Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Minimum alternate tax – Assessment year 2000-01 – Assessee had created a reserve in assessment year 1986-87 by enhancing value of assets – Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1.53 crores from said reserve and credited it to profit and loss account – In assessment year 2000-01 assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs. 1.53 crores from book profit for calculating adjusted book profit under section 115JA – Assessing Officer allowed assessee’s claim
The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term “Written Down Value” reads as under :-
Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Export oriented undertaking – Assessment year 2003-04 – Assessee-company was engaged in business of contract research and in providing of laboratory facility to its parent company in USA – It had claimed exemption under section 10B – Assessing Officer observed that assessee was not manufacturing or exporting anything, as it was simply providing services of laboratory
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal – Powers of – Assessment year 1996-97 -Whether though Tribunal is not akin to a Court but functions discharged by it are similar to a Court, and, hence, in addition to its expressed statutory powers it has got inherent power to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice – Held, yes –
The assessee, a statutory Board, was set up for prevention of pollution of streams and wells in the State and other allied activities. It derived income from various testing charges etc. The CIT granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act on the basis that the activities of the assessee constituted a “charitable purpose” u/s 2 (15) and that its’ income was eligible
ACIT Vs M.K. Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member These two appeals preferred – (i) by the assessee and (ii) another by the Revenue– are directed against the order of the CIT (A), Mysore, for the assessment year 2005-06. ITA NO.401 (By the assessee): 2. The assessee company has raised […]
A golden rule of interpretation is the contextual interpretation. A word has always to be interpreted only with the context with which, one is seized. Here we are concerned with the provisions of Sec.40(b) hence, the interpretation has to be done accordingly. Interpretation of the provisions otherwise or the way the Id. AO has done, if accepted, has the effect of rendering the very Explanation 3 totally nugatory or purposeless. Needless to say, that every word used by the legislature, is significant and cannot be lost sight of.
As the facts indicate the holding company has advanced funds to the assessee company in 1998 which was received as share application money, later on transferred to unsecured loan. The amounts were utilised in investments and the incomes thereon were offered under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’.
The application of 15 per cent rate of tax on the amount shown in the return of income would not fall under the category of determination of tax payable on the returned income on the basis of return of income under section 143(1) when the assessee had categorically stated in the note enclosed with the return of income that the returned income was not in the nature of `royalty’
word `property’ has been used by the legislature in a wider sense so as to include more than one house. However, the right to compute the ALV at nil in respect of self occupied property is restricted to one house even thought he property owned by the assessee may consist of more than one house.
