Coming to the revenue’s objection that the assessee borrowed the funds from Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., in our view, this cannot constitute a factor as in none of the case laws or CBDT circular it has been held that borrowings will not be allowed in investment transactions. In our view the investment in capital assets also can be carried out by way of borrowed funds. There being no bar notified by the law, judicial pronouncement or CBDT Circular, we are unable to accept this view.
There is no force in the Revenue’s claim that the assessee was not required to make any payment to its AE for resolving warranty claims. The assessee has the right to enter into an arrangement according to which its business interests are protected. It is the prerogative of the assessee to decide the business expediency.
Other items of income or capital may not be taxed in the State of source or situs; as a rule they are taxable only in the State of residence of the taxpayer. This applies, for example, to royalties (Article 12), gains from the alienation of shares or securities (paragraph 5 of Article B), private sector pensions (Article 18), payments received by a student for the purposes of his education or training (Article 20), and capital represented by shares or securities (paragraph 4 of Article 22). Profits from the operation of ships or aircraft
It has been contended by the ld. counsel of the assessee that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in treating Rs. 35,49,091/- as revenue receipt being the amount received from the flat owners and / or tenants for replacement of capital assets and shown as sinking fund in accounts which was considered and treated as capital receipt by the assessee since its inception and the same was duly accepted by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessments.
Mere erroneous claim in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, is no ground for levying penalty, especially when there is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide or any material particulars were concealed or furnished inaccurate .
The judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Neo Poly Pack Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case because in that case it was held that , for the sake of consistency, the same view should continue to prevail for subsequent year also unless there is material change in the facts.
If the dichotomy between eligibility of profit and deductibility of profit is not kept in mind then section 115JB will cease to be a self-contained code. In Section 115JB, as in section 115JA, it has been clearly stated that relief will be computed u/s 80HHC (3)/(3A), subject to the conditions under sub-sections (4) and (4A) of that Section.
As far as difference in foreign exchange is concerned, it is to be computed based on straight formula. Similarly, depreciation could also be verified from details available on the record. Considering all these aspects, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court modified the order of the ITAT and, instead of order under Section 263 having been quashed by the ITAT, set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT for passing the fresh order under Section 263. However, the fact remains that at present the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT dated 31.12.2009 does not survive because it has been set aside by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT for passing a fresh order.
Directions issued by the Customs Department, the payment of customs duty has been made though the same has been shown as advance or a note has been appended in the accounts for contingent liability. Therefore, in our view the Assessee has made the payment of customs duty only when the liability has accrued on it. Since the customs duty has been paid to acquire the plant and machinery and therefore, it has to be capitalised,
