Coming to the first point of difference it seems to me that even after the introduction of block of assets concept, there is no change in the legal position to the effect that the assessee^ would be entitled to depreciation even though the assets in question were not actually put to use in the relevant previous year, but were kept ready for being put to use for the purpose of the business. The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, on this question is in C1T vs. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 675. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court was concerned with the assessment year 1971-72 and with the claim of development of rebate made by the assessee, Sec.33 of the Act dealt with development rebate. An assessee can c
It was the duty of the assessee to show with exact figures the basis of calculating the amount of brokerage to be returned to the existing clients. In fact the assessee itself stated in its letter dated 17-3-2003 that it was having a somewhat raw system of deciding and accounting such claims and that these claims were decided on ad hoc basis by the director upon the request from the clients.
Admittedly, the assessee company was dealing in Cement and also engaged in the business of dealing in shares. There is no dispute over the fact that the assessee had taken delivery of shares before selling them. The assessee company had claimed set off of unabsorbed speculation loss relating to assessment year 1995-96 and 1997-98 carried forward in the current assessment year 2003-04.
The offshore supply of equipment from abroad, in common parlance, means that the supply of goods is made outside India. Ordinarily in such a case, the Indian party opens a letter of credit and nominates a bank to issue irrevocable LOC favouring the foreign party.
The assessee is engaged in rendering Business & Management Consultancy and Marketing Services to its various clients against payment of professional fees. The assessee invested Rs 2,00,00,000/ – in 14,38,848.929 units of Sun F &C fund. The dividend of Rs.43,16,546. 70 received on 22.02.2001 was also reinvested in 4,09,151.252 units of the said fund as per the scheme of reinvestment plan.
. Section 132(1) empowers the Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or any such Joint Director or Joint Commissioner, as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board to authorize Joint Director, Joint Commissioner or other lower authorities to conduct the search if the former authority has reason to believe that the case falls under clauses (a) to (c) of subsection (1).
Explanation to s. 37 (1) does not apply to “penalty” which is not of the nature of illegal / unlawful expenditure The assessee became liable to pay “penalty” for overloading wagons under the rules of the Railways. The question arose whether the said “penalty” was disallowable under the Explanation to s. 37 (1) which provides that
Expl. (baa) to S. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean the profits under the head “profits and gains” as reduced by 90% of the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid). The 2nd & 3rd Provisos to s. 80HHC (3) provide that the profits computed there under shall be increased by the said 90% amount computed in the proportion of export turnover
The assessee had borrowed funds for the purpose of investing in shares. The shares were held for capital purposes as well as for investment purposes. In AY 2004-2005, the assessee did not receive any dividend on the said shares and so there was no exempt income. The Special Bench had to consider whether the interest expenditure
4.1 The Assessing Officer from the details filed noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.3,24,91,003/- as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee vide letter dated 15th December, 2005 submitted that a new call center was in the process of being completed, but was not completed during the year.
