There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test.
The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of U/s. 54F do not require the same sale proceeds to be utilized to claim deduction U/s. 54F.
Jammu Development Authority is an Authority established with the motive of profit constituted under the Jammu & Kashmir Development Act, 1970 and that the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine to the extent, mentioned hereinabove and the Ld. CIT, Jammu, has rightly being satisfied held that the Jammu Development Authority is not entitled to registration and accordingly cancelled the registration so granted.
Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed set off of brought forward business loss against income of Rs. 24,94,407/- for the year under consideration. On perusal of profit and loss account , it was revealed that the assessee earned interest income amounting to Rs. 91,26,226/- from the deposits in the banks and thus, wrongly claimed set off of brought forward business loss against such interest income .
A reading of the DRP Proceeding Extracts shows that the DRP has not considered any of the objections raised by the assessee in respect of TP matters. They held that the appeal filed by the assessee on some issues are pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, the issues have not reached finality and for that reason the contentions raised by the assessee for the impugned assessment year 2006-07 are liable to be rejected.
The assessee has obtained a term loan from The Mahanagar Co–operative Bank Ltd., Fort Branch. It had also obtained an over draft facility. The bank debited the term loan account periodically with interest due and thereafter credited the term loan account with interest as received by debiting the over draft account in the bank. In effect, the term loan interest was paid by debiting the overdraft account. The Assessing Officer held this to be a conversion of interest liability into a loan or advance and, hence, not liable for deduction under section 43B.
There is no dispute that the case of the assessee does not fall within any of the exception provided in rule 6DD of the IT Rules,1962 nor the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee made any such claim before us. Only plea of the ld. AR is that affidavits furnished by the assessee of six persons placed at page 7 to 12 of the paper book and certain documents were not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Indisputably, in this case a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 27.2.2007,when certain impounded documents revealed cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- each.
Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs AFT Industries Ltd. 270 ITR 167 (Cal) held that amount paid as cess is eligible for deduction in computing the composite income under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by upholding the order of the C.I.T.(A) who has allowed the deduction of payment of cess on green leaves in computing the composite income from tea business of the assessee under rule 8 of the I.T. Rules. We may further mention that identical issue was the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Empire Plantations (India) Ltd. and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.2005 in I.T.A.No.1600 (Kol)/2004 for A.Y. 2000-01 has allowed the claim of the assessee.
Reckoning point to compute the time limit will be drawing of last panchnama in respect of any authorization issued in a particular case. However, it has already been held that the last panchnama as relevant for Explanation 2 to section 158BE will be the panchnama which show the conclusion of the search. Panchnama dated 3rd January, 2003 in the present case has not recorded the conclusion of search, but, it was a mere formality to revoke prohibitory order passed on 21st December, 2002. Therefore, the limitation was to be reckoned from 21st December, 2002.
The Chennai Tribunal in the case of Quintegra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) of the Act in the case of amalgamation. In that case the CIT(A) held that differential amount between share issued and net assets taken over, being balancing figure, did not represent income assessable under Section 28(iv) of the Act. The view of CIT(A) had been upheld by the Tribunal.
