Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount to be reduced under clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB in respect of the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed with reference to the net profits in the profit and loss account and not according to the profits of the business computed under the head of profits and gains of business or profession
If the `flower bouquet’ is an arrangement of cut flowers, such arrangement of cut flowers by itself would not convert the said flowers into a different commercial commodity nor will it amount to and activity which would have an impact on the nature of the goods and will therefore not fall within the definition of the word “manufacture”
We hold that Section 80IA(9) does not affect the computability of deduction under various provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VIA, but it affects the allowability of deductions computed under various provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VIA, so that the aggregate deduction under Section 80IA and other provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VIA do not exceed 100% of the profits of the business of the assessee. Our above view is also supported by the C.B.D.T. Circular No.772 dated 23121998, wherein it is stated that Section 80IA(9) has been introduced with a view to prevent the taxpayers from claiming repeated deductions in respect of the same amount of eligible income and that too in excess of the eligible profits.
There is no reason or justification for the Court on the basis of the plain language used in sub-section (4) of section 234B to exclude the cases, where no interest has been levied on the assessee in the original order of assessment, from the liability to pay interest.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was erred in holding that while computing direct cost attributable to export the freight and insurance amounting to Rs.1,71,87,614/should be excluded for arriving at export profits while computing the deductions u/s. 80HHC.
The Petitioner seeks an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between itself and four transferor companies Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (CEIPL), Cairn Energy India West B.V., (CE India West), Cairn Energy Cambay B.V. (CE Cambay) and Cairn Energy Gujarat B.V. (CE Gujarat).
The petitioner filed his return of income for assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 together with audit reports under Section 44AB, on 19 November 1993, 23 July 1993 and 30 December 1993. The position as it emerges from the record of this proceeding is that the petitioner had obtained the tax audit reports under Section 44AB before the specified date.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend received by the assessee on the shares held by him as stock-in-trade of his share business was earned income ?
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that impugned Govt. Circular dt.11-11-1996 (which gave powers to the Registrar to appoint statutory auditors for urban credit/employees co-op. credit societies) is not applicable to the non-aided cooperative societies of any category. As a result of this Judgment, henceforth the non-aided employees staff credit/ urban credit societies can appoint auditors of their choice in their AGM/SGM etc.
Had there been no minimum penalty prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 38, it would have been open for the adjudicating authority to consider the conduct of the defaulter and the extent of delay taking into account the extenuating circumstances while imposing penalty. But once the statute prescribes the minimum penalty without giving any discretion in favour of the adjudicating authority, then one has to go by the provisions of the Act
