Carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset is generated in the course of business but it is generated due to environmental concerns. Credit for reducing carbon emission or greenhouse effect can be transferred to another party in need of reduction of carbon emission. It does not increase profit in any manner and does not need any expenses. It is a nature of entitlement to reduce carbon emission, however, there is no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get this entitlement. Carbon credit is not in the nature of profit or in the nature of income.
The transaction of purchase and sale of shares would be held as speculative business only if the company was hit by the Explanation to section 73. The implication of the Explanation is that if a company incurs a speculation loss in a manner deemed in the explanation such loss shall not be set off except against profit and gains, if any, of another speculation business.
As submitted by the DR if it is an expenditure incurred in respect of its business, it should have been claimed during the relevant assessment year and if it is a debt it should have been advanced in respect of trade or business of the assessee and it should have gone to computation of income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year or represents money lent in ordinary course of business.
The voluntary contribution received by a trust created only for charitable or religious purposes is to be deemed as income u/s. 11 of the Act. In case some of the objects of the trust are charitable and some of the objects can be termed as non charitable then such a trust will not be covered u/s. 12 because then it is not a trust created wholly for charitable purposes.
Provisions of Section 10A are beneficial provisions; the explanation given by the CBDT in Circular No.697 dated 23.11.1999 entitling the assessee to the benefits of S.10A; and also the legal position that the Act has not restricted the assessee from outsourcing of certain services necessary for producing an article or a thing, say, web maintenance in this case, assessee should be held as eligible for relief under S.10A of the Act.
It is seen from the material on record that there is no contract of employment between the assessee-company and non-whole time directors. They were also not paid any fixed remuneration. The Board’s resolution dated May 15, 2002, which has been extracted in the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) provides for payment of remuneration/ commission not exceeding one per cent.
The Assessing Officer has been entrusted the role of an investigator, prosecutor as well as adjudicator under the scheme of the Income-tax Act. If he commits an error while discharging the aforesaid roles and consequently passes an erroneous order causing prejudice either to the assessee or to the State Exchequer or to both, the order so passed by him is liable to be corrected.
There was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT in his order u/s. 263 of the Act. The lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer could be very much reason for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.
The assessee must prove beyond the shadow of the doubt there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the conditions contained in section 269SS of the Act. Circumstances under which the cash was accepted must be explained. Unfortunately no cogent material was produced in that direction.
It is a fact on record that the assessee has adopted the CUP method for computing the Arms’ Length Price for the international transaction entered into by it with its AE for the medical transcription service rendered by it to the AE. In this regard, the assessee has considered two external comparables and three internal comparables.
