We find that it is clear from letter dated 19-12-2009 that assessee has explained the position regarding liabilities in respect of three parties and even confirmation of M/s Surekha Overseas was filed. This reply clearly shows that the liabilities were still outstanding. Therefore, in our opinion, ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that since the liabilities are still outstanding, the provisions of sec.41[1] are not attracted.
On Appeal ITAT held that that the letting out of terrace has to be assessed under the head Income From House Property as against Income From Other Sources assessed by the Assessing Officer and also allow deduction provided under section 24 of the Act.
In regard to jewellery found on person and in the bedroom of Smt. S.H. Khorakiwala, it was stated before the Assessing Officer that the same was received at the time of her marriage. The Assessing Officer accepted the confirmation of mother but the confirmation of NRI gifts from relatives was not accepted. He observed that whether they had purchased the jewellery abroad and gifted to Smt. Samina H. Khorakiwala in which case the customs clearance receipt should have been filed.
Now, we take-up the appeals for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. The only common issue in both the appeals is in respect of deduction u/s.10A which was denied by the A.O. on the reason that the assessee company is formed by splitting and reconstruction of the existing business/undertaking.
In this appeal, the only issue urged by the assessee is whether the AO was justified in netting the provision made for bad and doubtful debts, i.e. netting of new provision made during the year under consideration and the provision of earlier years written back during the year. As stated earlier, it will only be an academic exercise to address this issue.
We may without prejudice also examine the assessee’s claim of being a primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank. The Revenue has rejected the assessee’s claim on the ground that it does not meet the definition thereof inasmuch as its area of operation is not confined to a Taluk (Explanation (b) of section 80P (4)). In this regard, we firstly observe that the assessee has not clarified if it is a member of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Land Development Bank and, if so, since when. Secondly, it has not shown that its principal object is to provide long term credit for agricultural and rural development activities, which constitutes the defining attribute of such a bank, with its object clause nowhere indicating so.
The CIT(A) however agreed with alternate plea of the assessee that if the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the payments made by the assessee are included by the payees in their returns of income, and taxes have been paid by them thereon, the Assessing Officer may modify the demand raised u/s 201(1).
The Ld. Counsel submits that company has been paying the Directors remuneration as a profit commission as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, after determination of the profits. The assessee-company also is performance incentives to the Managers. He submitted that Mr. S. Rao was Chairman & Managing Director of the assessee company who withdrew from the active participation of the company’s business and Mr. Anil S. Rao was paid a commission of Rs.81,39,200/- @ 8% of the profit which as per the resolution passed by the Board. We have also heard Ld. D.R. We find that the profit commission which is paid to the Director is approved in the general meeting (G.M.) of the shareholders and required evidence was filed before the Ld. CIT (A).
ITAT held that profits from participation of cargo under ‘Slot Arrangement’ are not eligible for benefit of Article 8 of the India-Germany tax treaty (the tax treaty) in case the mother vessels are not owned, hired or chartered by the taxpayer.
It is pertinent to note that the term ‘insurer’ has not been used in sec. 10(10D) and as it is clear that as per provisions of sec. 10(10D) any sum received under Life Insurance Policy including the benefit on such policy is eligible for the deduction. Therefore, it is apparent that there was no intention of the legislature to restrict the benefit of exemption/s 10(10D) only on the insurance policy taken from Indian Insurance Company.
