Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of A.Y.S. Paisutha Nadar v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 1041 (Mad.) had held that section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922 [section 30(a)(ii) of 1961 Act.] relating to expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee’s business, clearly indicated that the expenditure should relate to a business which is already in existence and not one that is to come into existence in the future. Hence the expenditure incurred on modifications and renovations of the building cannot be treated to have been incurred during the course of business wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act.
The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of Oracle India (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009-TIOL-540-ITAT-DEL) (the taxpayer) held that section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) overrides the provisions relating to computation of business income only and thus in relation to international transactions, the specific provisions embodied in Chapter X (section 92 – 92F) shall override the general provisions embodied in section 40A of the Act. Hence, once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepts the arm’s length character of any international transaction, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not make an adjustment in relation to that transaction under section 40A(2) of the Act.
Coming to the general proposition regarding condonation of delay, the learned counsel relied on a number of cases, which have already been summarized. In the case of Shakuntala Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that liberal construction should be placed on the words “sufficient cause” provided that no negligence,
For claiming any debt as a bad debt, one has to satisfy following two conditions: (1) Debt is written off as bad debt in the Profit and Loss Account by making corresponding entry in the party account. (2) Debt is taken in to account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which debt is written off or in earlier previous year.
The financial affairs of both the donors do not evoke confidence that they could have made the gift of large amounts compared to their incomes in a circumstance when their monies were locked up elsewhere. They themselves did not own any immovable property. These facts impinge directly on the genuineness of the gifts also.
In this case, we noted that the Assessing Officer has not brought out any specific charge for which the penalty has been imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He has not brought out whether the assessee has concealed the income or whether the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income.
The provisions of Explanation to section 73 do not distinguish between the transaction of trading in shares on actual delivery or without delivery basis. Admittedly the assessee does not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the Explanation and hence, the purchase and sale of shares traded during the year under consideration is in nature of speculation business within the meaning of proviso to section 73 of IT Act, 1961.
This article summarizes ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of DCIT v Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-754- 1TAT-DEL]. The ITAT held that the conversion of business income earned in foreign currency into INR, in accordance with Rule 115 (Rule) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), is to be made by adopting the conversion rate prevailing at the end of the tax year. It also held that the Taxpayer, a company incorporated in Singapore and engaged in the business of hiring out drill-ship in India, is entitled to claim depreciation on the value of the drill-ship.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of M/s ONGC Videsh Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-758-ITAT-DEL] on the issue of allowability of depreciation on participatory right to carry out the hydrocarbon operations, acquired by the Taxpayer, pursuant to a Production Sharing Arrangement (PSA). The ITAT held that the participatory right acquired by the Taxpayer was in the nature of asset, in the form of ‘license’ i.e. license to have an access and to carry out exploration, development and production of hydrocarbon operations. Considering this, it was held that the participatory right is eligible for depreciation under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
In a recent ruling Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Growth Avenue Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) v DCIT [ITA No. 3912/Del/2005] on the issue of inclusion of capital gains in book profits while computing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), where such capital gains are not chargeable to tax under the normal provisions of the ITL. The ITAT held that any adjustments outside the scope of the MAT computation mechanism, under the ITL, is not permissible and since the exclusion of capital gains is not specifically provided therein, a taxpayer is not entitled to such an adjustment while computing book profits for the purpose of MAT.
