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.
It was contended by the assessee that their agricultural land is situated in the rural area outside the municipal limit and hence does not fall within the ambit of provisions of s. 2(14) of the Act and not liable to tax in the assessee’s hand. But the AO has not accepted the contention of the assessee and treated the sale consideration of assessee’s share as undisclosed income of the asses see and added to the income of the assessee.
n the recent past the question of interpretation of newly inserted section 12AA( with effect from 01/04/1997) has always been perennial teaser not only to the trust or institutions but also to the Revenue Department as also faced by the judiciary. To get the answer we have heard both the sides at length, carefully perused the impugned order and also several correspondences filed in the compilation in the light of the case laws cited
It is apparent from the perusal of section 80IB(10) that this section has been enacted with a view to provide incentive for businessmen to undertake construction of residential accommodation for smaller residential units and the deduction is intended to be restricted to the profit derived from the construction of smaller units and not from larger residential units.
It is a matter of record that the assessee had not been allowed the cross examination of the party whose statement has been used against him in making the assessment the addition us thus in violation of principles of natural justice. Not allowing cross examination is a defect of procedural in nature. It is to be allowed in order to make the assessment by using the principal statement, the examination in chief tested on cross examination.
