Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT,, ITA 626/2010 and W.P. 758/2010 dated 12 August 2010, – Bombay High Court rules on prospective operation of Rule 8D and upholds the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D.
The High Court held that notice issued for reopening the assessment which could be rectified under section 154 is invalid.
CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals – section 28(iiid) covers only the “profit” (difference between sale consideration and face value of the DEPB credit) and that the “face value” is assessable u/s 28(iiib) is not correct. The entire amount received on transfer of the DEPB credit is “profits” and falls under s. 28(iiid). There was no basis or justification for the Tribunal to hold that the face value of the DEPB credit can be reduced from the sale consideration. It is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into “face value” and “excess of face value”. The approach of the Tribunal is misconceived and unsustainable. As the assessee had an export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and did not fulfill the conditions set out in the third proviso to s. 80HHC (3), it was not entitled to a deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB.
The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not res integra insofar as this Court is concerned. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 177 Taxman 81 (Bom.), a Division Bench of this Court held that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organization would not be income which would be assessable to tax.
Credit for brought forward MAT is to be given from gross demand before charging interest u/s 234B. 2. Interest u/s 244A was allowable on the refundable taxes arrived at after giving credit of brought forward MAT from the gross demand.
What the proviso to Section 112 essentially requires is that where the tax payable in respect of income arising from a listed security, being a long term capital asset, exceeds 10% of the capital gains before indexation, then such excess beyond 10% is liable to be ignored.
We may in concluding note that the basis on which the assessee is sought to be taxed in the present case in respect of the amount of Rs.32,00,000/ is that there was a dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and no other basis has been suggested in the order of the Assessing Officer.
Keyman Insurance Policy for section 10(10D) is not confined to a policy taken by a person on life of an employee, but also extends to an insurance policy taken with respect to life of another who is connected in any manner whatsoever with business of subscriber.
Where an order passed by the Assessing Officer is subject to an appeal that has been filed, the power of the Commissioner to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can only extend to such matters which have not been considered and decided in the appeal.
If the business is going to be paralyzed, then, the court in appropriate cases can, for the benefit and interest of the company, save the transaction involving sale of assets of a company in liquidation; it is for enabling the company to continue as a going concern and to protect the interest of shareholders and creditors that such a power is conferred and must be exercised under section 536(2) of the Companies Act.
