The assessee had two units, namely, a steering unit and an axle unit, both of which were eligible u/s 80-I. While one unit was making profits, the other was incurring losses. The AO and CIT (A) took the view that deduction u/s 80-I on the profits of one unit could be allowed only after setting off the losses of the other unit.
S. 2 (24) (x) provides that amounts received by an assessee from employees towards PF contributions etc shall be “income”. S. 36 (1) (va) provides that if such sums are contributed to the employees account in the relevant fund on or before the due date specified in the PF etc legislation, the assessee shall be entitled to a deduction
In absence of Supreme Court’s order staying operations of High Court’s judgment relating to levy of service on renting of immovable property, Revenue Department could not instruct its officers to pursue the matter with tax payers calling upon them to pay service tax on same or to resort to other means under the law to protect the Revenue.
Delhi High Court in the case of Messe Dusseldorf India Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL- 74-HC-DEL-IT] dismissing a writ petition, held that in cases where a taxpayer has not been provided an opportunity of being heard by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the taxpayer is entitled to raise all objections and furnish necessary evidence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)
The Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL42-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of CIT v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (Taxpayer) which held that the difference between forward rate and exchange rate prevailing on the date of entering into forward contracts is fully allowable as deduction even if the
Delhi High Court (HC) in the case of CIT v NIIT Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-533-HC-DEL-IT], on the issue of whether the amount paid by the Taxpayer to the franchisees, pursuant to a franchises agreement (Agreement), can be considered in the nature of rent, for the purpose of tax deduction at source (TDS) under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
This ruling provides guidance that withdrawal from a revaluation reserve is permitted to be reduced from the book profit, computed under the MAT provisions, only in a case where the book profit was increased by the amount of revaluation reserve in the year of creation.
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue are that the defendant no.1 company was a tenant in property no. 3 Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi. This property was leased by defendant no.5 M/s H.G.Gupta & Sons (HUF) to defendant No. 1 Company for residence of its officers. The company by a resolution in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 27.2.1974 allotted this property to late Lala Hansraj Gupta in his capacity as CEO/Chairman of the company. Late Lala Hansraj Gupta was father of plaintiff no. 2 and defendants no. 2-4 and grandfather of plaintiff no. 1.
It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that unless a particular asset is used for the purpose of business or provision, depreciation is not allowed. No doubt, as per Section 32(1) of the Act, in order to be entitled to claim depreciation, the asset is to be owned by the assessee and it is also to be used for the purpose of business or profession. However, the expression “used for the purpose of business” when applied to block asset would mean use of block asset and not any specific building machinery, plant or furniture in the said block asset as individual assets have lost their identity after becoming inseparable part of the block asset. That is the only manner in which various provisions can be harmonized.
The assessee purchased machinery which was not put to use during the year though it formed a part of the “block of assets”. On the question whether depreciation on the said machinery was allowable, the Tribunal held that once a particular asset falls within the block, it is added to the WDV and depreciation is to be allowed on the block.
