An order of assessment in case of ICICI bank Ltd (ICICI) was passed in March 1999 u/s 143(3) wherein deduction claimed u/s Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) and in respect of foreign exchange rate difference was allowed. The first reassessment was carried out in February 2000 for reworking a deduction under Sec 80M. Thereafter, a second reassessment was carried out in March 2001 for reworking of the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii). In March 2003, the Commissioner u/s 263 sought to revise assessment to disallow deduction u/s 36(1 )(vii) and 36(1 )(viia) and in respect of foreign exchange rate difference.
HC, ruling in favour of the assessee held that it was eligible to set off a loss incurred in tax holiday unit against the income arising from other units, under the same head of ‘profits and gains of business or profession’. HC observed that there was no specific prohibition in Sec 10B for such setting off of a loss. Under Sec 70, the assessee was eligible to set off loss from one source against income from any other source under the same head of income.
In an old judgement but useful Judgment Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Saraf held that until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the relevant State, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. Which means that once a decision is given by any of the High Courts in the country and there is no contrary decision by any other High Court on the same issue then such decision of High Court will be binding on all the administrative authorities and Tribunals through out India.
Deemed fiction created in Ss.(1) and Ss.(2) of S. 50 is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in S. 48 and S. 49 and does not apply to other provisions. A fiction created by the legislature has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. Further, S. 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets. Exemption available u/s.54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction created u/s.50. Benefit of S. 54E is available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that the computation of capital gains is done either u/s.48 and u/s.49 or u/s.50. Legal fiction created by the statute is to deem the capital gain as short-term capital gain and not to deem the asset as short-term capital asset. Therefore, it cannot be said that S. 50 converts long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset. Accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption u/s.54E in respect of the capital gains arising on the transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation had been allowed.
In a major relief to equity brokers, the conflicts arising on their bad debt claims have been put to rest by the Bombay High Court. Affirming to a ruling by Mumbai ITAT special bench In the case of DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia 40 SOT 432, the court on Tuesday said stock brokers were eligible to claim deduction of the entire amount due to them from clients as a bad debt, even though only the brokerages is offered as income.
CIT vs. Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)- During the assessment year, the assessee returned an Income of Rs.2,25,04,588 from service charges. The assessee had a loss of Rs.02,23,32,127 in share trading. The assessee had a dividend income of Rs.4,79,325/. The assessee claimed that in computing the gross total income for the purpose of the explanation to Section 73, the income from service charges had to be adjusted against the loss in share trading.
Atlas Copco AB of Sweden v. CIT (Bombay High Court) – It was held that Amount received by the taxpayer was on account of right to use the know-how for a specified period and there was no outright transfer of know-how. Therefore, amount received was royalty and taxable in India.
Echjay Forgings Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 328 ITR 286 (Bombay High Court)- Can expenditure incurred by a company on higher studies of the director’s son abroad be claimed as business expenditure under section 37 on the contention that he was appointed as a trainee in the company under “apprentice training scheme”, where there was no proof of existence of such scheme?
CIT Vs. Parle Plastics Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 63 (Bom.) Under section 2(22), dividend does not include, inter alia, any advance or loan made to a shareholder by a company in the ordinary course of its business, where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company. The expression used in the exclusion provision of section 2(22) is ‘substantial part of the business’.
Though the Income Tax Department made a provision for electronic filing of returns, it appears that the ITR-V Form containing the due verification of the return of the assessee was required to be remitted only by ordinary post. The instructions which were furnished to assessees, a copy of which has been placed on record, specifically stipulate that the ITR-V form should not be sent either by registered post or by speed post or courier.
