We have duly considered the rival contentions and the material on record. The crux of the matter is to determine the true character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee and not the utilization thereof. The utilization will not determine the nature of the receipt. The assessee may mis-utilise the funds but that will not either determine or change the character of the receipt. The foremost thing to be appreciated is that the assessee has taken
18. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders, decisions and judgments and provisions of the Income-tax Act. From the facts, it is noticed that the objection of the revenue is with regard to the assessee’s failure to follow the AS-15 and the ‘actuarial method’ referred therein and not disputed the quantification of the ‘provision of gratuity. In other words, the incorrect quantification of the provision
7. The scope of section 263 has been determined by the propositions pro-founded by the Hon’bie Apex Court as well as other courts. For the revenue, an incorrect assumption of fact, incorrect assumption of law, failure to or routinely to conduct investigation in to the issue together with the ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are the approved grounds for assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263
20. Deduction which are allowed while computing business income have been laid down in section 30 to 36. section 37 is a residuary section extending the allowance of expenses to items of expenditure not covered by Section 30 to 36, the list of allowances enumerated in sections 30 to 36 being not exhaustive. An item of expenditure, which is wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business may be allowed to be deducted
10. Section 194C relating to `payment to contractors and sub-contractors’ and relevant provisions read as under:- “194C(1)Any person responsibility for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and –
The contention of the assessee regarding allowability of foreseeable loss is accepted in principle, However, the issue is restored to the file of AO for the purpose of quantification and calculation of the said loss in terms of Accounting Standard -7, as the same has not been done.
Now, as per admitted facts of this case and as also noted by this Tribunal in their earlier order, the returns where assessee claimed interest were treated as non est returns. Hence, assessee had relied upon Hon’ble Madras High Court in the Narayanan Chettiar Industries case cited above. In this case the Hon’ble High Court was of the opinion that in respect of remission of liability,
In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the findings of Id. CIT(A) that activities undertaken by the taxpayer were in respect of production and export of computer software within the meaning of provisions of section 10B of the Act, especially when the AO himself concluded so for the purpose of section 80HHE of the Act. We are also in agreement with the uncontroverted submission of the Id. AR on behalf of the taxpayer that the taxpayer did not claim any deduction in AY 1996-97 and for the first time claimed deduction u/s 10B in AY 19987-98 and this being the 5th year, claim has to allowed.
12. The provisions of sections 80IB/80IA are the code by themselves as they contains both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Therefore, we need to examine what these provisions prescribe to the issue of the manner of `computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business’. In this regard, the relevant sub-sections ie 80-IB(l), 80-IB(13) & 80-IA(5) of the said sections are important and they are reproduced here under for ready reference.
Sec.43B can only be invoked when the assessee claims deduction for any sum payable by way of tax or duty, under any law for the time being in force, and, as such, where no such deduction is claimed nor charged made to the profit and loss account, there is no question of disallowing the amount. Having regard to the facts, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under sec.43B.
