The netting principle was adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra). That was a case concerning Section 80HHC which provides for a deduction from export profits. Explanation (baa) provided for exclusion of certain income which had nothing to do with the export profit and one such item of income was interest.
Expenses were incurred on the maintenance and puja of the colony temple at Dalmiapuram, Salem and the Hospet works. It appears from para 6.1 of the order of the CIT (Appeals) that he visited the factory at Dalmiapuram to verify the fact that the temple was located inside the factory of the assessee company. He found that it was a small village where the factory was located and predominantly the local people were employed,
The intent and purport of the CBDT circular No.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007 is to demonstrate that a tax payer could have two portfolios, namely, an investment portfolio and a trading portfolio. In other words, the assessee could own shares for the purposes of investment and/or for the purposes of trading.
It is difficult to sustain the notice issued u/s. 148. The audit objection is only an inference that the royalty payment resulted in a capital benefit; such an opinion expressed by the audit cannot constitute tangible material on the basis of which the assessment can be reopened.
We may however clarify that public interest litigation affecting the administration of justice, at the instance of the Advocates practicing in the court/fora and representing litigants before that court/fora can be entertained in as much as those lawyers would have locus to the extent of being directly affected by the functioning of the said courts/foras.
Undisputedly, the assessee company earned income of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- only by way of Engineering fees. Another amount of Rs 4,65,00,000/- had been received as tooling advance. This latter amount was to be paid to the vendors of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. This payment was a reimbursement.
The tribunal took the view that the addition made was only on the basis of the discrepancy in the TDS Certificate and not on the basis of any finding that some extra charges were received by the assessee, but had not been accounted for.
An appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act can be filed only on a question of law; a mis-interpretation or mis-reading of document is question of law. There is no dispute that in this case a question of law has arisen as the submission of the appellant is that the correspondences exchanged between the parties were not appreciated by the CLB in its correct perspective.
The facts of the case are that the assessee which is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of medical consumable devices and diagnostic equipment for use by the health care professionals, medical research institutions, industry and general public etc. had claimed provision for warranty service. It had contended that this provision was based on adoption of scientific analysis. T
In the present case the reasons disclose that the Assessing Officer reached the belief that there was escapement of income on going through the return of income filed by the assessee after he accepted the return under Section 143(1) without scrutiny, and nothing more.
