However, the mere fact that the agreement was not an agency agreement is not a decisive factor as to the taxability of the amount received on termination of the agreement. Even if the agreement was not an agency agreement and it was a simple contract, the amount received on termination of the Contract can still be taxed as a revenue receipt. Merely because it does not come
This contention, in our opinion, has to be rejected outright. It is pertinent to note that Section 44DA was inserted in the Statute book by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. lsl April, 2004. Simultaneously, the provisions of Section 44D were also amended by the same Finance Act. According to the amended provisions, Section 44D is applicable for computing the income by way of royalty or fees for technical services
7.1 As per the provision of section 10A of the Act, assessee is entitled to claim the deduction in respect of the profits and gains as derived by the assessee’s undertaking from the export of the articles of the things for the period of the 10 consecutive A.Y’s. Sub-section (2) to sec. 10A has laid down certain conditions for the eligibility of the undertaking to claim the deduction
6.15 As noted earlier, there was a judicial opinion that on distribution or division or allotment of assets to partners by the firm on dissolution or otherwise there resulted no gain exigible to tax, however, by incorporating Section 45(3) and 45(4), the legislature has declared its intention in clear terms that partners and the firm are two independent entities not only for the purposes of assessment but also for the purpose of determining the charge of income tax
As rightly pointed out by Shri Pardiwalla, even a promise to render services at a future date would entitle the assessee for deduction u/s 80-O in view of the specific wordings in the section.
Srivatsan Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. (‘Appellant’) is engaged in the business of licensed surveyors and loss assessors under the Insurance Act, 1938. The Appellant entered into a non-compete covenant with its director, Mr. Srivatsan and paid a sum of Rs.10 million, on which depreciation was claimed, treating it as an intangible asset. As per the covenant, Mr. Srivatsan agreed not to carry on his individual business of general insurance survey, loss assessment, valuation of assets, etc. for a period of seven years and also to abstain from other activities which might jeopardize the business interests of the Appellant in any manner.
We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. The assessee company was carrying on the business as licensed surveyors and loss assessors under the Insurance Act, 1938. During the relevant year the assessee did claim depreciation amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/- in relation to payment of non compete fee arising out of a restrictive covenants
We have considered the, rival submissions, perused the material on record. In the instant case, rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR on 05.07.2001, A copy of the summary record of the proceedings of the hearing held on 5.7.2001 before BIFR- have been placed in the Paper Book. It has been held in the aforesaid proceedings para 22 as under:
11. The powers of the Tribunal emanates from the provision of section 254 of the Act and not from any other provisions. The provisions of section 132 of the Act considered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court only specifies the circumstances under which search warrant can be issued by the competent authority. Such provisions have nothing to do with the powers of the Tribunal
Though the taxpayer may have written off the expenditure in its books of account over a period say of five years, it must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it was incurred, if it is revenue expenditure, and if it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of business(Para 15)
