There can be no dispute with the proposition that the word ‘attributable’ is much wider in scope than ‘derived’. The Legislature has used the words ‘attributable to’ in conjunction with the phrase ‘anyone or more of such activities’. The investment of the funds by the banks including the non-reserves was part of the banking activities since no bank would like its reserve funds to remain idle and not earn any interest.
No doubt, payment of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory but it is for the Assessing Authority while passing the original assessment order or while passing the reassessment or rectification order to direct payment of interest.
The facts, as disclosed from the record, in a nut-shell are that the original applicant was initially recruited as Supporting Staff Grade-I on 25.7.1979 by the 1st respondent and subsequently promoted as Supporting Staff Grade-II on 4.10.1996. In the meanwhile, he acquired matriculation qualification in the year 1995 while in service.
Whether a manufacturer is required to reverse/pay the amount equivalent to the CENVET credit taken by him in respect of inputs which are proved to have been used in the manufacture of goods which have been cleared under exemption from excise duty, in view of the specific provisions of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (now 2004) read with Explanation II to Rule 6 (3) of the said rules which provide that no credit can be taken in respect of inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods?
In this legal analysis, understand if interest paid by H.P. Housing Board is considered damages or interest under the Income-tax Act.
These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since all these appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law
CIT Vs H.P. Marketing Board (Himachal High Court)- Marketing board is not a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) prior to the amendment made in section 10(20) when the word `local authority’ was not defined in the Income tax Act and the definition of `local authority’ as defined in section 3(31) of the General Clause Act was applicable.
CIT v Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. – ITAT, on the basis of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that the building of the poultry shed has been specifically designed with a view to protect the birds from disease. It has been designed to ensure proper lighting and circulation of air; proper and scientific feeding arrangement; proper water system; proper arrangement for collection of manure and droppings; proper arrangement for medication and vaccination; and a right environment conducive for laying of eggs by the birds. The building had been designed in a manner so as to protect the birds and increase their productivity. The argument made on behalf of the revenue that the building can be used with certain modification for certain other purposes cannot be accepted. It is how the building is designed which is the main factor which is to be taken into consideration. The law is clear that if it is found that the building has been designed specifically to further the cause of manufacture or production then the same is a plant. Applying the aforesaid test, we hold that the poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of section 243, as it then stood.
CIT v Steinle Machine Fabric India – The Circular is specific that in group cases also, each single case must be taken up individually to decide the monetary limits. It appears that these instructions were issued to avoid unnecessary litigation and also litigation where the tax effect was much less and it waste time and money recovering small amounts but we hasten to add that dismissal of such appeals on the ground that the tax effect is low does not mean that we have given any decision on merits nor have we decided such questions of law. These questions can be decided in appropriate proceedings where the tax effect is more than the limit prescribed in the circular.
M/s Durga Dass Devki Nandan vs. ITO (HP High Court) – The CBDT circular can only be held to be valid if it is in terms of the main section. As held above, the Section 40(b)(v) only lays down that either the working partner should be paid an amount specified in the partnership deed or it should not exceed the amount laid down in the Section. In the present case the partners have been paid their remuneration/salary strictly in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed and this amount paid to the partners does not exceed the maximum permissible amount and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
