thus, exempt under section 10(10CC) and is not liable to be included in total income of employee – Held, yes – Whether taxes paid by employer can be added only once in salary of employee and thereafter, tax on such perquisite is not to be added again – Held, yes
It is the legal owner (i.e. the assessee in the case before us) who is liable to the wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets licensed/leased by him for a term of less than twelve years as laid down in section 269UA(f). However, the legal owner shall not be liable to wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets leased by him for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act. It is in fact the person acquiring any rights (i.e., lessee) in or with respect to any building under a lease for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act who shall be deemed to be the owner thereof in terms of the provisions of section 4(8)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act.
The view that section 43B is a general provision which merely bars deduction of specified sums, unless they are actually paid and whereas provisions of section 36(1)(va) specifically deal with deduction in respect of payment of employees’ contribution to provident fund and other funds; therefore, the provisions of section 36(1)(va),
