30. In our opinion, the assessee must succeed on his Ground. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee being an employer made the valuation of the perquisite provided to Mr. Brian Brown at Rs. 90,40,880/-. The definition of the salary is given in section 17 of the Act and as per the said definition salary includes perquisites. The perquisites in its normal meaning means direct and indirect benefits
6. On the issue as to whether the provisions for warranty liability is deductible for income-tax purposes, a useful reference may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Transformers Ltd. (2004) 270 ITR 259, where the Hon’ble Kerala High Court found that the provision for after sales services of transformers on the facts of that case was a reasonable one
14. It is relevant to state the provision of section 10A(4) as applicable to the assessment year, in which the assessee began production with effect from 01.02.1993 and became entitled to get deduction. The relevant section 10A(4) reads as under :- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee
5.1 The Act mandates a particular head for each type of income, so that the same has necessarily to be assessed under the said head and in the manner provided under the relevant Chapter. As such, the assessee’s contention of being contractually obliged to bear the said expenditure under the relevant (rent) agreement would be of no moment; the assessee being entitled to claim only the deductions as enumerated u/s. 24 of the Act in the computation of its income assessable u/s. 22.
Where during a survey, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 29 lakhs towards “any other discrepancy” but later retracted from the same and the question arose whether the assessee could be assessed despite the said retraction,
19. As per our considered view, at the time of issue of notice, it is sufficient that prima-facie reasons and material should be with Assessing Officer that there is escapement of some income. At the time of issue of notice the Assessing Officer is not required to conclusively establish that there is escapement of income, mere bona-fide reason to believe that there is escapement of income is sufficient for issue of notice
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. The decisions cited at the time of hearing of appeal were duly considered. It is apparent from the record that the assessee company had debited a sum of Rs.2,37,370/ – under the head `travelling expenses’ and claimed the above expenditure as a business expenditure.
25. We now proceed to examine the contention of the revenue that the principle of parity between export turnover and total turnover was rejected by the Supreme Court in Nair’s case (supra). In this case the narrow dispute which arose for determination was whether the department was right in including the processing charges received by the assessee in the total turnover while arriving at the export profits u/s.80HHC(3)
7. After going through the orders of the learned Members as well as the orders of the lower authorities, I am of the view that no disallowance was required to be made for the reasons given hereafter. The question for consideration is whether on facts of the case, the disallowance was justified in view of the specific provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the said provision below:
We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute. Under section 194H of the Act any person not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family who is responsible for paying on or after the first day of June 2001 to a resident any income by way of commission or brokerage, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment of such income i
