The CIT (A) in a well-reasoned and well-discussed order has not committed any error in coming to a conclusion that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss. (Para 15)
“In our view, the High Court was right in holding that the assessee was carrying on an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. The assessee not only constructed vaults of special design and special doors and electric fitting, but it also rendered other services to the vault-holders. It installed fire alarm and was incurring expenditure for the maintenance of fire alarm by paying charges to the municipality
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Marginal heading of section 54 of the Act, which is relevant in this context, refers to “profit on sale of property used for residence”. Main section speaks of transfer of a capital asset- being building or lands appurtenant thereto and being a residential house – the income of which is chargeable under the head income from house property
Merely because income is attached to any immovable property cannot be the sole factor for assessment of such income as income from property. What has to be seen is what was the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property.
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.
