It is true that the assessee on the one hand gets the waiver of monies payable on purchase of machinery and claims such receipt as not taxable because it is capital receipt. On the other hand the assessee claims depreciation on the value of the machinery for which it did not incur any cost.
It has been held that when any expenditure is incurred by an assessee on leasehold premises, even though it may give an enduring benefit, it would not amount to capital expenditure as no capital asset is being created in favour of the assessee. In some of the cases, the expenditure is on civil and electrical works also.
A plain reading of provisions of section 35DDA, it is clear that compliance with the conditions of rule 2BA is mandatory only to avail exemption under section 10(10C) by the employees but said rule is not relevant to deduction under section 35DDA.
From a reading of section 10A(7A), it is clear that its provisions apply to a situation where an undertaking whose income is deductible under section 10A is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger before the end of the specified 10 years. In the present case the STPI undertaking of the assessee stands transferred in a scheme of demerger before the completion of the specified period and, therefore, provisions of section 10A(7A) apply.
TPO as well as the DRP have not considered the objections raised by the assessee against the comparables selected by the TPO for arriving at the ALP. As seen from the submissions of the assessee, the glaring differences that appears to us are that India Products Ltd., is in the business of processing and trading in spices, whereas the assessee is in the business of trading in Coffee.
Objects of the appellant even after the amendment of the trust deed continue to be charitable. The amendment is a mere power conferred on the Trust or other institution. It has to be shown on facts that any amendment to the objects clause has resulted in the trust or institution becoming non charitable in character.
Though the order of the AO was erroneous, the same was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as no part of the capital gain became taxable because of loss of exemption u/s.11(1A) of the Act. Since the order sought to be revised u/s.263 of the Act was erroneous but not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, jurisdiction u/s.263 could not have been invoked by the CIT. We hold accordingly and quash the order u/s.263 of the Act. The appeal of the Assessee is allowed with the above directions and computation.
Gross total income of the assessee is at Rs. 8,03,26,598 lakhs after adjusting the losses suffered by it in the eligible as well as profits of the non-eligible units. There are no brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The claim of deduction under section 80-IA was in respect of eligible unit 4.14 MW wind energy division at Rs. 4,72,28,143 and the deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act was claimed in respect of other units at Rs.15,51,440.
In view of Explanation 5 to section 32(1), the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to grant depreciation allowance, whether the same is claimed by the assessee or not, provided the conditions mentioned under section 32 are satisfied.
As for the excess area constructed, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), it is for the BBMP to look into the violations if any in the construction of the housing project. That however does not authorize the Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has not got approval for the housing project OR that the conditions laid down in section 80IB (10) stated violated.
